WHAT SEIGNORAGE IS.
by Sandro Pascucci
translation by Arturo Tobia
:: www.primit.it ::
:: www.signoraggio.com ::
Seignorage is a monetary and psychological fraud that overwhelms all of us. This fraud is hidden and gained power undercovered by a curtain of silence and death since the last 300 years while no one known about its existence.
It's used to say that:"The greatest deception by the Devil was to make mankind believe he does not exist." That's thanks to this diabolical technique that seignorage rules the humans all over the World but in a polite way.
You will never hear about seignorage on TV or into books; no singer will ever make a song or a comedian a spectacle about it. Politicians will never fight for seignorage, and you'll never see the police arresting someone for this outrage.
Seignorage is the greatest power on the planet and we are all its slaves.
Technically, seignorage is the profit generated by money creation.
The international legislature actually stipulates that only Central Banks can create money, both cash and scriptural.
An example will clarify the mechanism:
creating a coin (be it paper, metal or virtual as currency account) has costs due to raw material, labor, distribution, anti-counterfeiting techniques, etc.
The biggest cost is the material the currency is made of; the set of all these various costs is the INTRINSIC VALUE.
The coin, however, reports on the front a number that indicates another value: the NOMINAL VALUE (named also FACE V. or even LEGAL V.). The difference between these two values (intrinsic and nominal) determines the earning of the creator on that coin: that's named seignorage.
Obviously, those who create currency tend to mark a value as high as possible respect to the intrinsic value to avoid a loss (negative seignorage), such as for example in the minting of 1, 2, 5 or 10 cents coins, because for them 15 cents must be spent. In fact the minting of metal coins is reserved to the State and not to the ECB .
Now, let's see what's the difference between the creation of gold-money and paper-money. Ancient metal coins were made of gold and so they had a quite high intrinsic value. The lord that minted these coins impressed them with a higher value to earn more.
In fact, this powerful lord received gold (by rich traders or directly from mines) with the request to convert it into cash and he just put his effigy to ENSURE the goodness of the piece he created (coined). It was a sort of guarantee and therefore the lord had its earning.
At the end of all, a coin was declared as containing 10 grams of gold when in reality they were used in the minting process only 9 grams (with the addition of 1 gram of non-precious metal). The difference between the declared nominal value (10 grams) and the effective intrinsic value (9 grams) was the seignorage (one gram of gold earned per currency).
When the gold was replaced by paper, seignorage became worse (for us) and it became close to 100%.
In fact, to print one 5eu or 500eu note, it just takes 0,30eu expense (considering also that notes are no longer linked to gold value - they have no more gold coverage and are no longer convertible in gold). That means that modern lords are the ones who now create money (eg ECB in Europe or Federal Reserve in the USA) and they have enormous power. In fact, Central Banks are private companies and they can blackmail or influence entire Nations.
Suffice it to say that the World Bank (owned by Federal Reserve and Bank of England, both private and owners of the International Monetary Fund also) denies loans to those countries who refuse to privatize the drinkable water sector! And this is just one of thousands examples.
Who understood the mechanism of seignorage will now also understand that, due to electronic currency heavier usage, the elimination of notes brings to a further worse step because the creation expenses disappear and the seignorage increases to 100% on e-money. In addition, currency is subject to an interest (eg. 3%) that raises the debt of citizens of a sovereign State over the nominal currency value itself! Pratically, a 100eu currency (note) costs to the citizen 103eu and the bank only spends 30 cents. This is seignorage.
Everything could be solved in a very simple way: the State, finally sovereign, should issue currency with no debt as it happens with coins yet (of course those with a nominal value greater than the intrinsic value, such as 50 cents, 1eu and 2eu coins). The savvy will understand now the joke of Duisenberg against Tremonti: when this one asked to replace coins of 1 and 2 euros with notes of equal value, the former governor (who died in mysterious circumstances) answered: "Does Mr. Tremonti know that doing so his country would lose the right of seigniorage on the amount of replaced money?".
Since notes don't have an equivalent in gold (eg. since 1971 the U.S. Dollar is no longer convertible into gold) there is no reason that a private entity issues it, nor that this entity has a monopoly on such issue. In addition, the expenses to serve this loan (interest) would be history and the State, i.e. all of us, would have the real autonomy about the management of its country.
Those who fear that the State could begin to print money out of range and out of control are persons who do not trust the State.
