The Danger of Ignoring the Past and the Wisdom of Economists

"Attempts to carry out economic reforms from the monetary side can never amount to anything but an artificial stimulation of economic activity by an expansion of the circulation, and this, as must constantly be emphasized, must necessarily lead to crisis and depression. Recurring economic crises are nothing but the consequence of attempts, despite all the teachings of experience and all the warnings of the economists, to stimulate economic activity by means of additional credit." 

(Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, 1953, p. 21)

Photo Credit

As Ludwig von Mises concluded his 1934 Preface to the English edition of his book, he emphasized once again the danger of increasing credit expansion, which will eventually end into economic crisis. I wonder why after more than eight decades and with the accessibility of information in our time, the wisdom of the Austrian school of economics is still largely ignored by academic institutions and policy makers. I cannot avoid but to think that perhaps the political control of money is really addictive on the part of government officials and those who benefit from the system. Perhaps, it is really such a great temptation that is too difficult to resist. And so regardless of setting up parameters to avoid the abuse of this power, history teaches us that government's control over the monetary system has always been abused to the detriment of the people's welfare.

Credit Expansion, Economic Crisis, and War

"The dislocation of the monetary and credit system that is nowadays going on everywhere is not due . . . to any inadequacy of the gold standard. The thing for which the monetary system of our time is chiefly blamed, the fall in prices during the last five years, is not the fault of the gold standard, but the inevitable and ineluctable consequence of the expansion of credit, which was bound to lead eventually to a collapse. And the thing which is chiefly advocated as a remedy is nothing but another expansion of credit, such as certainly might lead to a transitory boom, but would be bound to end in a correspondingly severer crisis." 

"The difficulties of the monetary and credit system are only a part of the great economic difficulties under which the world is at present suffering. It is not only the monetary and credit system that is out of gear, but the whole economic system. For years past, the economic policy of all countries has been in conflict with the principles on which the nineteenth century built up the welfare of the nations. International division of labour is now regarded as an evil, and there is a demand for a return to the autarchy of remote antiquity. Every importation of foreign goods is heralded as a misfortune, to be averted at all costs. With prodigious ardour, mighty political parties proclaim the gospel that peace on earth is undesirable and that war alone means progress." 

(Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, 1953, pp.20-21) 

Photo Credit

The role of the depreciation of local currency exerts big influence in an attempt of any nation to boost its export industry and to reduce importation of foreign products. Ludwig von Mises is clear at this point that this is one of the short-term effects of currency devaluation. However, such a stance is inimical to the interest of countries that rely more on their exports to strengthen their economy. If Mises' description therefore of the situation of global economy during his time is also appearing in our time particularly in relation to the way nations see the international division of labor and the importation of foregin goods, it is no wonder that we also have been hearing in our time the message that progress can only be obtained by means of war. In fact, not a few analysts are making a parallel between what's going on right now in global economy with the period prior to WW1 and WW2. 

The two paragraphs above tell us about the interlocking connection among the condition of money, credit, and the economy. In particular, Ludwig von Mises talks about the dislocation of money and credit due to credit expansion. He even told us that "It is not only the monetary and credit system that is out of gear, but the whole economic system" due to the abandonment by the policy makers of his time of the principles that made capital formation and growth possible during the 19th century. Reading this, I see Mises as prescient as if he is also describing our time. 

And then Mises proceeds to defend the gold standard that those who blame it for falling prices were actually mistaken. It was not the fault of the gold standard that prices fall. Instead, he identified credit expansion as the primary culprit. 

What is tragic is that further credit expansion is perceived as the solution while ignoring the fact that it was the source of economic malaise in the first place. For majority of policy makers today, this faulty idea still remains. Yes, as we've seen in the formation of two recent bubbles (tech bubble and housing bubble in periods prior to 2000 and 2008 respectively), this credit expansion have resulted into "transitory boom," which will unavoidably lead to an economic collapse far worse than the two previous ones. 

