Month: July 2015

From Wikipedia: Eurozone

Eurozone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eurozone, officially called the euro area, is a monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union (EU) member states which have adopted the euro (€) as their common currency and sole legal tender. The other 9 members of the European Union continue to use their own national currencies.

The eurozone consists of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. Other EU states (except for Denmark and the United Kingdom) are obliged to join once they meet the criteria to do so. No state has left, and there are no provisions to do so or to be expelled. Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City have formal agreements with the EU to use the euro as their official currency and issue their own coins. Kosovo and Montenegro have adopted the euro unilaterally, but these countries do not officially form part of the eurozone and do not have representation in the European Central Bank (ECB) or in the Eurogroup.

The ECB, which is governed by a president and a board of the heads of national central banks, sets the monetary policy of the zone. The principal task of the ECB is to keep inflation under control. Though there is no common representation, governance or fiscal policy for the currency union, some co-operation does take place through the Eurogroup, which makes political decisions regarding the eurozone and the euro. The Eurogroup is composed of the finance ministers of eurozone states, but in emergencies, national leaders also form the Eurogroup.

Since the financial crisis of 2007–08, the eurozone has established and used provisions for granting emergency loans to member states in return for the enactment of economic reforms. The eurozone has also enacted some limited fiscal integration, for example in peer review of each other’s national budgets. The issue is political and in a state of flux in terms of what further provisions will be agreed for eurozone reform.

Main article: Enlargement of the eurozone

Nine countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) are EU members but do not use the euro. Before joining the eurozone, a state must spend two years in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). As of 2015, the National Central Bank (NCB) of Denmark participates in ERM II.

Denmark and the United Kingdom obtained special opt-outs in the original Maastricht Treaty. Both countries are legally exempt from joining the eurozone unless their governments decide otherwise, either by parliamentary vote or referendum. Sweden, which joined the EU in 1995 after the Maastricht Treaty was signed, is required to join the eurozone under the terms of its accession treaty as soon as it fulfils the convergence criteria, which include being part of ERM II for two years. However, the Swedish people turned down euro adoption in a 2003 referendum and since then the country has intentionally avoided fulfilling the adoption requirements by not joining ERM II, which is voluntary.

Interest in joining the eurozone increased in Denmark, and initially in Poland, as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. In Iceland, there was an increase in interest in joining the European Union, a pre-condition for adopting the euro. However, by 2010 the debt crisis in the eurozone caused interest from Poland, as well as the Czech Republic, to cool. Lithuania adopted the euro in 2015.

Non-member usage

Further information: International status and usage of the euro

Eurozone participation
19 European Union member states in the eurozone

7 European Union member states not in ERM II but obliged to join once convergence criteria are met

1 European Union member state in ERM II, with an opt-out (Denmark)

1 European Union member state not in ERM II, with an opt-out (United Kingdom)

4 non-European Union member states using the euro with a monetary agreement (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City)

2 non-European Union member states using the euro unilaterally (Kosovo and Montenegro)
he euro is also used in countries outside the EU. Four states – Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City — have signed formal agreements with the EU to use the euro and issue their own coins. Nevertheless, they are not considered part of the eurozone by the ECB and do not have a seat in the ECB or Euro Group.

Kosovo[g] and Montenegro officially adopted the euro as their sole currency without an agreement and, therefore, have no issuing rights. These states are not considered part of the eurozone by the ECB. However, sometimes the term eurozone is applied to all territories that have adopted the euro as their sole currency. Further unilateral adoption of the euro (euroisation), by both non-euro EU and non-EU members, is opposed by the ECB and EU.

Expulsion and secession

Further information: Greek withdrawal from the eurozone

Although the eurozone is open to all EU member states to join once they meet the criteria, the treaty is silent on the matter of states leaving the eurozone, neither prohibiting nor permitting it. Likewise there is no provision for a state to be expelled from the euro.[33] Some, however, including the Dutch government, favour such a provision being created in the event that a heavily indebted state in the eurozone refuses to comply with an EU economic reform policy.[34] Jens Dammann has argued that even now EU law contains an implicit right for member states to leave the eurozone if they no longer meet the criteria that they had to meet in order to join the eurozone.

