Socialism or capitalism - Big government is a consequence, Small government an objective

Look at what they do NOT what they say!

Socialism or Capitalism - it is one of the central discussion points these days. Socialist too form a broad spectrum - from Bernie Sanders to AOC to Elizabeth Warren. The capitalist are not yet vocal but many are simply dismissive of the left-leaning neo-politics. But are there really left-right differences? Not too much. And I say that as I look at what they do NOT what they say.

Governments get bigger

The basic aim of government at the formation of Amercian revolution was twofold - Army formed protection force protecting citizens from outsiders AND legislation, police, courts system formed Law and Order for resolving disputes among citizens.

Gradually government came to provide diverse services - education, healthcare, insurance, subsidies, legislation and regulation of various industries. Each of these activities has grown in scale over the past 100 years. 

When you want government to take up more responsibility then you will end up with a big government. 

Big government = MORE TAXES

First objective of taxes is to pay for the government. In some countries the salary expenditures of government account for more than 50% of the total expenditure of the government. This is not counting the maintenance cost and other regular expenses government has to incur just to exist. = MORE TAXES.

Then all these people employed by the government have to do something. Even if they do nothing and just make presentations they consume a lot of money. That requires even more budgets = MORE TAXES.

To make it worse usually they add to procedure and impose cost on society. They prevent innovation. They make it their responsibility to say NO. That stops entrepreneurs before they can create value. It means MORE HIDDEN TAXES.

It all eventually leads to more taxes.

 

Big Government attracts big responsibility

People have started viewing government as a provider. Governments have encouraged that view. In effect whatever we want to get done, we want government to do it. We would like universal health care, you ask government. You want insurance for all - you ask government.

When governments become bigger, governance becomes difficult. Hence laws turn into fine prints, every step of industry is managed by dozens of legal clauses. Compliance becomes a cost.

Big government is a consequence - Small government is an objective

We need to prune governments regularly. On one level that means improving productivity of government servants. But on other level we need to reinvent our systems to be designed for less government.  But remember, no matter what they say, they will increase the size of government AND they will increase taxes AND they will default towards socialism.

To prevent it we must actively reinvent the system to stay on the money. We shall discuss how in subsequent posts.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

One problem with Indian capital risk return matrix

One problem with Indian corporate and their regulation can be summed up in the chart below.

Ideally a simplistic capital risk return matrix looks like this (click picture for larger version). In the best of places it comes close to this. Note that this is a simplistic depiction.

Ideal Capital Risk-return matrix

In India, it looks like this:

Indian Capital Risk return matrix

This is law enforcement issue as well as information issue. There is lack of regulation on conflict of interest between promoters and investors (small and big), there are many issues related to corporate governance. There is paucity of information to ratings agencies and these days the rating rigour is under a cloud with intense competition.

The chart also tells us why India does not have a deep bond market. Since my days in CRISIL, we have been harping on the improving the depth of bond markets. But so long as the risk-return profile continues there are no incentives for it.

The dispute resolution mechanism is abysmal. It is particularly unwieldy, long winding, costly and infructuous in the end. This has hurt investment in the country. Once this is fixed India will have unprecedented growth in equity and bond investments.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

About Australian banks and Australian property

John Hempton highlights something interesting today about resignation of top Australian Bankers.

Back in 2016 John Hempton and Jonathan Tepper of Variant Perception conducted research by personally meeting with the real estate brokers and seeking apartments to buy. In a sort of reply of scenes from the Big Short, they found banks wanting on the paperwork, mortgages being sold to those with questionable ability to repay. You can read some media reports about this here, here or here.

Today John Hempton wrote about recent firing in light of the final report of the Royal commission into banking and detailed allegation therein. John Hempton says:

Anyway come the Royal Commission Dr Henry talked to the Commission in a frank and open way about the problems. It was Dr Henry being Dr Henry: honest, competent, and realistic.

It came off badly. I remember the grilling he got from the Royal Commission and understood what was happening. It was clear that what was required from the Royal Commission was kowtow, rather than honest frank discussion. Dr Henry looked bad even though he was probably the single most reliable and honest witness the banks put up.

The Royal Commissioner made specific findings against Dr Henry and Andrew Thornburn. This surprised me because on my research National Australia Bank was the best of a bad lot, both in absolute level of moral decay and in direction.