The Superiority of the Gold Standard

"Gold is not an ideal basis for a monetary system. Like all human creations, the gold standard is not free from shortcomings; but in the existing circumstances there is no other way of emancipating the monetary system from the changing influences of party politics and government interference, either in the present or, so far as can be foreseen, in the future. And no monetary system that is not free from these influences will be able to form the basis of credit transactions. Those who blame the gold standard should not forget that it was the gold standard that enabled the civilization of the nineteenth century to spread beyond the old capitalistic countries of Western Europe, and made the wealth of these countries available for the development of the rest of the world." - (Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, 1953, p.19) 

Photo Credit

What does Ludwig von Mises want to communicate through the above passage? How would you interpret it? And how is it relevant to the existing monetary system? 

The passage talks about the superiority of the gold standard over any form of political intervention in monetary affairs. Yes, Ludwig von Mises acknowledged that the gold standard is not perfect. However, he saw it as the only way to emancipate the monetary system from political control. It is implied in his words that the political control of monetary system is a threat to credit transaction for its very basis is unreliable. And then he concludes that those who dislike the gold standard have actually lost any historical sense. He cited the 19th century wealth formation and expansion as the outcome of following the gold standard.

How about our existing monetary system? Is it not under political control? Many people are not aware that the existing fiat currency is not actually an outcome of free-market monetary system; it is a product of the policy of interventionist government. Our money therefore is not a market money, but a political one. This explains the existing chaos both in the economic and monetary affairs of nations for these two are inseparable; money is the lifeblood of the economy. Once you tamper with it, you are overturning the foundation of society. John Maynard Keynes put it this way: 

“There is no subtler nor surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Race to the Bottom

"Today we see considerations of the value of money driving all other considerations into the background in both domestic and international economic policy. We are not very far now from a state of affairs in which 'economic policy' is primarily understood to mean the question of influencing the purchasing power of money. Are we to maintain the present gold-content of the currency unit, or are we to go over to a lower gold-content? That is the question that forms the principal issue nowadays in the economic policies of all European and American countries. Perhaps we are already in the midst of a race to reduce the gold-content of the currency unit with the object of obtaining transitory advantages (which, moreover, are based on self-deception) in the commercial war which the nations of the civilized world have been waging for decades with increasing acrimony, and with disastrous effects upon the welfare of their subjects." - (Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, 1953, p.18) 

Photo Credit

In today's text, Ludwig von Mises mentioned a kind of "race" and "war" related to monetary system. I think such race and war did not stop in his time, but have been continuing to the 21st century. They might have changed in external forms, but the susbtance remains the same. I see the relevance of the text in relation to a popular idea in our time, the reality of the so-called "race to the bottom". 

Today, the concept of race to the bottom is understood in different ways. In Financial Times, it is defined as:

"The situation in which companies and countries try to compete with each other by cutting wages and living standards for workers, and the production of goods is moved to the place where the wages are lowest and the workers have the fewest rights."

This is not the kind of race I see in reading Mises' text. The race that Financial Times describes pertains to a situation related to competition, the reduction of "wages and living standards of workers", and the transfer of goods and services to areas "where the wages are lowest and the workers have the fewer rights." To me, such definition paints a negative impression of those who are perceived to have authority in reducing the salary and the living standards of workers. The definition fails to account the source of the reduction of wage and living standard, which the Mises' text can provide. 

Another definition of "race to the bottom" is given by Wikipedia:

"The race to the bottom is a socio-economic phenomenon in which governments deregulate the business environment or taxes in order to attract or retain economic activity in their jurisdictions, resulting in lower wages, worse working conditions and fewer environmental protections. An outcome of globalization and free trade, the phenomenon may occur when competition increases between geographic areas over a particular sector of trade and production." 

In this definition, Wikipedia is more specific than the Financial Times in identifying the kind of situation where this race is taking place. Wikipedia is clear in describing this race as a "a socio-economic phenomenon" and adds four more ideas to competition, lower wages and "worse working conditions". These are "deregulation", "fewer environmental protections", "globalization", and "free trade". Again, this definition fails to explain the root cause of lower wages and worse working conditions. 

The above definitions are consistent with the dominant intellectual framework in our time, which is anti-free market at its core. In the case of our text, the kind of race Mises was describing was related to the reduction of "the gold-content of the currency unit." We do not have this kind of race in our time for currency these days are no longer connected to gold. What nations are doing now is they are competing with each other in devaluing their own currencies. And since nothing backs up these currencies except the governments themselves, our race at present is far worse than Mises' time. 