We know that politicians are partner in every imaginable interest (banks, oil, weapons, drugs, prostitution etc.) but the question we must ask ourselves is very simple:
Why should a politician refuse the responsibility to create money for the people?
If he is honest, that shouldn't be a problem since he will operate under fair and democratic ETHICS and RULES.
If not, the solution is simple: he is just kicked out by people before he commits terrible damages.
Anyway, bankers have actually the privilege to don't give politicians the permissions to operate with money for the people. Rather they use the instruments to control money to force people to live in a situation of financial anemia.
It's obvious that politicians DON'T WANT AND CAN'T' print money in name of the people because the private international bankers would never allow it.
We elect people who are sponsored by bankers and therefore they will never have a popular viewpoint but they will operate for the benefit of their real employers.
That's true that only with politics things will be reversed, but it will happen only when a large part of conscious population - informed, aware and motivated - will make a RADICAL CHANGE IN POLITICAL SCENE.
For this purpose, this article should be disclosed among all the People, along with other writings, books, demonstrations and public discussions to explain what's the real evil of the World and the terrible and painful solutions that will soon be adopted to avoid to fail into the abyss.
In a future article we'll afford important aspects of the monetary system illness and we'll close with an article about the Fractional Reserve, another fraud responsible of inflation and of the power of commercial banks to create money from nothing through current accounts (that we actually are forced to have).
What Exactly is Money?
A separation of truth and myth about our monetary system
(By Jon Ronnquist)
December 13, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- The problem with money is essentially a question of faith. Money is a promise represented in paper, metal and digits and is as valuable as it is trustworthy. And because trust is a volatile and abstract thing at best, so is money a risky business. Its usefulness is of course undeniable. In a world as complex and multifaceted as this one, barter becomes increasingly limited as a practical means of exchange. And yet we should do well to remember that for all its practicality, money posses a very real danger, the obvious one being devaluation. But that is by no means the only or the most serious threat posed by money. As in all matters of faith, manipulation is the far greater evil.
The gold standard against which currency was once levelled is now the distant memory of a bygone age. Whatever value is represented by your Dollars, Pounds and Euros is now set solely against the trust of the user, which is to say what buyers and sellers believe it to be worth. And so it should be and must be. No man would take money for his livestock or labour if he did not believe it would be accepted in kind by the purveyors of his own needs. This is basic economics and I see no reason to bore anybody with such things. The point is that money, as a concept, is sound and necessary. But what happens when it falls into the hands of those who see money as something more than a simple mechanism of trade? Those who see in it also an opportunity to consolidate power. Then we are in trouble.
There are several axioms which govern the function of money. Adhered to, they guarantee fair and good use. Abused, they are the gateway to untold troubles. First, money is not a commodity, but a public service. In itself it has no real value or use beyond the facilitation of exchange. If this is hard to digest, try eating it, planting it or getting it to mow your lawn. And like all essential public services, it fares best in the hands of representative government.
Second, money must exist in a quantity that is relatively equal to the volume of exchange it expedites. Where the supply is insufficient it creates an artificial strangulation of trade, where necessary and vital transactions become arbitrarily halted for want of worthless paper. Where it is allowed to exist in excessive quantities, the value of real goods and services is artificially lowered to the detriment of all. A money supply which is not regulated professionally and competently will begin to outweigh it own benefits.
Third, some cap must exist on savings. Money removed from the supply and set to one side must be replaced to ensure it does not violate its own primary purpose by deflating. If it is reintroduced in excessive quantities it will also have the effect of causing inflation. This does not become a problem if deposits and withdrawals from saving are relatively balanced. It also illustrates that huge stockpiles of unreasonable wealth violate the laws upon which money operate and should not be allowed.
Fourth and last, money must be introduced into circulation as payment, not debt. To make money available on the condition that it must be taken back out of circulation in equal or greater measure is a violation of its purpose and leads to all manner of problems. Earth in the twenty-first century being the most obvious one.