The outcome of leaving the euro would vary depending on the situation. If the country’s own replacement currency was expected to devalue against the euro, the state might experience a large-scale exodus of money, whereas if the currency were expected to appreciate then more money would flow into the economy. A rapidly appreciating currency would be detrimental to the country’s exports.

One problem is that if Greece were to replace the euro with a new currency, this cannot be achieved very quickly. Banknotes must be printed for example, which takes up to six months. The changeover would likely require bank deposits be converted from euros to the new devalued currency. The prospect of this could lead to currency leaving the country and people withdrawing cash, causing a bank run and necessitating capital controls.

Administration and representation

Further information: European Central Bank, Eurogroup and Euro summit

The European Central Bank (seat in Frankfurt depicted) is the supranational monetary authority of the eurozone.

Euro Group President Jeroen Dijsselbloem
The monetary policy of all countries in the eurozone is managed by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Eurosystem which comprises the ECB and the central banks of the EU states who have joined the eurozone. Countries outside the eurozone are not represented in these institutions. Whereas all EU member states are part of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB). Non EU member states have no say in all three institutions, even those with monetary agreements such as Monaco. The ECB is entitled to authorise the design and printing of euro banknotes and the volume of euro coins minted, and its president is currently Mario Draghi.

The eurozone is represented politically by its finance ministers, known collectively as the Eurogroup, and is presided over by a president, currently Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The finance ministers of the EU member states that use the euro meet a day before a meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) of the Council of the European Union. The Group is not an official Council formation but when the full EcoFin council votes on matters only affecting the eurozone, only Euro Group members are permitted to vote on it.

Since the global financial crisis of 2007–08, the Euro Group has met irregularly not as finance ministers, but as heads of state and government (like the European Council). It is in this forum, the Euro summit, that many eurozone reforms have been decided upon. In 2011, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for these summits to become regular and twice a year in order for it to be a ‘true economic government’.

In April 2008 in Brussels, Juncker suggested that the eurozone should be represented at the International Monetary Fund as a bloc, rather than each member state separately: “It is absurd for those 15 countries not to agree to have a single representation at the IMF. It makes us look absolutely ridiculous. We are regarded as buffoons on the international scene.” However Finance Commissioner Joaquín Almunia stated that before there is common representation, a common political agenda should be agreed upon.

The Real Cause of Greece’s Economic Crisis

Today I came across this 2011 film review. Maybe it explains a bit more about what led to the crisis in Greece. Thanks for reblogging it, Stuart. I am going to reblog it now.

stuartbramhall's avatarThe Most Revolutionary Act

Debtocracy

(2011) Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou

Film Review

The 2011 Greek documentary Debtocracy effectively dispels the media myths about lazy Greek workers and and scofflaw Greek taxpayers being responsible for Greece’s present economic crisis.

The film begins with an overview of what its filmmakers (and I) feel has been a basic goal of both globalization and the creation of a single European currency – namely “labor discipline” and the suppression of wages in heavily unionized countries.

They show how sweeping deregulation in the industrialized world in the 1980s allowed manufacturers to eliminate unions by shutting plants down and reopening them as sweatshops in the third world. The subsequent creation of the Euro as a single currency allowed the central European countries (Germany and France) to use the mechanism of debt to weaken strong unions in peripheral Eurozone countries like Greece, Spain and Italy.

Thanks to relatively weak unions following…

View original post 555 more words

The Greek Crisis, an Article in THE CONVERSATION

Eurozone's shared identity the final tragedy of the Greek crisis

Wesley Widmaier, Griffith University

Economic policy is not a morality tale. The Greek tragedy is that the Europeans have treated the Greek crisis as a question of national character. In their outrage at the Greeks – in the context of broader view of austerity as the way out of the European crisis – they have not only weakened their collective economies, but also jeopardised the fate of the European experiment itself.

The risk is that the larger goal of the European project – to create a sense of shared identity – may be undermined by an incidental economic means to that end, in the creation of a euro – a mechanism of economic discipline.

The reasons for this tragedy go deep into European history. Coming out of World War II, European leaders decided nationalist excesses should never again be permitted to divide their people. They therefore sought to create a supranational union, one that would unite the continent in a common vision. In 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed the establishment of the original European Coal and Steel Community – the grandfather to the modern EU – as a way to “make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible”.