Mises saw that during his time the act of nations to race with each other in reducing the gold-content of currency was economically disastrous. Today, since all currencies are no longer connected to gold, would it not be logical to say that the continuation of the existing monetary system is more economically disastrous? 

Nations pursued the above race to attain transitory advantages. They include boosting the export industry, restricting import of foreign goods, easing the financial burden of local companies with big debts, preventing the fall of wages, and maintaining the prices of goods and services. For Ludwig von Mises, this pursuit is based on self-deception for in reality by doing this, nations are engaged in "commercial war," which is economically disastrous to their citizens.

Fiat Currency and Politics

"At the very moment when the manipulation of purchasing power is declared to be a legitimate concern of currency policy, the question of the level at which this purchasing power is to be fixed will attain the highest political significance. Under the gold standard, the determination of the value of money is dependent upon the profitability of gold production. To some, this may appear a disadvantage; and it is certain that it introduces an incalculable factor into economic activity. Nevertheless, it does not lay the prices of commodities open to violent and sudden changes from the monetary side. The biggest variations in the value of money that we have experienced during the last century have not originated in the circumstances of gold production, but in the policies of governments and banks of issue. Dependence of the value of money on the production of gold does at least mean its independence of the politics of the hour. The dissociation of the currencies from a definitive and unchangeable gold parity has made the value of money a plaything of politics." - (Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, 1953, pp. 17-18) 

Photo Credit

Not many people today are aware that the existing monetary system called the "managed fiat currency standard" is actually not a result of the decision of the market, but of the political class. That's why it's difficult to understand intellectuals who blame the market for the present economic chaos. This only shows that mainstream education has been successful in its goal of mind control. 

As we've seen already in previous post, government's use of inconvertible notes leads to currency devaluation. In reality, this political act is a manipulation of the purchasing power of the consumers. It is not the fault of the market that prices of goods and services are increasing unnaturally. Politics play a big role in it.

Prior to 1971, though the value of US dollar in relation to gold had already declined dramatically, at least, some measure of limitation on politics was still maintained. After President Nixon disconnected the US dollar from gold, the political control of money has been completed. The present turmoil both in the larger economy, the stocks and the financial markets are just inevitable consequences after more than four decades of ignoring sound money. 

Ludwig von Mises was emphatic that what endangers the value of nations' currencies are "the policies of government and banks of issue." In order to discontinue this subtle erosion of the value of money, the way is to return to the gold standard. This will stop the "value of money a plaything of politics". Only under the gold standard that the manipulation of the purchasing power of consumers by politicians can be terminated. Understanding therefore this "old monetary system" is the way to arrest the monetary devaluation that is continually destroying the people's purchasing power. This will liberate money from political control. 

Short-term Benefits of Currency Depreciation

"In Central Europe, the first country to follow Great Britain's example was the Republic of Czecho-Slovakia. In the years immediately after the War, Czecho-Slovakia, for reasons of prestige, had heedlessly followed a policy which aimed at raising the value of the krone, and she did not come to a halt until she was forced to recognize that increasing the value of her currency meant hindering the exportation of her products, facilitating the importation of foreign products, and seriously imperilling the solvency of all those enterprises that had procured a more or less considerable portion of their working capital by way of bank credit. During the first few weeks of the present year, however, the gold-parity of the krone was reduced in order to lighten the burden of the debtor enterprises, and in order to prevent a fall of wages and prices and so to encourage exportation and restrict importation. Today, in every country in the world, no question is so eagerly debated as that of whether the purchasing power of the monetary unit shall be maintained or reduced." - Source: The Theory of Money and Credit, pp. 16-17

The passage is about the short-term benefits of currency depreciation. All in all, Ludwig von Mises identified five immediate benefits so far: 

1. Assisting export industry

2. Restricting import of foreign goods

3. Easing the financial burden of local companies with big debts

4. Preventing the fall of wages, and 

5. Maintaining the prices of goods and services. 

Photo Credit

During his time, Mises mentioned Czecho-Slovakia as the country which adopted this policy of currency depreciation after the example of Great Britain. Previously, Czecho-Slovakia practiced the stronger currency policy. But after witnessing the impact of a strong krone on both export and import, the government decided to change its direction.