The report quotes Dr. Henry and Thorburn in many places. The transcripts do not show Dr. Henry in good light. The transcript indicates that possibly Dr. Henry took this too lightly. He did not do any homework. A deposition once you are sworn in is a serious business. I do not sympathize with Dr. Henry.

The transcript of some others reveal that they kept repeating from jargon books and PR manuals. To that extent whatever their deep rooted ills did not come out. 

Implication for property market

There are two fundamental issues with the housing and mortgage markets. 

First the search for yields and the quantum of capital available makes real estate the best asset class to absorb the QE effects. It is doing precisely that. So some of the price appreciation is attributable to this. The macro policies have created this asset builders boom - create an asset and sell it to REIT type holders at ludicrous cap rates without any regard to final consumer.

Second, the problems in mortgages are of banks creation. As banks search for return in a tight market they have crossed the limits. The crisis in Australian banks is part of continuum that includes Wells Fargo opening accounts for customers to US sub-prime crisis. It may not be as acute but it is part of the same class.

Learnings for Commissions in India

The commission for banking has its website and documentation spot on. I urge Indian commissions to maintain such kind of records open for public scrutiny.

---

 Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Questionable Promoters' action

Deepak Shenoy from CapitalMind has an excellent blog and website. His post today titled Jubilant Backtracks From Paying Promoters For Brand They Don’t Really Use deals with some questionable actions by the Bhartias. Below are edited quotes from that article.

Jubilant Foodworks and Jubilant Life Sciences in a board meeting, they proposed a 0.25% royalty on consolidated sales for using the “Jubilant” name , to each of the companies.

To give you a perspective Jubilant Foodworks is franchisee operator for Dominos and Dunkin Donuts both well known US brands. Jubilant Life Sciences is a pharma company in generics and contract manufacturing.

The article further details various business groups doing this activity in some form or other. The two prominent ones that are missed in that discussion are the Aditya Birla Group and Kingfisher. Here are some from the article:

• Royalty from listed companies - 
• Colgate from Colgate India (4.8% of turnover) 
• Unilever from HUL (3.15%), 
• Dominoes from Jubilant Foodworks (~3%), 
• JSW Steel to Wife of Promoter (INR 1.25 billion)
• Tata from Tata companies using Tata name (0.25%) 
• Tata from Tata companies not using Tata names (0.15%)
• Muthoot group
• Shriram group
• Wadias (intending) from Britannia Industries
• Loans to promoters later written off
• Network 18
• DHFL (Alleged)
• Merging promoter companies with listed ones at unclear valuations
• Satyam
• JPAssociates
• LEEL
• Eon electric (attempted)
• Vedanta
•  
• Financing Promoter lifestyle
• Raymond - maintaining Raymond House

I do not like these kinds of "promoter earnings". You are either a promoter or an employee - don't be both. These should come within the purview of related party transactions irrespective of their materiality.

---

 Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Law and Order - The missing reform

Manas Chakravarty has an article in Mint title IBC Ordinance a blow against the Promoter Raj. It talks about new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code reform.That raises some prospects of execution problems.

I think Modi government faces lot of execution problems because it has not acted to root out corruption. Here is my solution I wrote for Moneylife. Do have a read and leave a comment.

Notes:

World Bank report on Reform in Georgia

---

 Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Demonetisation - What if deposits in banks are greater than 15 Lac Crores?

On November 28th the Reserve Bank of India stated that

Banks have since reported that such exchange/deposits effected from November 10, 2016 upto November 27, 2016 amounted to ₹ 8,44,982 crore (exchange amounted to ₹ 33,948 crore and deposits amounted to ₹ 8,11,033 crore). They have also reported that the public have withdrawn, during this period, ₹ 2,16,617 crore from their accounts either over the counter or through ATMs.

The expectation was that thereafter the RBI will release similar data every Monday. On Dec. 5th, when RBI did not release the data for the week past, speculation was rife that most of the money may have actually returned to the RBI. And further that it amounts to a failure of the policy and that there is no black money at all. 

The amount forecasted / estimated by sources of journalists is Rs. 12.6 Trillion. has been deposited in banks till Dec 6. Total bank notes in circulation as of Nov. 8 was about Rs. 15 Trn. We still have about 3 weeks to go. 

The correct way to establish how much money has returned is to look at this 8.44 Tr figure. That is the focus. 