Ironically, given what the Euro has become, Schuman’s vision was never based on any commitments to “hard money” or free trade. Quite the opposite. The tragedies of the 1930s were widely attributed to a classical gold standard that had enforced austerity on the European people. As the European economies collapsed in the early 1930s, states were forced to cut spending and raise taxes – contributing to an ever-worsening slump.

In contrast, the point of the European Coal and Steel Community was to raise the prices of its members’ commodity and manufacturing exports. The ECSC would do this by enabling its initial six countries – most importantly, including France and Germany – to collude and fix coal and steel prices. In this sense, the early European ideal was not about free trade or convertible currencies – it was about enhancing the collective welfare as a means to political union.

Over the decades to follow, the economic dog nevertheless came to wag the collective welfare tail. As the German economy grew more important, German influences in European economic institutions would increase – leading to a shift toward more free market, hard money views. There were deep cultural reasons for this: German memories of the 1920s were of hyperinflation, while the German successes of the 1930s in using fiscal stimulus were repressed from collective memory, for obvious reasons.

The result would see European economic institutions – most notably the European Central Bank – evolve and place financial rectitude and monetary stability ahead of growth. This has been the case even when intellectual arguments for austerity – primarily as a means to limit inflation – make little sense, as the high unemployment of recent years has broken any link between fiscal deficits and inflation.

Large deficits absent full employment are not a problem – they are the solution, enabling revived growth. Greek austerity only makes Greek repayment more difficult, whatever one’s view of their pension system.

Over the past five years, the EU has taken what should have been a practical matter of economic policy – to run deficits during a recession – and turned it into a morality tale.

Internal Greek politics have nothing to do with the macroeconomic needs of the European Union – which would benefit from debt forgiveness across the continent to enable rising demand. On top of this economic malpractice, one can superimpose political error, as austerity politics have revived political extremism and nationalist sentiment across the continent. This is the very essence of a tragedy – as the postwar European dream may be undermined by incidental mechanisms established to bring it into being.

The Conversation

Wesley Widmaier is Australian Research Council Future Fellow at Griffith University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Articles in THE CONVERSATION about GREECE

https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/greece?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation+-+3059&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+-+3059+CID_fe3a29e66f3d3afbdfa29aebe856959d&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Greece%20topic%20page

Articles in THE CONVERSATION about GREECE

https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-warwick

The University of Warwick is one of the UK’s leading universities with an acknowledged reputation for excellence in research and teaching, for innovation, and for links with business and industry. Founded in 1965 with an initial intake of 450 undergraduates, Warwick now has in excess of 22,000 students and is ranked in the top 10 of all UK university league tables.

https://theconversation.com/now-the-greek-people-will-decide-why-tsipras-referendum-is-the-right-move-43974

Author Marianna Fotaki
Network Fellow, Edmond J Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University and Professor of Business Ethics at University of Warwick.

. . . . . .

The shrinking of the economy and rising unemployment levels have exceeded those that hit the US in the financial crisis of the 1930s.

The human and social costs have been even more staggering in Greece. Incomes have fallen by an average of 40%, and the unemployment rate reached 26% in 2014 (and higher than 50% for youth). With hundreds of thousands of people depending on soup kitchens, and thousands of suicides in the years 2010-2015, the moral case for debt forgiveness seems just as strong as the technical one based on economics.

The creditors’ offer

Yet in the terms presented to Greece by their creditors there is no commitment to reducing Greece’s crippling debt (which all commentators acknowledge is unrepayable). Nor is there any tangible proposal for rebuilding the Greek economy.

Germany, France, and the EU, aided by the IMF and ECB, continue to insist on implementing policies that have so manifestly failed Greece. They do so to avoid having to justify the massive bailouts of their own financial systems – shifting the burden from banks to taxpayers – if Greece fails to make the repayments.

. . . . .

Broken Europe

But the social and political costs of these policies have put the legitimacy of the entire European integration project in question. By being locked into austerity policies, Europe is tearing itself apart.