Moreover, strong krone that time would also mean putting the domestic companies, which depend on bank credit for their working capital on a serious financial risk. And so krone was depreciated in order to reduce the financial burden of these local companies.

Reading this section, I realized that during Mises' time, currency depreciation was a hot issue in every country. Today, yes, it's becoming hotter in countries that are aware about what's going on in global economy. How about in the Philippines? Is this the kind of issue that is now being publicly debated? Why not? Are we not part of the global economy? Or do our policy makers think that our economy is too strong and protected from currency depreciation? In fact, not many Filipinos are aware that we are following the same path as the United States in terms of monetary depreciation. 

Currency depreciation is a serious monetary and economic issue that affects our standard of living. Politicians cannot see the long-term detrimental results of such monetary policy for they only focus on immediate results. I wish and pray that the deafening silence about this very important subject will soon be stopped. And that the Lord will raise political leaders that truly understand this topic and will bring it into public attention. 

Monetary Depreciation

How about the text below? How do you understand this passage? And why is its message relevant for our time? 

"But the motive for recent experiments in depreciation has been by no means fiscal. The gold content of the monetary unit has been reduced in order to maintain the domestic wage-level and price level, and in order to secure advantages for home industry against its competitors in international trade. . . . In this case, however, Great Britain began by abandoning the old gold content of the pound. Instead of preserving its gold-value by employing the customary and never-failing remedy of raising the bankrate, the government and parliament of the United Kingdom, with bank-rate at 4.5 per cent, preferred to stop the redemption of notes at the old legal parity and so to cause a considerable fall in the value of sterling. The object was to prevent a further fall of prices in England and above all, apparently, to avoid a situation in which reductions of wages would be necessary."

"The example of Great Britain was followed by other countries, notably by the United States. President Roosevelt reduced the gold content of the dollar because he wished to prevent a fall in wages and to restore the price-level of the prosperous period between 1926 and 1929."

(Source: The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 16) 

Photo Credit

In the above text, Ludwig von Mises continued his explanation about monetary depreciation as the unavoidable outcome of government's utility of inconvertible notes. Here, he indicates that the government's intention in depreciating the currency is not primarily fiscal, that is, not related to the increase of tax collection and to the increase of spending ability. The motive says Mises is threefold: to influence the level of workers' salary, to maintain the prices of goods and services, and to protect local industry from its foreign competitors. The last is the essence of protectionism and a favorite tool of an interventionist government. This shows that a country that practice this does not really have a free market economy. This reminds me of Hitler's style, the other face of socialism. 

Currency devaluation during Mises' time was done through the reduction of gold content in monetary unit. In our time, it's different since as far as I know, no existing currency is backed up by gold since 1971 when President Nixon disconnected the USD from this precious metal. However, the act of monetary depreciation remains. The external form of this depreciation is different, but the essence of the act stays the same. 

I think the text is relevant to our time for we are facing the same issue in today's monetary system. As England depreciated its sterling/pound in the past, the US has been depreciating the dollar for so long. I think we are touching the root of the existing crisis in global economy. Since money is the lifeblood of the economy, it is difficult to see the solution to the present problem economic as long as both governments and central banks of the world are committed to currency devaluation.

Government's Unlimited Source of Fund

"When governments do not feel strong enough to procure by taxation or borrowing the resources to meet what they regard as irreducible expenditure, or, alternatively, so to restrict their expenditure that they are able to make do with the revenue that they have, recourse on their part to the issue of inconvertible notes and a consequent fall in the value of money is something that has occurred more than once in European and American history" (The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 15).

I'm having difficulty "decoding" the meaning of this long sentence by Ludwig von Mises. What is he saying here?

The way I see it, Ludwig von Mises combined four ideas in one sentence: 

1. About government's hesitation between taxing the people and borrowing money or restricting its expenditures with the available funds provided by current taxes, 

2. That if a government is not satisfied between these two options, it will choose to fund its programs using "the issue of inconvertible notes," 

3. That resorting to such way of providing fund for its expenditures will result to currency devaluation, and 

4. That this kind of government action is not new, but has a root in European and American history.

Photo Credit

The most difficult part in the above sentence is to exactly find out the meaning of "inconvertible notes". I googled it, and what appears are links to the definition of "convertible notes". I googled it again and add Mises' name, and there we can see links to his book The Theory of Money and Credit, but still I cannot find the exact meaning of the term "inconvertible notes". And so I decided to just deduce its meaning from the definition of convertible notes. 