So weekly average is about Rs. 2.8 Trn as per RBI and as per Moneycontrol it is about  Rs. 3.15 Trn per week. Going by the same run-rate estimates we can get at least Rs. 19.64 Trn to Rs. 22.46 Tr. If you understand the "last-minute" psyche of Indians, I think last week will get at least twice the weekly deposits. Then you will get between Rs. 22.4 Tr to Rs. 25.2 Tr. 

Please note that these numbers are more than Rs. 5Tr  to Rs. 10 Tr more than what RBI has printed. 

So here are my thoughts on this:

1. It is OK if all the money comes back to the RBI and either gets changed or deposited in the banks. It means there won't be any disinflation because of loss of currency. 
2. If money is deposited in the bank that does not make it white money. It merely becomes visible black money as opposed to invisible black money. Knowledge of the quanta so revealed that itself is a benefit. Further, it is open for authorities to review and tax these proceeds accordingly. So it is ok if the deposits reach Rs. 15 Tr. 
3. The problem is what happens when the total deposits/exchanged amount exceeds Rs. 15 Trn. Once it reaches 15 Trn can RBI tell banks now don't accept any more notes? Or it accepts and asks Government to pay (reverse of dividend)? [Please refer to my previous blog-post on Black money and demonetisation before demonizing me.]
4. I would say, the fact that entire Rs. 15 Trn comes back itself means that the problem of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) was more potent than was admitted previously. If our run-rate calculations turn out correctly, FICN could be between 33% and 66% of legitimate Indian Notes. That is not a joke. It is also a success of the Demonetisation drive.
5. I would say about 20-25% of the notes would have been definitely destroyed. But given the tax amnesty announced let us assume about 10-15% were destroyed. The black economy was estimated at 20-25%. Assuming some can be dissipated as white (through jan-dhan and other tricks) we can say at least 10% would be black. Still about 20% of the currency in circulation could be FICN. Compare this with estimates of about 2-5%. 

To top it all Modi did not ask for 50 days to clean up the black money he asked for 17 months. So there will be more action coming. This will be interesting, to say the least.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Capitalism V Democracy - Yanis Varoufakis

Yesterday, I saw the TED talk by Yanis Varoufakis (linked below) titled Capitalism will eat democracy: unless we speak up. It is quite a watch so I embed it here.

His suggestion is that we have to choose between a Matrix like dystopia v/s a Star Trek like utopia. The primary observation is that unbridled capitalism will ensure that the democracy works for the super rich but not for the poor. I agree with him as an assessment of the present state of affairs. But that does not cover the issue fully.

Capitalism can eat democracy but what about the reverse?
While it is true that democracy cannot eat up capitalism, politicians can. We have it happening right now - in India, China, Russia etc. These politicians become businessmen and plunder the country. This is no true politics but predatory politics can impair the la and order machinery to quickly discend into anarchy.

Crony capitalism v servile democracy v servile capitalism
Crony capitalism is a misnomer. A crony means friend - sort of an equal. But this is not a relationship between equals.

The government officers and politicians are eager to serve the capitalist. When chairman or office bearers of NRA speak they listen - not both sides listen but enough people on both sides listen. If Zuckerberg or Paige or Dimon or Buffet were to say something both parties will listen. I read somewhere that 80% of 2013 US presidential election funding was made by 150 odd individuals. Please tell me their views carry the same weight as mine. This is servile democracy. Yanis Varoufakis talked about Larry Summers (in other talk in Austin) telling him that if he becomes an insider then he will be given magical things. That is servile democracy not crony capitalism. This is a rich man trying to train a dog with dog biscuits.

There is other side to this too. In India businessmen are servile and politicians are the lord-masters. Things have changed - but not too much. It is easy to scuttle a truly new challenger to established business houses. If you take the paper spending on infrastruture - India can have better infrastructure than the very best countries in Europe - may be twice over. This is servile capitalism. There are whole networks that have come up around these politicians to create extortionist "business models".

Where will the fight between capitalism and democracy lead us is anybody's guess! But one thing is clear.

Capitalism and Democracy as competing systems

Capitalism and democracy are said to be collaborating or complementing systems. But we should start thinking of capitalism (more specifically markets) and democracy (specifically government) as both competing and complementing systems together. They both allow the masses to exercise their opinions. Marktes allows the individual to exercise it through buying i.e. through markets, democracy allows him to exercise it by voting in a government.

