Malta and fiat -- Malta u l-fiat

No, this isn’t an article about Italian cars!

 

In the financial sphere, the word ‘fiat’ is used for currencies that have no intrinsic value, but whose value is established by some administrative authority (government) or agreed by the parties of a transaction.  Examples of fiat currencies are the dollar, the euro, the lira etc, which change hands as an abstract value of real products and services.

 

In 2009, a new coin started being talked about, Bitcoin, which is completely digital and not established by government or a central bank.  Transactions take place between people considered peers and without intermediaries, verified cryptographically and written in a distributed public ledger on a large number of computers around the world.  This register is typically referred to as a blockchain.

 

What is different, and special, about this new distributed public ledger system, over a traditional replicated database system, is that the latter’s integrity depents upon the administrators and computers forming the database being trusted, whereas with the former, transactional integrity is guaranteed by the system itself and the cryptography used, even if the administrators and computers are untrusted.  It is clear why the traditional trusted intermediaries, such as banks, are no longer strictly necessary in such a system, except for exchanges to fiat currencies.

 

People or other legal entities can purchase Bitcoin by changing their fiat currencies in exchange organisations, such as Independent Reserve and Coinspot in Australia, who have accounts in a traditional bank apart from forming part of the Bitcoin system.  After this, the Bitcoin can be exchanged again to other fiat currencies, or change hands as payment for other goods and services.  There are reports of more than 100,000 businesses around the world accepting payments in this currency.

 

Since then a number of other digital cryptographic coins were issued, collectively referred to as altcoins, like Ethereum, Litecoin and many others, all with their specific distributed ledger.  An interesting development of some is the smart contract feature, representing contracts consisting of value transactions represented a token that depends upon programmable logic, and records of this occurrence being distributed safely over the ledger, like the other digital currencies.  I had written in The Voice No. 162 about one example, called POWR involving the trade of sustainable electricity, which works on the Ethereum distributed ledger.

 

Another consequence of the diversity of digital currencies or cryptographic tokens is that one can change one digital coin to another without using traditional fiat money.  One can see why with the passage of time, and use of these digital currencies becomes more widespread in the economies of a country and the world, the importance of fiat currencies and their organisations declines.

 

Not only that, but when a distributed public ledger is used for other items of value that are not money, this disruption of traditional industries increases.  Just one example is the use of blockchain in land registries.

 

Some banks have decided they want nothing to do with this industry, deeming it to be too risky, while others in fact are working on a slightly different version, where the blockchain operators are known and trusted, such as RSCoin used by the Bank of England1, and R3, EEA, Hyperledger and others used by banks in the USA.2

 

Fears and dangers there are quite a few.  A major one is the frenzied speculation that digital currencies can make you filthy rich, which has led to many people investing (and borrowing to do so) in currencies like Bitcoin because everyone was doing so, with stories of astronomical profits (which was true for a few months), and now many have been bitten when the story changed.

 

Another danger is a particular aspect of cryptographic coins and tokens, that of anonymity.  Today, one can hold coins in a digital wallet, either online, on a smartphone or computer, or a small electronic device.  However has access to this wallet has access to the coins held there.  Therefore the owner is anonymous, and digital value can change hands anonymously.  The potential for use of this mechanism for money laundering or other criminality is very clear.

 

Today there is little or no regulation of this industry, and so there is also the fear of the issue of a new currency or token for sale (Initial Coin Offering – ICO) that is in fact fraudulent, or used for criminal intentions.

 

Some countries have decided to ban this (for now at least), most notably is probably China3 and South Korea.  This has led to the largest crypto-currency exchange, Binance, a Chinese company, first to go to Japan and last month decide to open an office in Malta!4

 

Why does this interest exist in the land of our forefathers?

 

The Maltese government seems to want to be at the forefront of exploiting the new business opportunities for the Maltese economy, especially now that countries around the world are still studying this phenomenon and debating internally if, how and to what extent to intervene.

 

A period of public consultation has just ended5 about its intentions to regulate the industry.  The Maltese government wants to create a framework with rules and procedures to certify platform of digital ledger technology, maintain lists of their auditors and administrators, as well as another framework for regulation of ICOs and services around virtual currencies.

 

This is the second consultation, after that issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) earlier in the year.