This brings to the fore the faulty institutional framework that has exacerbated these issues. European integration was conceived by a set of elites, while many EU citizens have never fully embraced the idea: the EU tends to be regarded as an economic entity rather than a cultural or social one. The “ever closer union” remains an aspiration, while EU institutions patch up compromises between its most powerful members.

The ill-thought and haphazard implementation of the common currency is perhaps the most costly compromise of all. The Greek government is therefore right to ask for generous debt relief to allow the economy to have a fresh start in exchange for reforms that will address the perennial problems of corruption and inequality that bedevil Greek society.

The right decision

Greece has many problems – including unfair taxation (64% of taxes are paid by salaried employees and pensioners), corrupt elites who have governed the country for at least four decades with fellow European governments repeatedly turning a blind eye to their flouting of rules, and the oligarch-owned media which are neither independent nor free. But accepting the bailout would only feed into the system that got Greece into this crisis.

Meanwhile, the newcomer to Greek politics, Syriza, has been told it will only receive the funds agreed under the previous bailout terms if it is ready to implement further policies that will decimate the poor and impoverish the middle class even more. Cutting pensions, many of which are already below the eurozone average when almost one in two of them are facing poverty, would be a mistake.

No country has ever succeeded in emerging from financial crisis by means of austerity. Further austerity would have made the impossibly bad situation that Greece is in worse still. In rejecting the creditors’ further demands, the Greek government stands for the working people of Greece – and Europe too.

Fear of Death

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/for-believers-fear-of-atheists-is-fueled-by-a-fear-of-death/

For believers, fear of atheists is fueled by a fear of death
THE CONVERSATION
18 JUN 2015 AT 06:29 ET

Scepticism about the existence of God is on the rise, and this might, quite literally, pose an existential threat for religious believers.

It’s no secret that believers generally harbor extraordinarily negative attitudes toward atheists. Indeed, recent polling data show that most Americans view atheists as “threatening,” unfit to hold public office and unsuitable to marry into their families.

But what are the psychological roots of antipathy toward atheists?

Historically, evolutionary psychologists argue that atheists have been denigrated because God serves as the ultimate source of social power and influence: God rewards appropriate behaviors and punishes inappropriate ones.

The thinking has gone, then, that believers deem atheists fundamentally untrustworthy because they do not accept, affirm and adhere to divinely ordained moral imperatives (ie, “God’s word”). Research has backed up the deep distrust believers feel toward atheists. For example, in one study, Canadian undergraduates, who are typically less religious than their US counterparts, rated atheists as more untrustworthy than Muslims – and just as untrustworthy as rapists!

Still, it hasn’t been clear why the leeriness of atheists is so profound. We decided to find out, and through two separate studies, discovered that believers’ overwhelming scorn of atheists may come from a surprising source: fear of death.

According to the terror management theory (TMT), human beings are unique in that we are self-aware and can anticipate the future. For the most part, these are highly beneficial cognitive adaptations. They allow us to formulate plans and foresee the consequences of our actions. But they also make us realize that death is inevitable and unpredictable.

These unwelcome thoughts give rise to a potentially paralyzing terror: the fear of death. This fear, then, is “managed” by embracing cultural worldviews – beliefs about reality that we share with others – that provide us with a sense of comfort. It could mean becoming involved in religions that espouse spiritual immortality, or by strongly valuing one’s national identity.

This process works the other way around, too: when confronted with threats to our cherished worldview beliefs, our protective “terror management” shield drops and our apprehension about death resurfaces.

We then cling to those beliefs more tightly, and respond more negatively to those who threaten us. For example, research shows that in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Islamic symbols increased thoughts of death in non-Muslim Americans. Likewise, concern for death increased hostility toward Islam.

So how do existential concerns about death relate to atheism?

Past research has shown that hostility toward atheists is partly driven by the fact that many perceive atheists as a threat to morals and values.

So we reasoned that if atheists threaten values, then they also likely threaten worldview beliefs.

We then hypothesized that atheists, simply by existing, would likely elicit intimations of mortality – which, in turn, would promote increased negativity toward atheists.

We tested this idea in two different experiments. In the first, we recruited 236 students from the College of Staten Island CUNY. We excluded the few participants who reported as atheist or agnostic, and we asked half of the remaining participants to answer two questions: “What do you think will happen to you as you physically die?” and “What are the emotions that the thought of death causes for you?” The other half responded to similar questions about being in extreme pain.

After thinking about either death or pain, half of the 236 participants were asked to provide their attitudes toward atheists, while the other half responded with their attitudes toward Quakers – a nonthreatening religious group. Participants reported their overall warmth, their levels of trust, and behavioral avoidance by indicating how they felt about these people “marrying into their family” or “working in their office.”

As expected, participants were more negative toward atheists overall than toward Quakers. More importantly, however, we found that thinking about death increased negativity toward atheists – but not toward Quakers.

Those who had pondered their own death showed less warmth, greater behavioral prejudice (also known as social distancing) and greater distrust toward atheists, while thoughts of death did not affect reactions toward Quakers, a fellow theistic group.

To read on please go to:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/for-believers-fear-of-atheists-is-fueled-by-a-fear-of-death/

An Article in The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/god-religion-and-fundamentalism-an-unholy-trinity-42326?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+

Dianna Theadora Kenny does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliati. She is Professor of Psychology and Music at University of Sydney. She wrote this article:

God, religion and fundamentalism: an unholy trinity
July 3, 2015 6.15am AEST

I think this article is well worth reading. To find it, please go to the above link!

Uta’s Diary, July 2015

DIGITAL CAMERA
DIGITAL CAMERA

I took this picture this morning. It is the first picture I have taken in a long time. I think all through June I never took a picture because my camera did not work anymore. Then I started using an older, smaller camera. This must have been in May. I loved walking around with this smaller camera taking pictures. All of a sudden this did not work any more either. It just would not open up, even though the battery was still full. So I gave up and just did not take any more pictures.

This morning Peter checked the little camera. Surprise, surprise, it opened up for him! Peter said, it was all right, I could use it for taking picture. When I took the above trial picture, it actually worked all right. So wish me luck, that my next pictures are going to be all right too.

There is a heatwave all over Europe right now, while we have very cold winter weather. At least it is not windy, and the humidity seems to have gone too. Right now it is beautiful sunny. The outside temperature has climbed to 13 Degrees Celsius. I should go for a walk. All morning I’ve had the heater on in the computer-room. So the temperature here has gone up to 19 C. (In the morning it was only 13 C inside and 8 C outside!)

For morning tea we had green tea with ginger, Vietnamese bread-rolls, Berliner Fleischwurst and lovely fresh radishes. For dinner we’re going to have fried fish, potatoes, cauliflower, broccoli, and sweet potato. From two o’clock on I am going to be at Marion’s place. Irene and Barbara are going to be there too. We are all neighbours. Every Friday afternoon we women have a games afternoon. We usually play one game of Scrabble, then we have a coffee/tea break, after which we play seven games of Rummy-Cub (A Rummy game with tiles instead of cards.)

Yesterday I found out something about the ‘anti-monopolist’ Landlord’s Game by BY LIZZIE J MAGIE. I did publish some of the rules. I would be interested in finding out exactly how it works. As I understand it, it is kind of based on a single tax system which Henry George had been writing about. In this Landlord’s Game with some anti-monopolist rules apparently no player ends up as a monopolist, also all players can play right to the end, only that the players end up with different amounts of money and this determines who the winner is. Maybe the players are allowed to cooperate with each other and no player is allowed to fall below subsistence level.

We are all familiar with Parker Brothers MONOPOLY Game. This works out quite differently, doesn’t it?

I better get ready now for my morning walk.

Landlord’s Game or Monopoly?

Some time ago Harper’s Magazine wrote about the antimonopolist history of the world’s most popular board game.

You can look it up here:

http://harpers.org/blog/2012/10/monopoly-is-theft/?single=1

I was especially interested in finding out what “Anti-Monpolist” rules had been suggested!

http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/lg-1906.html

THE LANDLORD’S GAME
PATENTED JAN 5, 1904.  NO 748628 BY LIZZIE J MAGIE.

E C O N O M I C  G A M E  C O,  N E W  Y O R K.

NOTE TO READERS: The origianl rule set was OCR scanned; however, I did not fully proof
them prior to posting. There are some spelling errors that need corrected. This will be corrected.
If you have questions about any errors you find please email me at landlordsgame@gmail.com

THE MONARCH OF THE WORLD.

The Landlord’s Game is based on present prevailing business methods.  This the players can prove for themselves; and they can also prove what must be the logical outcome of such a system, i.e., that the land monopolist has absolute control of the situation.  If a person wishes to prove this assertion — having first proven that the principles of the game are based on realities — let him do so by giving to one player all of the land and giving to the other players all other advantages of the game.  Provide each player with $100 at the start and let the game proceed under the rules with the exception that the landlord gets no wages.  By this simple method one can satisfy himself of the truth of the assertion that the land monopolist is monarch of the world.  The remedy is the Single Tax.

THE SINGLE TAX.

If the players wish to prove how the application of the Single Tax would benefit everybody by equalizing and opportunities and raising wages, they may at any time during the game put the single tax into operation by a vote of at least two of the players.

RULES.Players were left in possession of their holdings and, with the exception that the Title Deeds are of no value, the gain goes on as before under the following rules:

RULE 1.    Pay no taxes on Absolute Necessities.

RULE 2.   All land rent is paid into the public treasury to be used for public improvements.  (Begin game under single tax with empty PUBLIC TREASURY.)

RULE 3.    All railroad fares and franchise rates are paid to the individual owners as before until the public takes control of them (see Rule 6), when they are FREE.

RULE 4.    When a player stops upon an unimproved lot (except Government Reservations, see following rule) he first pays the full land rent into PUBLIC TREASURY, and then, if he so desires and can afford it, he may improved the lot by erection of a house thereon.  But if the space upon which he has stopped is already improved by another player’s house, he first pays the full land rent into the PUBLIC TREASURY and then pays the full house rent to the owner of the house.  If that anytime a player has money to invest, he may, in his turn, erect a house on anyunimproved lot he chooses, whether his checker is on that space or not, provided no other player bids against him for the privilege of building there.

The “bid” money (or rent) is paid into the PUBLIC TREASURY.

RULE 5.    HOGG”S GAME PRESERVES and LORD BLUEBLOOD’S ESTATE are supposed to be reserved by the Government for Free College sites (see part c, Rule 6), and until the colleges are erected a player whose throw brings him upon one of the use spaces is trespassing and must go to JAIL.

RULE 6.  (a) When the cash in the PUBLIC TREASURY from land rents and fines amounts to $50 it is paid to the holder of the SOAKUM LIGHTING SYSTEM charter for the purchase of the plant, which is then owned and operated by the public, (the change to public ownership being by condemnation, excluding value of right of way).  The card is returned to the pack, and henceforth the Lighting System space is free to all players.  If the card is still in the pack the $50 is paid into the MISCELLANEOUS pile.

(b) When the cash in the PUBLIC TREASURY amounts to $50 more, go through the same process with SLAMBANG TROLLEY; then P.D.Q.R.R.; then GEE WIZZ R. R., and so on around the board until all the railroads are free.

(c) Then when the cash in the PUBLIC TREASURY amounts to $50 more it is put into the MISCELLANEOUS pile from which a Free College is taken and placed on LORD BLUEBLOOD’S ESTATE and the jail penalty is annulled.

(d) When the cash in the PUBLIC TREASURY amounts to $50 more it is transferred to the MISCELLANEOUS pile and WAGES ARE RAISED TO $110.  When the cash amounts to $50 more, wages are raised to $120, and so on, raising wages $10 for every $50 in the TREASURY, until the end of the game.

RULE 7.    After the first FREE COLLEGE is erected, if a player goes to college he takes a blue card marked Education and when he gets four of these cards he exchanges them for a card marked Professor, which card counts him 100 at the end of the game.

RULE 8.    Under the Single Tax the Poor House is eliminated because all players have access to land — the natural opportunities to labor.    If a player cannot afford to make the move called for by his thrown, he puts his checker upon any NATURAL OPPORTUNITY space (inner corners) he may choose, back of the space to which is throw would bring him.  Then just before throwing in his next turn he takes from the MISCELLANEOUS pile the wages called for by the NATURAL OPPORTUNITY space upon which he has placed his checker, pays his rent for such space into the PUBLIC TREASURY, throws his dice, and moves out.  A player must make the move, if possible, even if it takes him to JAIL