Now buying is something we do almost every day. Thus, we this part of the system is more evolved, sensitive. This system is also keenly improving itself to make sure the customer preferences are communicated to the top - it is thus more efficient than the political system. But let us remember they can be inefficient too.

The political system works like a broken market system. Here the opinion or choice of majority is forced on everyone. Imagine if markets worked like democracy - everyone may be forced to wear XXL size blue man shirt (coz majority favours it). 

By now you must think that they operate in different spheres and so it is not a problem. But it is! Notice that the burden on government to make itself more palatable to all of its citizens not just the majority is quite high. It is higher than the burden on market to service all types of demand. That is because there is an alternative when market fails to understand the opinion of minority - some niche player can fill it. In case of government - there is no niche player alternative. Therefore, Government must be held accountable more than the capitalist. And it must uphold the rule of lawso as to ensure capitalism is working smoothly.

Just think - marxism is actually a response to servile politics impairing the demands of working class (the proletarait) by the capitalist (bourgeoisie) who were friends of politicians/rulers. Then the Soveit collapse was actually a response to the politicians exploiting the political system to their economic advantage. In some way reverse of the first wave.

So the point is...

We need a mechanism to ensure the bargaining power between capitalism and democracy is maintained. Without such a mechanism we may end up in some trap or the other.

---

The ideas expressed in this post first appeared in my book  Subverting Capitalism and Democracy. Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms". 

Why is resolving Non-Performing Loans (NPL) is so difficult?

The management/resolution of NPLs has acquired renewed focus with banking sector under stress for many years. The Economist comments on it this time about Italy's NPL problem. More significant is the commentary on various approaches, IMF recommendations, KKR's Pillarstone initiative etc. making it a must read. But it misses some quite important issues with respect to NPLs in general.

Failure of NPL liquidation - some blame lies with Accountants

The PwCs, EYs, Deloittes and their ilk must take some blame. Many of the bad loans have accounting folly at its heart - some deliberate and some not, some before loans are made and some after. Time and again, accounting firms have washed their hands off their audit responsibility and liabilities arising therefrom. Recently some firm has sued PwC for their failure to report material issues. If auditors completely trust the company managements they are auditing, then the purpose of the audit is not satisfied. 

The shady entrepreneurs

The proportion of shady, shifty characters in this distressed assets pool is quite high. Some distressed loan assets are deliberately impaired on the books for tax fraud or money laundering. Data mining algorithms cannot detect this - even analyst cannot easily detect this. Such frauds have to be sniffed out - at least till Artifical intelligence becomes more robust.

Slow courts and costly Alternate Dispute resolution (Arbitration, mediation etc.) mechanisms

Invariably, a fair proportion of the distressed asset pool goes for legal resolution. NPL problems are higher in countries with weaker judicial controls, higher cost dispute resolution. The process of dispute resolution quickly unravels both the ability to pay and gives a remarkbly clear insight as to the intention to repay. However if the process is too slow and too costly, it defeats the purpose. This is a problem in Italy and also in India.

Much blame lies on Incompetent Banks

The substantial blame though must lie with the bankers:

1. Lack of accounting analysis skills: Many banks which make loans cannot make proper assessment of accounting statements. Data mining algorithms are good at assessing the "ability to pay". They cannot assess the "intention to pay". Lack of Intention to Pay has created many NPLs.
2. Illogical the use of collaterals: Banks are notorious in having collateral that is highly correlated with loan asset itself, over-valued or pledged in part to many. This is a childish mistake to make for a professional setup. At times, an intellectually superior form of syndicated lending (the whole syndicate holds one collateral) is used. When trouble strikes the legal disputes arise within the syndicate itself. 
3. Poorly-constructed contracts with borrowers: Such contracts make the payments unpredictable in quantum and timing thus surprising the borrower. It quickly cascades into penalties and surcharges and it goes downhill from there.
4. Too Centralized decision making as to loan eligibility: Most borrower eligibility tests are done centrally these days. Thus it leaves no incentive for the bank manager / officer to dig deeper into the borrower's records. It makes the incentives wrongly aligned.
5. Flawed loan portfolio construction: Loan portfolios are too correlated This is a result of too much market focus. Banks push certain products that they find easy to sell - consumer loans, credit cards, personal loans etc. When the lending starts concentrating they do not quickly take corrective actions to balance the portfolio. If the banks' entire portfolio comes under stress at the same time, it cascades into more distress.