 

It is clear that the government has spotted an opportunity for the country, and is taking steps, fast yet measured, to grab it.  Up to now it has not declared what principle to adopt with respect to currency anonymity, an aspect incompatible with the fight against money laundering and criminality.  I would imagine that such considerations and others will be made while laws and regulations are being drafted.

 

As a Maltese person, I cannot fail to rejoice in this positive and dynamic show by my birth country, at the forefront of an industry so exciting, technologically advanced, revolutionary and transformative, not only for the country but for the world.

 

------------------------------

 

Le, dan mhux artiklu fuq karrozzi Taljani!

 

Fid-dinja finanzjarja, il-kelma ‘fiat’ tintuża għal munita li m’għandiex valur intrinsiku, imma li għandha valur stabbilit minn awtorità amministrattiva (gvern) jew maqbul bejn il-partijiet ta’ transazzjoni.  Eżempji ta’ muniti fiat huma d-dollaru, l-ewro, il-lira u l-bqija, li jibdlu l-idejn bħala l-valur astratt ta’ prodotti u servizzi reali.

 

Fl-2009, bdejna nisimgħu fuq munita ġdida, il-Bitcoin, li hija kompletament diġitali, u ma kinetx imwaqqfa minn gvern jew bank ċentrali.  Transazzjonijiet isiru bejn persuni li meqjusa fuq l-istess livell (peer-to-peer) u mingħajr intermedjarji, u jiġu vverifikati b’mod kriptografiku u miktuba f’reġistru pubbliku imxerred (distributed ledger) fuq numru kbir ta’ kompjuters madwar id-dinja.  Dan ir-reġistru huwa ġeneralment imsejjaħ katina ta’ blokok (blockchain).

 

Li huwa differenti, u speċjali, bis-sistema ġdida ta’ reġistru pubbliku mxerred, fuq sistema tradizzjonali ta’ dejtabejż (database) irreplikata, huwa illi f’dan tal-aħħar l-integrità tat-transazzjonijiet tiddependi fuq l-amministraturi u l-kompjuters li juffurmaw id-dejtabejż ikunu fdati, mentri f’tal-ewwel l-integrita tat-transazzjonijiet hija ggarantita mis-sistema nnifisha u l-kriptografija li tintuża, anke jekk l-amministraturi u l-kompjuters ma jkunux fdati.  Huwa ċar għalfejn intermedjarji tradizzjonali fdati, bħall-banek, mhumiex iktar strettament neċessarji f’sistema bħal din, ħlief għall-kambju ma’ muniti fiat.

 

Persuni jew entitajiet legali oħra jistgħu jixtru l-Bitcoin billi jibdlu l-muniti fiat tagħhom f’organizzazzjonijiet ta’ kambju, bħall-Independent Reserve u Coinspot fl-Awstralja, li jkollhom kont f’bank tradizzjonali apparti li jiffurmaw parti mis-sistema tal-Bitcoin.  Wara dan, il-Bitcoin jista’ jerġa jinbidel f’munita fiat oħra, jew jibdel l-idejn bħala ħlas għal prodotti jew servizzi oħra.  Hemm rapporti li iktar minn 100,000 negozjui madwar id-dinja jaċċettaw ħlas b’din il-munita.

 

Minn dakinhar ħarġu diversi muniti diġitali kriptografiċi oħra, kollettivament imsejħa altcoins, bħall-Ethereum, Litecoin u ħafna oħrajn, kollha b’reġistru imxerred speċifiku tagħhom.  Żvilupp interessanti ta’ xi wħud minn dawn ir-reġistri kien il-faċilità ta’ kuntratti intelliġenti (smart contracts), fejn kuntratt jirrappreżenta transazzjoni ta’ valur irrappreżentat minn towkin li jiddependi fuq xi loġika li jista’ jiġi pprogrammat, u rikordju li dan ikun seħħ jiġi imxerred b’mod żgur fuq ir-reġistru, bħall-muniti diġitali l-oħra.  Kont ktibt fuq The Voice numruNru 162 dwar eżempju wieħed, imsejjaħ POWR u li jinvolvi n-negozju ta’ enerġija elettrika sostenibbli, u li jaħdem fuq ir-reġistru imxerred tal-Ethereum.