As populations rise, production increases and trade expands, more money must be made available to facilitate it. The question of how this is done fairly is simple but requires first and foremost a sound government. Money must be introduced through payment for goods and services of universal benefit to the population. This means direct investment into public infrastructure, services and institutions. Healthcare, roads, bridges, libraries, parks, highways, schools, research and science, welfare institutions, water and power infrastructure, the maintenance of public parks and wildlife reserves and public transport to name a few. In this fashion the benefit is egalitarian and money will trickle into first the secondary economy (automobile production, private services, finance, electronics, etc.) and eventually into the luxury economy (holiday providers, premium branded good, unessential services, etc.). The extent to which the second and third tiers of the economy are successful is dependant on the state of essential services, as it should be. Otherwise we get luxury sports cars driving down deteriorating highways and criminal opulence in the face of inhumane poverty. And for those who are thinking this is some kind of socialist/communist rhetoric, I pray you wake up soon. This is reality. What we live today is a twist on that reality and one that we better star seeing for what it is. Contrary to popular belief, the great failed Marxist experiments of the age are not failures of those philosophies so much as proof that there is no room left in the order of things to even try them.
It is a dominant idea in modern politics that too much government is “bad for business”. But that is an argument made by business that has no place in the civilized world and it is true only from that very narrow and twisted point of view. And where the common man agrees, it is only on the understanding that modern government are not really governments at all, but representatives of private power. A government run by and for the people is an absolute must if society is to progress at all.
If a government is charged with the responsibility to uphold the rights of those it represents it must be empowered to do so. The right to political freedom, democracy and a fair chance at success are all very pretty sentiments, but what about the right to work, to food, water, shelter and education? Surely these things are as important. For government to ensure all the rights of citizenship, it must have either ownership of or at least firm regulatory power over all the institutions which provide them. But unless you can find a private enterprise willing to provide these services without profit as its primary concern, they are best left to government. Essential human needs, which are all derived from the very earth we inhabit, must not and can not become sources of private profit. This doesn't mean that those who bear the greatest burden of responsibility should not be compensated accordingly, it means the institutions themselves should not be allowed to develop selfish domineering ambitions and the stockpiles of wealth to pursue them. This is not socialism, but humanity.
Another thing that should not be allowed to happen to money is it's pining against the value of other currencies. When it is, it immediately becomes a commodity in its own right, traded like goods with the aim of increasing wealth. This is an essential violation of the axioms which govern money and a gateway to extensive abuse. Trade done over borders would need to be handled in a global market place with its own currency, against which only commodities are assigned value, not currencies. The value of sugar would be assigned in this currency on any given day based solely on existing demand and so on. Such a trade currency would have no paper form, but would only be a numeric value assigned to all traded commodities, its purpose being to form a barrier between different national currencies to avoid them becoming commodities.
The alternative would be one government, one people, one currency. But this is a utopian dream that would require a separate dissertation all together. My reference to a world government should not be confused with the one being pushed for today. The New World Order as it has come to be known, is entirely devoted to what would sit at its head, not who it would pretend to represent.
The above is a rough outline of what money is supposed to be and how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately reality is a stark contrast to this. The reason is quite simple. Every axiom outlined above has been heavily violated by those entrusted to care for our monetary systems. In doing so, money has come to serve a second and very sinister purpose, one that almost seems to justify its eradication from use all together and the introduction of a clean start.
Before the post office, the water works, the phone companies and the coal mines were auctioned out of the hands of the people and into those of for-profit private enterprise, another public service was sold to the private sector, the money works. In an age none are old enough to remember, and a frighteningly small percentage of us even know about, the production, supply and regulation of national currencies was surrender by government after government. If anyone wonders when things really started going wrong for planet earth, that was the day. Almost every daily hardship we suffer now has its roots at least partially set in this dark era. But more important than the fact is the reason. It would be nice to believe that it was simply the suggestion of a group of concerned citizens who thought they could do a better job and that governments obliged out of genuine concern for its populations. We do not even need to know what was said or exactly how this was done to know that is not true. The men responsible and their successive dynasties have had a long time to prove their intentions and the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of the notion that it was done with a view to turning the world into a feeble shadow of its former self. Why would men do this? For power? Control? Sure. What are they afraid of? You and me. But I fancy that they see us not as we are, but with red eyes, split hooves and forked tails. But whatever the reason, the facts remain the same.