Basics of borrower assessment

Any borrower assessment has two component - ability to pay AND the commitment or the intention to pay. Sometimes the last two differentiated. The ability to pay is well understood which refers to  the capacity to bear the repayment of the loans. The intention to pay tries to determine if the borrower intends to cheat or not. The commitment to pay points to whether the borrower intends to pay  but disputes the computation of the payment and hence may have withheld the payments - committed but not paying, or the borrower does not intend to pay at all and is finding loopholes to delay the foreclosure process.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms". 

Free Trade - or no free Trade - either ways it ain't free!

Econgirl commented about the latest free-trade issue.  It is a must read - continue down to the comments too! Then David Henderson commented about it on his blog and the comments where @econgirl responded to his question. All must read in the overall dialogue about free trade.

There are a few things that need consideration:

1. The losers of free-trade - how adaptable they remain after they lose: In many cases, these people are lost - this is a political price we are paying. Thus, a $10 gain per-consumer v/s say a total job loss of 10,000 people (hypothetical primary loss) usually it remains concentrated (think Detroit) and second and third order economic losses. Now in monetary terms, the gain-loss may be whatever, but when a group of people loses their livelihood without any margin or buffer to create new opportunities for themselves, then it makes for a difficult choice.
2. The initial condition is responsible for the losers being as many as they currently are: If the trade was always free, the adjustment would have taken place a long time ago, giving the population enough margin to adjust. However, the governments by their initial protectionist intervention create a bigger adjustment problem in the future. When a competency develops in a country, the government rallies behind the firms with the very policies which later accumulate into a bigger problem. The adjustment to new potential trade-based threat can be innovation or it can be defeat. The auto-industry failed to innovate - something Tesla did, Ford and GM should have done years ago. But those are victims of their own success. At present, China is funding auto-tech companies to bring out a competitor to Tesla. 
3. Free trade - v/s Fair trade: Indeed some countries do "dump" products on to other markets. At the same time, some countries do use "non-tariff barriers" for the protection of domestic industry. When is the "fire-sale" not dumping and when "non-tariff barriers" are not protectionist can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. This ambiguity is used to target Free-trade unfairly. 
4. Economic V/s moral - politics enters through morality: Can we allow some trade partner using slave labour to create losses in our country? Economics says why not, morality says no. Blood diamonds are an example. That is where politics comes in. So while overall benefits of free trade may be high - the morality over why the government should not choose one set over other is a strong political motive against change of status quo. Of course people selectively forget that it was government intervention that helped the problem to get bigger.

So in an ideal case:

• Free Trade is the default. Government has no business interfering in that unless some moral issue arises. The scope of these issues are pretty narrow - slavery etc.
• Countries should progressively move all policy towards sector neutrality - including trade policy. Thus, a government would be right to have 50% markup over all goods/services entering the country/sold in the country without discrimination.
• Then let this state continue and let governments step away from the issue altogether. (more on this in another post).

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms". 

The Boring Banking Industry?

Two of the leading voices in finance Frances Coppola and Yves Smith are in a disagreement - sort of a pseudo-disagreement if you ask me - over whether banking should be boring or not. The question itself is the reason for the confusion. Banking should be boring was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren too.

I think Banking should be my kind of boring. By boring I mean two things - it should not be unnecessarily complex, and it should be capable to meet the complexity inherent in banking. Retail banking is not boring - for wrong reasons. It confounds the public with products that are too complex for their needs. At the same time, the back end that supports these products (read - corresponding asset liability matching mechanism, hedging etc.) is not as sophisticated. Investment banking on the other hand is too boring - meaning it does the complex shit right but it passes that shit to people who have no clue without retaining any skin in the game. 

Banking has multiple facets:

First there is a probability management that allows banks to take deposits for different terms and make loans for different terms and manage the asset-liability gap. This is similar to the insurance industry managing premiums and payouts. A smaller part of this is managing float which is a skill by itself. This is more like extremely short term trading.

The second aspect of banking is your ability to make loans that will pay a decent return without going bust. It is often known as the essence of banking. Borrowers whetting, background checks, credit history check etc. forms part of this aspect of banking.

Third aspect of banking is about sales of a variety of investment products. Here the retail staff of the bank tries to meet its sales targets by selling complex investment products to unsuspecting customers. The customers, most often, are meeting these sales-people to get some transaction done - they are not there to seek investment products.