 

ŻviluppKonsegwenza ieħor bid-diversità ta’ muniti diġitali jew towkins kriptografiċi huwa li wieħed jista’ jibdel munita diġitali waħda f’oħra mingħajr ma juża flus fiat tradizzjonali.  Wieħed jista’ jara kemm iktar ma jgħaddi ż-żmien, u dawn il-muniti diġitali jibda jkollhom użu iktar mifrux fl-ekonomija ta’ pajjiż u tad-dinja, l-importanza tal-muniti fiat u l-organizzazzjonijiet tagħhom tonqos.  

 

Mhux hekk biss, imma meta r-reġistru pubbliku mxerred jintuża għal affarijiet oħra ta’ valur li mhumiex flus, dan it-tħarbit fl-industrija tradizzjonali jikber.  Eżempju wieħed biss huwa l-użu tal-katina ta’ blokok fir-reġistru tal-artijiet.

 

Ftit mill-banek iddeċidew li ma jridu jkollhom xejn x’jaqsmu ma’ din l-industrija għax riskjuża wisq, oħrajn fil-fatt qed jaħdmu fuq verżjoni daqsxejn differenti, fejn l-operaturi tal-katina ta’ blokok ikunu magħrufa u fdati, bħal per eżempju RSCoin li tintuża mill-Bank of England1, u R3, EEA, Hyperledger u oħrajn f’banek oħra fl-Istati Uniti.2

 

Biżgħat u perikli hemm diversi.  Waħda ewlenija hija l-ispekulazzjoni sfrenata li l-muniti diġitali jistgħu jagħmluk sinjur kbir, li wassal lil ħafna nies jinvestu (u jisselfu biex jagħmlu dan) f’muniti bħall-Bitcoin għax kulħadd kien qed jagħmel hekk, bi stejjer ta’ profitti astroniomiċi (li kien veru għal diversi xhur), u ħafna issa bdew jingidmu meta l-istorja inbidlet.

 

Periklu ieħor huwa aspett partikulari tal-muniti u towkins kriptografiċi, dak tal-anonimat.  Illum, wieħed jista’ jżomm il-munita tiegħu f’portafoll diġitali, kemm online, fuq il-mowbajl jew il-kompjuter tiegħek, jew fuq apparat żgħir elettroniku.  Kull min għandu aċċess għal dan il-portafoll għandu aċċess għall-muniti miżmuma fuqu.  Għalhekk is-sid huwa anonimu, u valur diġitali jista’ jibdel l-idejn b’mod anonimu.  Il-potenzjal għall-użu ta’ dan il-mekkaniżmu għal affarijiet bħall-ħasil tal-flus jew kriminalità oħra huwa huwa ċar ħafna.

 

Illum hemm ftit li xejn ta’ regolamentar ta’ din l-industrija, u għalhekk hemm ukoll il-biża li toħroġ munita jew towkin għall-bejgħ (Initial Coin Offering - ICO) li fil-fatt tkun intenzjonata bħala frodi, jew tintuża għal skopijiet kriminali.

 

Hemm pajjiżi li ddeċidew li dan mhux se jitħalla jsir iktar (għall-inqas għalissa), l-iktar notevoli minnhom aktarx hija ċ-Ċina3 u warajha l-Korea t-Isfel.  Dan wassal biex l-ikbar organizzazzjoni tal-kambju tal-muniti kriptografiċi, il-Binance, kumpannija Ċiniża, l-ewwel tipprova tmur il-Ġappun, u x-xahar l-ieħor tiddeċiedi li tiftaħ uffiċċju f’Malta!4

 

Għaliex dan l-interess f’pajjiż missirietna?

 

Il-gvern Malti jidher li jrid ikun minn ta’ quddiem biex jisfrutta l-opportunitajiet ta’ dan in-negozju l-ġdid għall-ekonomija Maltija, speċjalment issa meta l-pajjiżi ta’ madwar id-dinja għadhom jistudjaw dan il-fenomenu u jiddibattu internament jekk, u kif, u sakemm l-aħjar li jintervjenu.  

 

Għadu kif spiċċa perjodu ta’ konsultazzjoni5 mal-pubbliku fuq il-pjanijiet tiegħu ta’ regolamentar tal-industrija.  Il-gvern Malti jrid joħloq qafas b’regolamenti u proċeduri li bihom jiġu ċċertifikati l-pjattaformi ta’ reġistri mxerrda, tinżamm lista ta’ awdituri u amministraturi tagħhom, kif ukoll qafas ieħor li jirregola l-ICOs u servizzi marbutin ma’ dawn il-muniti virtwali.

