Theme: Subsidy

  • On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:25 PM

    —“Thank you! I guess I have to unlearn the libertarian notion that fiat currencies are always some kind of fraud or manipulation game. Would there be bailouts for banks under the propertarian government?”— Niklas Wagner

    Great question. 1) Fiat currencies are an exception innovation in monetary technology as is digital (electronic) transfer of interests rather than physical currency or money. However, with that graet innovation comes (and came) great opportunity for hideous corruption. The federal reserve (like the bank of England) is incompatible with fiat money, and incompatible with electronic money. In other words, all that interest should be accumulating in the hands of the INSURER (the treasury). And worse, there is no reason to use the banking system and interest to distribute money (increase the money supply). Imagine the government putting out a trillion dollars, and the banks offering you 5x on that money so that they could lend it out at 6-15x to commercial institutions? You see. I think sh-t thru. 😉 This would make a very awesome economic system. 2) As for ‘bailouts’…. We would still have the treasury take over banks. Taking over a bank and liquidating the creditors and shareholders is not ‘bailing it out’. Most banks were not bailed out – they were taken over. Only the big banks were bailed out. We only ‘bailed out’ the big banks because the treasury does not own the cash distribution network (ATM’s etc) This would have lead to world economic collapse. We did not however punish anyone and liquidate shareholders. That should have been done. Furthermore we did not do as I recommended, and Galbraith recommended and a few others timidly, which was simply to pay down everyone’s mortgage by as much as 200k, which would have f—ked the financial sector by externality and ended the crisis immediately. It also would have corrected housing prices. It was an obvious solution. But no. Politicians were involved and the financial sector was involved. Instead of saving the middle class we burned the middle class. Thankfully it’s reversible. Under P-constitution banks would be commercial not consumer entities. This would collapse much of the banking sector. And it would isolate bad bank behavior somewhat to commercial banks – which would benefit consumers when it happened.

  • On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:25 PM

    —“Thank you! I guess I have to unlearn the libertarian notion that fiat currencies are always some kind of fraud or manipulation game. Would there be bailouts for banks under the propertarian government?”— Niklas Wagner

    Great question. 1) Fiat currencies are an exception innovation in monetary technology as is digital (electronic) transfer of interests rather than physical currency or money. However, with that graet innovation comes (and came) great opportunity for hideous corruption. The federal reserve (like the bank of England) is incompatible with fiat money, and incompatible with electronic money. In other words, all that interest should be accumulating in the hands of the INSURER (the treasury). And worse, there is no reason to use the banking system and interest to distribute money (increase the money supply). Imagine the government putting out a trillion dollars, and the banks offering you 5x on that money so that they could lend it out at 6-15x to commercial institutions? You see. I think sh-t thru. 😉 This would make a very awesome economic system. 2) As for ‘bailouts’…. We would still have the treasury take over banks. Taking over a bank and liquidating the creditors and shareholders is not ‘bailing it out’. Most banks were not bailed out – they were taken over. Only the big banks were bailed out. We only ‘bailed out’ the big banks because the treasury does not own the cash distribution network (ATM’s etc) This would have lead to world economic collapse. We did not however punish anyone and liquidate shareholders. That should have been done. Furthermore we did not do as I recommended, and Galbraith recommended and a few others timidly, which was simply to pay down everyone’s mortgage by as much as 200k, which would have f—ked the financial sector by externality and ended the crisis immediately. It also would have corrected housing prices. It was an obvious solution. But no. Politicians were involved and the financial sector was involved. Instead of saving the middle class we burned the middle class. Thankfully it’s reversible. Under P-constitution banks would be commercial not consumer entities. This would collapse much of the banking sector. And it would isolate bad bank behavior somewhat to commercial banks – which would benefit consumers when it happened.

  • The Economic Policy of Elizabeth Warren

    Jan 19, 2020, 1:04 PM by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:

    1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.
    2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.

    3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.

    4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.

    5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.

    6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.

    7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.

    8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.

    All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.

    1. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.

    Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit. More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts? When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed). I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites. If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime. For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all. That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass. So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”

  • Our Proposal Is Hard to Refuse

    Feb 5, 2020, 6:10 PM P-Constitution, it’s nationalization of consumer credit, and its prohibitions on rent seeking, will destroy the entire rent seeking structure of the western economies, preserving only those investments that contribute to production. The entire insurance industry, mortgage industry, credit card industry, and any business that makes it’s money from credit rather than production and sale of goods and services will collapse with all the wealth retained by the laboring, working, and middle classes. The Concentration of wealth in DC, NY and via New York to Hollywood/LA will vaporize within months. Investors will flee to Assets. The prohibition on baiting into hazard, and the institution of involuntary warranty; the liability for testimonial speech in public, restoration of defamation, and the extension of defamation to defense of the commons; and the loss of copyright protection other than creative commons will collapse the media and advertising business as they desperately seek to reform. Capital will seek safety first, then alliance with the treasury on investments, and the states will have no alternative than to follow germany, japan, and south korea into competing with china on tech, and depriving china of its market. The requirement for right to repair and limits to labor arbitrage will restore european markets. The distribution of liquidity directly to citizens to maintain spending, and the deprivation of ‘undesirables’ from this distribution will drive them out of the market. This strategy amounts to paying off the middle to destroy the top and bottom.

  • Our Proposal Is Hard to Refuse

    Feb 5, 2020, 6:10 PM P-Constitution, it’s nationalization of consumer credit, and its prohibitions on rent seeking, will destroy the entire rent seeking structure of the western economies, preserving only those investments that contribute to production. The entire insurance industry, mortgage industry, credit card industry, and any business that makes it’s money from credit rather than production and sale of goods and services will collapse with all the wealth retained by the laboring, working, and middle classes. The Concentration of wealth in DC, NY and via New York to Hollywood/LA will vaporize within months. Investors will flee to Assets. The prohibition on baiting into hazard, and the institution of involuntary warranty; the liability for testimonial speech in public, restoration of defamation, and the extension of defamation to defense of the commons; and the loss of copyright protection other than creative commons will collapse the media and advertising business as they desperately seek to reform. Capital will seek safety first, then alliance with the treasury on investments, and the states will have no alternative than to follow germany, japan, and south korea into competing with china on tech, and depriving china of its market. The requirement for right to repair and limits to labor arbitrage will restore european markets. The distribution of liquidity directly to citizens to maintain spending, and the deprivation of ‘undesirables’ from this distribution will drive them out of the market. This strategy amounts to paying off the middle to destroy the top and bottom.

  • Where do you get that? why don’t we just pay people NOT to have kids instead of

    Where do you get that? why don’t we just pay people NOT to have kids instead of pay them TO have them.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 00:13:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254564400998027265

    Reply addressees: @dormant511 @EricLiford @ekiekipatang

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254560520428048385

  • Interesting fallacy. Do states borrow for infrastructure projects, or state empl

    Interesting fallacy. Do states borrow for infrastructure projects, or state employee payroll and pensions (rent seeking) under cover of projects? And what is the ratio of projects to state employee extraction? (just like Greece)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:41:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253257732704133120

    Reply addressees: @CGoydich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253224040069771264

  • STATE BANKRUPTCY IS NECESSARY State bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankr

    STATE BANKRUPTCY IS NECESSARY

    State bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core.

    It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade.

    Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason.

    Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.)

    While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment.

    Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them.

    Biggest organized crime in human history.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 08:27:00 UTC

  • People, Biz, Cities can go bankrupt but not states, so those “LEFT” states that

    People, Biz, Cities can go bankrupt but not states, so those “LEFT” states that were ‘foolish’ and copied the soviets can’t reorg just like Greece can’t reorg for the same reason. CA,CT, IL, MA, NY, NJ, are all bankrupt and cannot reorg b/c bankruptcy law doesn’t apply to States.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 00:24:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253117586277052416

    Reply addressees: @PeterAl09732414 @senatemajldr

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253110877068374018

  • I’m saying (a) that is the source of the criticism, yes, (b) that it isn’t limit

    I’m saying (a) that is the source of the criticism, yes, (b) that it isn’t limited to ((())), (c) that there is no reason not to borrow against a people’s future since losses are recursive – not externalized, (d) that a people cannot self-insure and (e) cannot compete without it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 20:04:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253052183077158917

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253047413872439296