The first and primary violation of these new private national banks was to create money only as debt. This of course ensured that a country's debts would grow in direct proportion to its economy. This is a fact so illogical that it leaves the mind boggled and helpless to make sense of it. But only so long as you assume the intent was benevolent. See it for the sheer evil that it is and you need be confused no more. Think of it this way. A trader does business between two markets several miles apart. To move his products back and forth between them he needs carts. But carts cannot be made or owned, they can only be borrowed. And for every cart that is borrowed two must be returned in due course. So he borrows ten carts on the understanding that he must return twenty by year's end. Only by year's end he not only has but ten carts, he needs another ten to keep up with his expanding business. His only choice is two borrow forty new carts. Twenty to return as payment for the first ten and twenty for use. And now he owes eighty carts by year's end. And the better things get, the deeper in debt he is. And the circle can never be broken. So why doesn't he just make his own carts? It would be easy enough. Only by the time he comes to this simple conclusion, the law, the courts and the police are all in the cart borrowing enforcement business.
And so it is with the money supply today. All the money, the land and the commodities on earth could not pay all the debt. And as interest is ever due and mounting, borrowing must grow to keep up. Where does the cycle end? By all appearances, it's ending now. And what has come to an end exactly? Production? Resources? Human intelligence? No. Borrowing has slowed down, thereby interrupting the unstoppable cycle and calling a halt to trade through an artificial scarcity of money. Is this real? No. Your willingness to work hasn't changed and nor has your desire for the things you would buy with your earnings. Everything is in place to allow life to go on, bar one thing. The worthless paper and coinage that serve as nothing but a tool of interaction. If everyone simply agreed, we could start printing our own money at home and use it to go on as we did. Provided it didn't get out of hand, (which it would on account of the prevalence of certain mindsets) life would just go on. Because money is just paper and an idea backed by trust, nothing more.
But when it is controlled out of personal interest by a greedy few, we can see how it is also a very effective control mechanism. First replace supply with loans, then when the country is irreversibly in debt control those loans. Withdraw credit for a while, strangle the economy until it screams for more debt and supply it. Or flood the economy with worthless money and then recall debts fast and wait for the inevitable chaos to ensue. Delegate your divine right of money creation for interest to commercial banks and watch the population strangle itself with unmanageable debt. Allow Wall Street to create value out of thin air by turning confidence into price tags which soon have no comparable relation to the things they are attached to, as banks increase lending to make them affordable to you and me. Wait for the population to buckle under under the strain of unmanageable debt, then lend more to their governments. Watch wars begin and lend to each side. Every time the cycle comes full circle, the concentration of power is a little less diluted and a lot more frightening.
Ever wonder why your representatives in government seem helpless to make real changes to bad situations? It's because the situations are only bad from where you're standing and he or she couldn't change them if they wanted to. They just don't have permission. From who? From the people that own your mortgage and his. From the people who lend your county, state and country the paper it needs to go on at all costs. From the people who own your car, your TV and your fridge. If you want something to change, you need to ask them. And they won't want them to change.
So what does a man do? Call me an anarchist, I'm beyond caring about semantics and sentiment and being a good boy. If you can't afford to comfortably repay what you owe in a reasonable amount of time, don't pay it. Declare bankruptcy, leave your phone off the hook, move to Mexico. So you'll be persona non grada with the credit people. They never liked you in the first place and now you'll never have to do business with them again.
The point is that we need to see money for what it is. It's just paper and that's all. Would you revere you toilet roll in a similar fashion? That's because you know it's just toilet paper, useful, handy but not essential. And when it runs out there are other ways, you don't have to stop using the toilet.
One means of circumventing a crash created by a lack of national currency is the creation of a local currency. This has been done throughout history on many occasions to counter the collapse of national banks. It's a shame to think that the ingenuity such a bold plan would require is fatally lacking in most modern communities, who have become so dependant on the vicious circle of big banks, big employers and big chain stores for their survival that such a radical departure from the comfort of the status quo would almost certainly be beyond the imagination. Saying that, pressure can have a miraculous effect on the mindset.
I don't know if things are too far gone to allow for hope of real change, but I think we are about to find out one way or the other.
THE TYPICAL SLAVE SPEECH.
by Silvano Agosti (audio excerpt transcription).
translation by Michele Schicchi and Arturo Tobia.
:: www.primit.it ::
:: www.signoraggio.com ::
One of the deadliest aspects of the actual culture is making believe that it's the only one. Instead, it's simply the worst.
Well, the examples are inside the heart of everybody. For example, the fact that all the people works six days per week is the bleakest thing we can imagine.
How can the human beings life be stolen in exchange for food, bed and cars?