Reading the Financial Times, I see that "Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses. . ." These "notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made." These notes are described as "convertible" because they can be "automatically converted to equity" later on. 

Now, let us return to the meaning of "the issue of inconvertible notes" that will be used by the government to fund its expenditures. Who will issue this inconvertible banks? The central bank? Why these notes are described as "inconvertible"? I do not know the exact answer. All I can do is guess. Perhaps unlike the convetible notes, these inconvertible notes cannot be converted into equity. But I assumed that they can be converted into cash. For if not, then how can a government provide a fund for its expenditures? 

To me, I understand inconvertible notes as a form of loan that will be used by the government for its programs, which will be financed by the people through taxes in the future. The quote also talks about three ways the government fund its expenditures:

1. Through direct taxation,

2. Through direct borrowing, and

3. Through the issue of inconvertibles notes, which to me is a form of indirect taxation and indirect debt.

Directly taxing the people and borrowing money are better ways to source out fund in a sense that it is obvious and the taxpayers can see their impact on their personal and family expenses. And because of this, each individual and family can adjust financially. This I think what makes inconvertible notes dangerous. I wonder how many citizens understand its nature. But Mises is clear that once the government used this credit instrument, the outcome is monetary depreciation. So inconvertible notes are also taxes, but done in an indirect way that make them invisible. I suspect that the use of these notes has a lot to say about monetary corruption and the ongoing crisis in global economy. Utilizing this tool, politicians can expropriate the people without the latter knowing how it is being done. Government has found people's pockets as an unlimited source of fund. 

The Same Old Story?

The remarkable thing in the present situation is not the fact that we have just passed through a period of credit-expansion that has been followed by a period of depression, but the way in which governments have been and are reacting to these circumstances. The universal endeavour has been made, in the midst of the general fall of prices, to ward off the fall in money wages, and to employ public resources on the one hand to bolster up undertakings that would otherwise have succumbed to the crisis, and on the other hand to give an artificial stimulus to economic life by public works schemes. This has had the consequence of eliminating just those forces which in previous times of depression have eventually effected the adjustment of prices and wages to the existing circumstances and so paved the way for recovery. The unwelcome truth has been ignored that stabilization of wages must mean increasing unemployment and the perpetuation of the disproportion between prices and costs and between outputs and sales which is the symptom of a crisis.

This attitude was dictated by purely political considerations. Governments did not want to cause unrest among the masses of their wage-earning subjects. They did not dare to oppose the doctrine that regards high wages as the most important economic ideal and believes that trade-union policy and government intervention can maintain the level of wages during a period of falling prices. And governments have therefore done everything to lessen or remove entirely the pressure exerted by circumstances upon the level of wages. In order to prevent the underbidding of trade-union wages, they have given unemployment benefit to the growing masses of those out of work and they have prevented the central banks from raising the rate of interest and restricting credit and so giving free play to the purging process of the crisis. 

Source: Ludwig von Mises, "Theory of Money and Credit", 1953, p. 15

-----0-----0-----0-----

Does it sound contemporary? It's the same old problem. Is this not a proof of the saying that history repeats itself? Mises was describing the economic situation from 1926 to 1929. They got it wrong during those years. They blamed the market! They looked to governments to provide answers. The answers given were artificial stimulus and the use of public funds to stabilize wages and prices. They prevented economic recovery. They increased unemployment. 

How about the response to 2008 global economic crisis? Once again, the market was blamed. We heard of QEs. The goal was the same. The good thing is that we have an advantage today that they didn't have in the 1930s; it is the fast and free flow of information made possible by the Internet. More people now know the real cause and looking for answers. But the main story remains the same. How long will people buy the demagogues' rhetoric? How I wish something will change this time. The sooner the better. 

But so far, instead of looking for economic solution, those in power provided the only answer they know, political solution. They resort to political action to solve an economic problem. Will it work? 