 

Dan il-konsultazzjoni huwa t-tieni wieħed, wara dak maħruġ mill-Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) iktar kmieni din is-sena.

Jidher ċar li l-Gvern għaraf opportunità għall-pajjiż, u qed jimxi b’pass meqjus imma mgħaġġel biex jilħqu.  S’issa ma qalx x’prinċipju se jaddotta b’rigward tal-anonimat tal-muniti, aspett li mhux kompatibbli mal-ġlieda kontra l-ħasil tal-flus u l-kriminalità.  Nimmaġina li dawn il-kunsiderazzjonijiet u oħrajn joħorġu meta tkun qiegħda tiġi mfassla l-liġijiet u r-regolamenti fil-konkret.

 

Bħala Malti ma nistax ma nifraħx b’din ix-xiehda pożittiva u dinamika ta’ pajjiż twelidi, fuq quddiem nett f’din l-industrija tant eċċitanti, teknoloġikament avvanzata, rivoluzzjonarja u trasformattiva, mhux biss għall-pajjiż imma għad-dinja.

 

1https://www.ccn.com/bank-of-englands-rscoin-a-hybrid-digital-currency-to-improve-global-trade/, retrieved 11/4/2018

2Wall Street Occupies the Blockchain; IEEE Spectrum; October 2017; p36

3https://www.coindesk.com/chinas-ico-ban-a-full-translation-of-regulator-remarks/, retrieved 11/4/2018

4https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta, retrieved 11/4/2018

5https://meae.gov.mt/en/Public_Consultations/OPM/Documents/PS%20FSDEI%20-%20DLT%20Regulation%20Document%20OUTPUT.PDF, retrieved 11/4/2018

1https://www.ccn.com/bank-of-englands-rscoin-a-hybrid-digital-currency-to-improve-global-trade/, retrieved 11/4/2018

2Wall Street Occupies the Blockchain; IEEE Spectrum; October 2017; p36

3https://www.coindesk.com/chinas-ico-ban-a-full-translation-of-regulator-remarks/, retrieved 11/4/2018

4https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta, retrieved 11/4/2018

5https://meae.gov.mt/en/Public_Consultations/OPM/Documents/PS%20FSDEI%20-%20DLT%20Regulation%20Document%20OUTPUT.PDF, retrieved 11/4/2018

Monopoly -- Monopolju

One of my childhood memories, and surely not only mine, is being gathered around a table with other family members, playing the game called Monopoly.  In the version we had in the family, then the only one you could buy, participants proceeded to throw dice, move their representative pieces around the board, purchase property with game money, buy houses and hotels, and delight in asking for payment for those others having the misfortune of having their piece fall on the former’s property, moreso if buildings were there.

 

On the side of all this were accusations of players moving their piece when no one else was looking, or of the person also wearing another hat as banker of brazenly carrying out robbery etc etc!  That game is really addictive!

 

The game ends when one participant manages to accumulate the lion’s share of wealth, and everyone else would have almost completely failed, with no money and debt with the bank, with the last straw occurring when they fall on someone else’s property, with a new payment demand that couldn’t be met.  Who does not enjoy being that capitalist that ends as a winner, at lest in those few moments of the game, and leave being the loser only to real life....

 

The game we had had property centred around London in the United Kingdom, and I’m aware that nowadays, there are other versions centred around other countries, including Malta.

 

I was surprised a few weeks ago to happen to listen to the ABC RN program whose subject was the origin of this game1, and I was even more amazed to discover that the game had even more capitalism than I thought!  The forthcoming is a synthesis of what was said during this program.

 

The story takes place in Atlantic City, USA, where a woman named Elizabeth Magie was inspired by the book Progress and Poverty by the economist and journalist Henry George, published in 1879.  This book discusses why poverty accompanies economic and technological progress.  In it, George proposes that society should have one and only one tax, that on the annual value of land.  The thinking behind this is that land value increases due to factors external to the owner, such as investments in education, technological advances and developments in facilities close by, such as hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc.  Therefore, a tax on land value leads to a redistribution of this wealth to the community that generated it, with the tax being re-invested in projects for the community.

 

This thinking is still with us today.  One practical example is the land tax payable by owners of land in NSW valued by the Valuator General of just under 2/3rds of a million dollars.  This tax goes to the state.

 

A(nother) similar tax in NSW is the so-called rates, which is also calculated on land values, but this time payable to the local council, and goes to pay for civic services such as garbage collection.