While until yesterday I though that they made me a favor giving me a job, now I think:
“These bastards are stealing the only life I have, I won't have another one...and they make me work 5/6 days per week..and they give me only one miserable free day..for doing what?..how can a life be built in just one day?!”
First and foremost, we have not to plant nice flowers on the window of our jail because, also if one day the door will be opened, we won't get out.
We always must think, with a clear consciousness:
“They are stealing my life just in exchange for 1000 euros per month (if I'm lucky) while I am a masterpiece whose value is indescribable”
I can't understand why a Van Gogh painting is worth 30 million euros and an human being 1000 euros per month (again, if he is lucky).
In my opinion, considering that thanks to new technologies profits risen about 100 times more, job hours should decrease 10 times more at least! Nope, job hours are always the same! Today I know that they are stealing me the most precious good I had by nature. Think about the most beautiful thing that nature gave us: that's making love, isn't it?
Imagine that you are living in a political, economical and social system where people is forced doing sex 8 hours per day while someone guards them; it would be a real torture! So, why that couldn't be the same with work, an activity not so pleasant as making love?
People works six days per week..yeah we have a gun on the head..we do it because we ask ourselves: ”Is it better licking the floor or dying?”- ”licking the floor”..but the worst in this culture is that “licking the floor” became an aspiration.
It's monstrous that who works eight hours per day has to be grateful to the one that forced him to lick the floor, you know?
All of this is objectively monstrous. It becomes really monstrous when you are conscious of it.
“OK BUT THE SITUATION IS IRREVERSIBLE BY NOW!”
You speak in defense of the one that oppresses you because it's typical of the slave, isn't it? The true slave..the true slave defends the master, he doesn't fight him. The real slave is not the one who is chained but the one who can't imagine the freedom.
When Galileo stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun, there was certainly someone who said: “Oh yeah! Since 22 centuries everyone says that the Sun revolves around Earth, and now you come with this bullshits..how could you explain it to the whole World?” and Galileo answered: “Not my business, Sir.” “Well – told the miscredent - in the meanwhile we'll drop you into a well and we'll force you saying that's not true, so everything will be in the same way as before”.
The western society has a wealth living way because it's stealing 8/10 of the goods of the whole World so: we aren't living in a political system that allowed us to have a television, a car..no! We are living in a political system that's stealing 8/10 to 3/4 of the World and leaves us the remaining ¼ for a little bit more of wellness.
So, ladies and gentlemen, let's wake up or that's just pretending to sleep or realizing we are all dead.
What fractional reserve is.
by Sandro Pascucci
translation by Arturo Tobia
:: http://www.primit.it ::
:: http://www.signoraggio.com ::
Fractional reserve is legal, as it was legal to own slaves a few years ago. Fractional reserve banking allows banks to lend you 5000 while they only have 100, and you own nothing of that 100. A little like Jesus Christ that fed a moltitude with 5 breads and 2 fishes..
The "fractional reserve" system is a fraud. Of course it is a legal fraud, as almost all the economic and monetary frauds. Let's see how it works in practice: when we deposit €100 in a commercial bank, this opens a bank account on our behalf that should undertake to keep our banknotes (see "seigniorage") in its caveau, safe from thieves¹.
The banker at this point uses a centennial statistic that tells him something very simple: only a part of the just created deposit will be used ("moved") by the customer. So the banker knows that "almost for sure" most of our money, given to him in custody, will be immovable in the account (in the safe box) for months, for years. Let's remember that the banker is not the owner of our money, but he's only the keeper. Anyway, the banker considers this immobility a waste and decides to lend what's on our bank account. In addition to our "comfortable oversight" ² the banker needs to legalize this fraud with a specifically created law corrupting the politician.
In Italy this law is called “Misure dell'accantonamento alla riserva obbligatoria” (literaly "obligatory reserve allocation measures") or simply "fractional reserve" and is marketed to the public opinion as a way to protect the account holder.
Presenting this law as a limit for banks to create money to lend, the banker&politician company appear as guardian of our interests; to make an example, that's like if the same politician decreed "the maximum number of whips to be given to a slave," and he pretends also the public praise for being a champion of human rights.
But specifically, what does this law say? Simply puts a limit on the minimum amount of money that bankers should keep on hand.
What does this cause to us?