They no longer want to repeat the mistake that happened in the 1930s. They thought the Fed then did not print enough paper money. That's why this time, they're committed to a prolonged pumping of "artificial stimulus" to boost the economy. This means more spending as a way out of economic slump. 

If a drug addict asked you for help, will you give him more drugs? That makes him feel better. At least for a time. But actually, you are killing him. That's exactly what they're doing with the economy. This "artificial stimulus", which we call today "quantitative easing" has the same effect on global economy. It appears that the "patient" is once again normal; the economy "has recovered". It even gives us an appearance of growth. As a short-term "cure", so far, we're just doing fine, but in the long run, I doubt . . . 

Sound Money?

FORTY years have passed since the first German-language edition of this volume was published. In the course of these four decades the world has gone through many disasters and catastrophes. The policies that brought about these unfortunate events have also affected the nations' currency systems. Sound money gave way to progressively depreciating fiat money. All countries are today vexed by inflation and threatened by the gloomy prospect of a complete breakdown of their currencies. 

There is need to realize the fact that the present state of the world and especially the present state of monetary affairs are the necessary consequences of the application of the doctrines that have got hold of the minds of our contemporaries. The great inflations of our age are not acts of God. They are man-made or, to say it bluntly, government-made. They are the off-shoots of doctrines that ascribe to governments the magic power of creating wealth out of nothing and of making people happy by raising the 'national income'. 

One of the main tasks of economics is to explode the basic inflationary fallacy that confused the thinking of authors and statesmen from the days of John Law down to those of Lord Keynes. There cannot be any question of monetary reconstruction and economic recovery as long as such fables as that of the blessings of 'expansionism' form an integral part of official doctrine and guide the economic policies of the nations. 

None of the arguments that economics advances against the inflationist and expansionist doctrine is likely to impress demagogues. For the demagogue does not bother about the remoter consequences of his policies. He chooses inflation and credit expansion although he knows that the boom they create is short-lived and must inevitably end in a slump. He may even boast of his neglect of the long-run effects. In the long run, he repeats, we are all dead; it is only the short run that counts. 

But the question is, how long will the short run last? It seems that statesmen and politicians have considerably over-rated the duration of the short run. The correct diagnosis of the present state of affairs is this: We have outlived the short run and have now to face the long-run consequences that political parties have refused to take into account. Events turned out precisely as sound economics, decried as orthodox by the neo-inflationist school, had prognosticated. 

In this situation an optimist may hope that the nations will be prepared to learn what they blithely disregarded only a short time ago. It is this optimistic expectation that prompted the publishers to re-publish this book and the author to add to it as an epilogue an essay on monetary reconstruction.

Source: Ludwig von Mises, "Theory of Money and Credit", 1953, pp. 9-10

This excerpt is a Preface to the new edition of the book "The Theory of Money and Credit". There are two other Prefaces. Ludwig von Mises wrote this on June 1952. In it, he was describing an event that was true in 1912. That's 102 years far away from our time. The immediate question that comes to mind is what's the connection of that 1912 event to our situation in 2014? That's not an easy question. To find the answer, reading this 500-page book is a must. 

Mises was describing that from 1912 to 1952, "many disasters and catasthrophes" had happened to humanity. These disasters and catasthrophes had originated from economic policies that impacted not only the German currency, but the currencies of all nations. Those of us who are not familiar with monetary system, and have been used to fiat currency since the day of our birth might think that Mises was just dreaming to aspire for the recovery of sound money. In fact, it is us who are dreaming, and we have been sleeping for so long thinking that nothing is wrong with our monetary system. Soon we will wake up. I just do not know when. The only thing I know is that our awakening will only happen when we can no longer endure the pain of sleeping, that is, when our existing monetary system will purchase products and services less and less though the nominal value of our salary is increasing.

Mises was referring to monetary inflation. The disaster brought by this monetary policy is "man-made", to be exact, it is "government-made". The government does it by printing money out of thin air. This is magic. 

This is why basic knowledge of economics is a necessity. If reputable book authors and statesmen could be confused, what would you expect from an average citizen? Remember that the path to monetary reconstruction and economic recovery will never take place unless the economic policies of nations are altered. And these policies will never change unless citizens are economically informed. Expect that demagogues will do their best to hinder the path to recovery. They enjoy watching you lying on your bed.