 

In contrast to George’s idea, these taxes are a small part of the total income for government, so don’t represent the total income.

 

Back in the United States, Elizabeth Magie produced a game in 1903 called the Landlord’s Game whose intention was to educate players on the effects of economic rules.  This game had two sets of rules, with players deciding with which set they played.

 

The first set of rules was that of Prosperity, where if one falls on a property and buys it, he’d pay a tax that is distributed to all other players.  The game is won by all the playing group, when the player starting with the lowest income doubles it.

 

The second set is that of Monopoly, where when one purchases land, any other player having the misfortune of also landing on that land has to pay rent.  This rule leads to a war of everybody against everybody, and finally just one person wins, after having impoverished and bankrupted everybody else.

 

The main aim of the game was for players to understand the dynamics of society and the consequences of different taxation systems, and shows that all the community benefits with the first system.

 

After the game had made quite a success, Elizabeth sold the game rights to Parker Brothers, who in 1930 re-published the game as Monopoly, with only the monopoly rules!  Therefore, Elizabeth’s intention for the game to serve as a lesson (and warning) on the contrast between the consequences of different taxation systems was completely nullified!

 

This is to me nothing more than a cynical case of thought censorship by those having interest in the status quo of modern life, and by those benefiting from a system leading to the accumulation of wealth by the few, and massive inequalities overall.

 

Now where on earth are the dice?......

 

------------------------------------

 

Waħda mill-memorji ta’ tfuliti, u ċert ta’ ħafna oħrajn, hija li nkun miġbur madwar mejda flimkien ma’ membri oħra tal-familja, nilagħbu l-logħba bl-isem Monopoly.  Fil-verżjoni li kellna fil-familja, dakinhar l-unika waħda li stajt tixtri, il-parteċipanti jinfexxu jitfgħu d-dadi, jmexxu l-biċċiet rappreżentanti tagħhom madwar il-bord, jixtru l-proprjetà bil-flus tal-logħba, jibnu d-djar u l-lukandi, u jogħxew jitolbu l-ħlas lil ħaddieħor li jkollu l-isfortuna li l-biċċa tiegħu taqa’ fuq il-proprjetà tal-ewwel, iktar u iktar jekk ikollu l-bini.

 

Dan apparti li wieħed jixli lill-ieħor li qiegħed imexxi l-biċċa tiegħu meta ħaddieħor ma jkunx qiegħed iħares, jew dak li jkun qiegħed imexxi l-bank b’serq sfaċċat eċċ eċċ!  Dik il-logħba verament tista’ tivvizzjak!

 

Il-logħba tispiċċa meta parteċipant wieħed ikun irnexxielu jakkumula l-biċċa l-kbira tal-ġid, u l-oħrajn kollha jkunu kważi fallew, bla flus u b’dejn lejn il-bank, u l-aħħar pass tagħhom iseħħ meta jerġgħu jispiċċaw fuq proprjetà ta’ ħaddieħor, bi ħlas ġdid li ma jistgħux iħallsu.  Fi kliem ieħor, din hija rappreżentazzjoni tas-sistema kapitalista.  Min ma jiħux gost ikun dak il-kapitalist li jispiċċa rebbieħ, talinqas għall-ftit mumenti ta’ logħba, u inħallu li wieħed ikun tellief biss għall-ħajja ta’ vera...

 

Il-logħba li kellna aħna kellha proprjetà ambjentata f’Londra tar-Renju Unit, u naf li daż-żmien, hemm verżjonijiet oħra ambjentati f’pajjiżi oħra, inkluża Malta.

 

Kont sorpriż ftit ġimgħat ilu ninzerta programm fuq ir-radju ABC RN li kien qiegħed jitkellem fuq l-oriġini ta’ din il-logħba,1 u bqajt skantat meta skoprejt li fiha anke iktar kapitaliżmu milli ħsibt!  Dan li ġej huwa sinteżi ta’ dak li ntqal fil-programm.