Fourth aspect is support services which can be totally outsourced. This aspect covers your cheque-book issuances, mailing the account statements, keeping the personal records up to date. Issuing certificates for taxes, etc. On the asset side - it deals with record keeping, and procedural stuff. It is fairly automated and most customers can be empowered to do it themselves as well.

Understanding banking:

We cannot classify banking into retail and investment banking and expect to gain any new understand. We need to cut banking up into two chunks - transaction management and investment management.

Transaction management should be boring - like telephone exchanges or something. It should simply be WYSIWYG. It is also similar to McDonalds - it is basic and simple but you need to have skills to pull of the quick delivery at low cost. Meaning it is more a function of skill (can be acquired by repetition) than expertise (research, experience and insight are essential)

On the flip side, the investment management side should be complex. Now loans are debt investments and so is float. Selling investment products is as different from transaction management as chalk and cheese. You need experts to sell those products and ensure that they are not mis-sold. This part has been wrongly simplified. This part requires expertise.

What is boring?
Currently what is boring is selling investment products - which shouldn't be. Most people I know - yes most - do not understand the risks with any of the investment products they buy. It can be insurance policies, term deposits, mutual funds, debt funds, real estate or whatever.

Now basic risk management tells us that just because you buy different products does not mitigate your risks - sometimes your risks may go up. This risk compounding is not even understood by the practitioners let alone the customers. The sellers of these products, to use a popular phrase, get a salary to not understand them.

Now credit cards and over-drafts are not simple transaction management products. They are in fact loan products and deserve to be sold professionally. Most of the unnecessary complexity lies here. People who go for credit cards do not understand the terms of loan they are entering - and Warren has highlighted it time and again. Same goes with OD - while it is not as bad as credit card terms - hereto people do not understand what they are getting into.

There is quite a bit of complexity in term deposit side as well. If we really examine, most of the depositors do not make as much from their deposits as they should. The optimisation is never explained and never understood. It is in the interest of banks that depositors do not understand this - CASA (current account - savings account) helps keep the cost of capital low.

These cannot be boring - quite the opposite. These issues need to be explained - some by the banks selling these products, others by general education.

What is not boring?
Conversely, the transaction management is unnecessarily complicated. Real time settlement should have been a norm now - yet banks do enjoy settlement floats on many payment mechanisms. These represent the money the banks use after the debit the account and before they credit the account of the beneficiary.

One source of complications in transaction is authentication and identification. These cannot be eliminated as they exist to keep your bank account safe. However, all other sources of complexity are available for simplification.

Transaction fees are pretty complex, sometimes they are waived other times you get charged for using some facility during a holiday or something like that.


In sum
Banking is simple and complex at the same time - just not in the right places. It is time to rewire banking - simplify it just as much as required and no more.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Austerity V/s Stimulus, Government Spending and Greece

Sometimes it is worth repeating something that is actually right. Let me say this again:

Stimulus works best when you need to push-start the demand engine. Note that it implies that stimulus won't do the work of engine - it will only push-start it. The engine must be in working condition otherwise. 


Austerity works best when Government borrowing is crowding out private investment. Usually Government is borrowing too much because it is spending too much. New investment is required to put a new engine in place.


In Greece's case - their engine is not working and their Government is spending a bit more than required. A combination is required when economy stalls - i.e. Government must reallocate/realign the spending targeting it into essential things. It also needs to increase spending once the new "engines" are set up. 

In a nutshell - neither Austerity nor stimulus alone will work in Greece's case. A combination of sane reforms and practical stimulus is required. Till such time...

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

The Role of Regulators and Regulation

One of the critical findings of the sub-prime and subsequent crisis is about role of regulation.

The role of regulations is to balance the lop-sided accumulation of bargaining power against the citizenry. Specifically, where the interaction is between firms (organizations) and ordinary citizens, the nature and language of regulation becomes important as the firms actively try to usurp bargaining power against ordinary citizens. 

The job of regulator, as against regulation, is to be hyper-responsive in protecting the balance in bargaining power equations. Regulator, as against regulation, is speedier and active element introduced into the system to prevent the speedier innovations from disrupting the intended effect of regulations (which are rather hesitant to change).

Here is Senator Elizabeth Warren trying to force this concept on regulators who have become guard dogs of industry they regulate.

I have written along similar lines in my book "Subverting Capitalism and Democracy - Systemic faults that caused the financial crisis."

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

What is speculation?