To us, almost nothing changes. If 100 people pay €100, would be reasonable to expect that in any times ALL 100 customers can withdraw their €100, right? In reality the banker, as I said at the beginning, considering all that immobile money in its vaults a waste, and since he knows (statistically) how many money is withdrawn from an average of depositors, he lends the rest, as he owns money. If statistically only the 10% is "handled" (withdrawn, spent, paid-up, moved, etc. ..) that means that the bank has 100 bank accounts x €100 = €10.000 and from these €10.000 only €1.000 (10% of €10.000) serve as cash in the daily operations.
The remaining €9.000 are used even if they are not owned by the bank! Never forget this concept. Can you imagine leaving your car to a parking keeper that takes it, going around and loading it with goods (also some illegal ones) not telling you anything and not responding to anything?
Oh, yeah, that's true, the bank gives you an "interest"..an "interest" of 0.0005%!
What does this cause to the banker?
To the banker changes a lot more because the lower is the percentage to keep in cash the more he can lend. In 1957, banks were required to hold in reserve the 25% of the deposit, in 1970 percentage fallen to (about) 15% and today it arrived only to the 2% (0% in some cases). So now the bank can receive € 10.000 and lend €9.800 (not owned by it!) and this due to the "obligatory or fractional reserve". But the fraud doesn't end here. Those €9.800 will be deposited into a different account (maybe the same bank or other banks, but nothing changes since the banking system is a "cartel", yeah exactly as the criminal one). In the new bank account €196 (9.800x2%) will be taken apart and the remaining €9.604 (9800-196) will be lended: this cycle will continue on the new bank account, more and more. At the end, starting from €10.000, the bank can create and pay €500.000: 50 times more. The same bank will gain eventual big earnings also from interests. Everything with no more than the initial €10.000 (remember, they should just keep them!).
Now you can understand the power of being able to create money from nothing (better: of multiplying customers accounts) of commercial banks with the complicity of corrupt politicians, who give legality to this fraud. Are you thinking to discover the trick just going in 100 people to the bank counter to take back €100, right? Wrong. Mathematically, it would be enough that the first 3 customers would pretend to take back their money to bring down the system because, with the reservation of 2%, only the first two banks [of the initial group of 100] would still hold something..the third would be left with absolutely nothing, and so the fourth and all the other ones..unfortunately the system would run to rescue the ailing banks and the Central Bank would run to print what has never existed (as in these days to Northern Rock Bank – the 2007 n.o.t.).
One day, a guy fed a lot of people with 5 breads and 2 fishes and he quenched the thirst of all the guests of a wedding pouring wine from an half-empty wineskin, but this is the old religion.
The new God Money religion forecastes a new figure: the banker of Canaan that creates and multiplies money to infinity. And creates debit for us, the populace.
¹ Not to get confused let's make it clear that the thieves are recognized because they are the wrong dressed running out of the the bank, while here there are thieves because they are all good dressed nice ties. It's important to understand the difference just not to get confused.
² "Everyone knows unconsciously that banks don't lend money. When you withdraw from your account, the bank doesn't tell you that you can't do it because your money is lended to someone else." [Mark Mansfield, economist]
"I am afraid that the common citizen wouldn't be told that the banks can and effectively create..." [Reginald McKenna, former Chairman of the Board, Midlands Bank of England]
Visitano il forum: Nessuno e 11 ospiti
Eccetto dove diversamente specificato, i contenuti di questo sito sono liberamente riproducibili purché sia citata e linkata la fonte (sono infatti rilasciati sotto una licenza Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0) Il redattore non e' legalmente responsabile per i pensieri e le affermazioni espresse in questo blog dai visitatori. L'autore non assume alcuna responsabilità nel caso di eventuali errori contenuti negli articoli o di errori in cui fosse incorso nella loro riproduzione sul sito. Tutte le pubblicazioni su questo sito avvengono senza eventuali protezioni di brevetti d'invenzione; inoltre, i nomi coperti da eventuale marchio registrato vengono utilizzati senza tenerne conto. Questo sito non è una testata giornalistica in quanto viene aggiornato senza alcuna periodicità . Non può pertanto considerarsi un prodotto editoriale ai sensi della legge n. 62 del 7.03.2001 Comunque, Costituzione Italiana - Art. 21: Tutti hanno diritto di manifestare liberamente il proprio pensiero con la parola, lo scritto e ogni altro mezzo di diffusione. :: SE&O :: Salvo Errori et Omissioni "come scrivono le banche, in calce agli estratti conto, per evitare eventuali future azioni penali".