 

L-istorja tiżvolġi f’Atlantic City, l-Istati Uniti, fejn mara jisimgħa Elizabeth Magie kienet ispirata mill-ktieb Progress u Faqar (Progress and Poverty) tal-ekonomista u ġurnalista Henry George, ippubblikat fl-1879.  Dan il-ktieb jitħaddet il-għaliex il-faqar jakkumpanja l-progress ekonomiku u teknoloġiku.  Fih, George jipproponi li s-soċjetà għandu jkollha taxxa waħda, u waħda biss, li tkun fuq il-valur annwali tal-art.  Il-ħsieb wara dan hu li l-valur tal-art jiżdied minħabba fatturi esterni għas-sid, bħal investimenti fl-edukazzjoni, avvanzi tat-teknoloġija u żvilupp ta’ faċilitajiet fil-qarib tal-art, bħal sptarijiet, skejjel u infrastruttura eċċ.  Allura, taxxa fuq il-valur tal-art twassal għal redistribuzzjoni ta’ dan il-ġid lejn il-komunità li ġġeneratu, bit-taxxa tiġi reinvestita f’proġetti b’riżq il-komunità.

 

Dan il-ħsieb għadu magħna.  Eżempju prattiku ta’ dan huwa t-taxxa fuq l-art (land tax) li titħallas mis-sidien tal-proprjetà f’New South Wales li huwa stmat mill-Valwatur Ġenerali ta’ NSW li jiswew ftit inqas minn żewġ terzi ta’ miljun dollaru.  Din it-taxxa tmur lejn l-istat.

 

Taxxa simili (oħra) f’NSW hija l-hekk imsejħa rates, li wkoll ikkalkulata fuq il-valur tal-art, imma din id-darba titħallas lejn il-kunsill lokali, u jmorru biex iħallsu servizzi ċiviċi bħall-ġbir tal-iskart.

 

B’differenza mal-idea ta’ George, dawn it-taxxi huma parti żgħira mid-dħul totali tal-gvern, u ma jirrappreżentawx id-dħul totali.

 

Lura fl-Istati Uniti, Elizabeth Magie pproduċiet logħba fl-1903 jisimgħa Landlord’s Game (Logħba ta’ Sid l-Art) li kellha l-intenzjoni li teduka lill-ġukatur dwar l-effetti tar-regoli ekonomiċi.  Din il-logħba kellha żewġ settijiet ta’ regoli, u l-ġukaturi jiddeċiedu b’liema sett se jilgħabu.

 

L-ewwel sett ta’ regoli kien ta’ Prosperity (Prosperità), fejn min jiġi fuq proprjetà u jixtriha, iħallas taxxa li titqassam fost il-ġukaturi kollha.  Il-logħba tintrebaħ mill-grupp kollu li jkun qiegħed jilgħab, meta l-ġukatur li jibda’ bl-inqas ammont ta’ dħul ikun irduppjah.

 

It-tieni sett kien ta’ Monopoly (Monopolju), fejn meta wieħed jixtri l-art, kwalunkwe ġukatur ieħor li jkollu l-isfortuna li jaqa fuq l-istess art ikollu jħallas ir-renta.  Din ir-regola twassal f’gwerra ta’ kulħadd kontra kulħadd, u fl-aħħar persuna waħda biss tirbaħ, wara li tkun faqqret u finalment falliet lill-oħrajn kollha.  

 

L-għan prinċipali tal-logħba kienet li l-ġukaturi jifhmu d-dinamika tas-soċjetà u l-konsegwenzi ta’ sistemi differenti tat-tassazzjoni, u turi li l-komunità kollha tirbaħ bl-ewwel sistema.

 

Wara li l-logħba għamlet suċċess mhux ħażin, Elizabeth biegħet id-drittijiet tal-logħba lill-Parker Brothers, li fl-1930 reġgħu ppublikaw il-logħba bħala Monopoly, bir-regoli tal-monopolju biss!  Għalhekk, l-intenzjoni ta’ Elizabeth li l-logħba sservi ta’ tagħlima (u tbeżbiża) fuq il-kuntrast bejn il-konsegwenzi ta’ sistemi differenti ta’ tassazzjoni xxejjen kompletament!

 

Għalija, dan mhu xejn ħlief każ ċiniku ta’ ċensura tal-ħsieb minn min għandu interess fl-istatus kwo tal-ħajja moderna, u min qiegħed igawdi minn sistema li twassal għal akkumulazzjoni tal-ġid tal-ftit u inugwaljanza kbira.

 

Issa fejn marru dawk id-dadi?....

 

 

1http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/monopoly-misunderstood/9123392, retrieved 28/3/2018

1http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/monopoly-misunderstood/9123392, retrieved 28/3/2018