Don Boudreaux, in a smart alecy way tries to equate oil speculators with families stocking up in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy. David Henderson adds his own two cents on the matter but to his credit asks a question about what is real speculation. The defense of speculation is classic example of misdirection. Both are notoriously guilty of this in quite a few of their posts. Though I attribute it lack of understanding of personal method rather than actual mala fide intent as Don also leans against anti-dumping duties.

Argument by misdirection

To understand the misdirection, imagine where speculation as a scale. To its leftmost end, it was a response to an event that does not affect the event itself while to its right the speculation is so large that it was an event in itself. 

People who decry speculation aim towards right and attack there. People who defend speculation aim toward left and voice traditional arguments applicable to that side. And when I say both are right, people get confused with my stance.

Understanding Speculation

Now all households stocking up en masse for calamity (such as Hurricane Sandy) will be an event in itself so this type of speculation comes somewhere closer to the middle but slightly to the left of middle.

On the extreme right, speculators intend to create the shortage and price push because of scarcity. Now the question is can we say that group of investors following technical trading strategies piling on a rising price trend are "intending to cause shortage"? The answer in most cases is no. This phenomenon falls in middle-right but not extreme right.

In rare cases speculation moves to extreme right by group-think and intellectual capture and results in harm to general public.

Regulating Speculation
Purist view is that speculation on extreme right must be banned while those at extreme left can be allowed. Now preventive regulation will start at extreme right and stop long before it reaches right of middle. However, relatively, the speculation in second part can be more justifiable than speculation in first part.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Uncomplicate the Taxes

High sovereign debt implies increase in taxes in the near future. However, Barack Obama, who wanted to raise taxes, is facing stiff resistance from the Republicans. So also

There are specific problems with our tax system 

First, it is very difficult to calculate the best tax rate or the lowest tax one can pay through the system. Second, taxes have unintended consequences. They sometimes promote or prevent marriages, home purchases, bigger cars, etc. Government has no business interfering with the lives of taxpayers in such a way. Third, taxes are unfair. The rich often pay lower taxes than the poor. Fourth, there is no way to measure return on taxes just as we measure return on capital. Finally taxes are high because they are paying for over-regulation by government or they are paying for large governments.

Better simplify the tax system

It might be better if tax was simplified into just one tax, either on income or consumption. Incomes should not be classified according to their sources. All incoming cash flow should be treated as income. There should be no part exemption what so ever. Government can define a level of income below which tax rate is nil. Above that income, taxes should be at one single rate. The only flexibility in policy will be to determine what rate should be.

The common argument is about the beneficial taxes on cigarettes. Those are not taxes. Those are penalties imposed on cigarette manufacturers for damaging lives of people. Those should be recovered as penalties and directed towards treatment of heart and lung diseases.

Tax filing has been made easy. What is difficult is to figure how much tax we have to pay. That has to be easier. We need to protect individuals from complexity in taxes. Just like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) is trying to simplify credit card agreements, it should also simplify tax calculations.

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.

The Problem of Regulation

The regulatory juggernaut has slowly and eventually reached the gates of wall street.

Regulation, it appears, needs to tackle three issues. First, it should clarify the parties involved. In other words, regulation clarifies attribution or ownership. Secondly, it defines the action required. Finally, it defines the timing for the action. The rest of regulation merely defines the referee and the incentive structure to encourage or prevent the actions. Any regulation without these parts is open to be hijacked or misinterpreted. 

Regulation must clearly specify the action that should or should not be taken by the participants. In most cases, regulation must be designed to rebalance the bargaining power equation. The objective is to prevent the stronger player from taking advantage of the weaker player. The consumer financial protection agency is ideally defining such actions. This part often suffers from necessary and sufficient condition dilemma.

Necessary condition and sufficient conditions are best understood through the example of fire. The existence of fuel, air (or oxygen to be specific) and a spark are necessary conditions for a fire. However existence of a fire is sufficient to prove existence of fuel, air and the spark. Regulators often go to depths defining necessary conditions but often do not define the sufficient condition. Over time, the necessary conditions increase as new special cases are discovered. It makes the regulation unwieldy and creates loopholes in the regulatory paradigm. 

However, just defining the sufficient condition leaves the law ambiguous. This is the type of ambiguity that Paul Volcker likes. However, in the wrong hands such an ambiguity corrupts the system.

---

Excerpt from my book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon.