We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
From Foreign Affairs:
“The scandal has sparked calls from politicians, including Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, for stronger regulation of the world’s most powerful banks. But such proposals miss a key point: Price fixing and manipulation are illegal. They have been for a long time. So it is unlikely that saddling financial markets with legal constraints that simply double down on what is already on the books will help. A better solution would go to the heart of the problem. Regulators and market participants should set such benchmark interest rates as Libor in a way that makes them reflect movements in the market, making manipulation impossible.”
“The fundamental principle underlying floating rates is to allow the market to determine borrowing costs. Customers who borrow on a floating-rate basis, if they are sensible, and institutions that loan money on a floating-rate basis, if they are ethical, therefore expect two things from a benchmark interest rate. First, the benchmark should reflect actual conditions in the financial markets. That means no random fluctuations — money costs what it is worth. Second, the benchmark rate should not be easy to manipulate. No rational, informed borrower would borrow money at a variable rate of interest and then empower the lender to determine when and how the interest rate changed in the future.”
This is one of the best and most incisive explanations of what is wrong with the current system of averaging out interbank rates – as done via the British Bankers’ Association – and what needs to be done to avoid a repeat. Refreshingly, the article, written in the sort of publication that policymakers read, does not call for more regulation, which is definitely not what is needed.
The stifling impact of being run by so-called “moderates” continues. On the BBC TV this morning, the programme is leading with the fact that a government finance minister, some hopefully soon-to-be-gone creature called David Gauke, is attacking people who have ever paid a builder, plumber or garage mechanic in cash so as to avoid paying VAT. Mr Gauke told his TV interloctor, in words that may haunt him, that he has never done any such a naughty thing, oh no.
The context for this is that the UK government has recently announced a campaign against what it defines, with worrying vagueness, as “aggressive avoidance” schemes. Not just “avoidance”, which is what happens if you hold a tax-advantaged fund such as a Self Invested Personal Pension, or if you do not smoke (avoiding tobacco duty), or don’t drive (avoiding petrol tax) or drink (etc). No, “bad avoidance” is if you structure your financial affairs in such a way as to pay as little tax as you can do so without actively defrauding anyone. An interesting notion. As we know, the UK comedian Jimmy Carr was recently hit by exposure of his tax-planning, and other celebs and sports folk have sometimes got into similar sorts of arrangements.
In as much as governments need to exist at all – and I am not an anarchist – there is a legitimate argument about the least-bad way to do this, and the simpler and flatter the tax regime is, the better. A huge chunk of this tax planning industry from which people like Jimmy Carr make use would vanish in a puff of smoke if our system was overhauled on the sort of lines recently proposed by the 2020 Tax Commission.
The trouble with the stance taken by Mr Gauke is that he presumes that there is some correct chunk of our wealth to which the State has presumed to take a share, and that any action we take to avoid tax might increase the tax burden paid by our fellow citizens. But what this man seems to ignore is, a), that an economy is not a static pie where my action must negatively affect someone else (that old zero-sum problem again), but an economy is something can grow through mutually beneficial trade, and that that, b), in a tolerably free society, the level of tax that citizens will pay has its limits, even if people don’t go in for some of the more artificial wealth structures to minimise tax (bearing in mind that it costs money to get an accountant/lawyer to set these schemes up).
Also, suppose that, instead of getting a builder into do a bit of work for cash to smarten up my flat or tackle an issue, I try and get a mate around to do the job for me in return for buying him a nice bottle of wine or editing some material for him/her? Is this not also wrong in the eyes of Mr Gauke? I guess it is. Even before I have done anything, the State is saying: “I want a piece of whatever action you engage in”. Taken to extremes, this penalises work over leisure. It is not surprising what the results are.
At root, this is a matter of basic political philosophy. In the main (there are exceptions), the current Conservative Party and its Liberal Democrat coalition partners subscribe to a deeply paternalistic, communitarian outlook of the sort that Barack Obama, in his recent communitarian-leaning “you did not build that” speech, could identify with. This is also a sign of how under Cameron, the Tory party has reverted to the older, more trade-disdaining traditions of old and away from its Thatcherite strains. How’s that working out for us?
People who make a living by getting paid in cash to fix windows, respray cars or mend pipes are not an evil. In the vast majority of cases, they are doing something about which someone like David Gauke, David Cameron or Barack Obama have been ignorant of all their lives: earning a living, and providing people with goods and services in a free market. They might as well try and understand life on Mars. It is shame we can’t send them there.
Update: The Daily Telegraph weighs in. It is not impressed by Gauke.
It is inevitable. The day after Bradley Wiggins (about whom Patrick Crozier wrote here) rode to victory in the Tour de France, becoming the first British winner of this famously brutal event, London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, took hold of this feat, and the upcoming Olympics, to make some points about what might appear to be a very different issue: the UK economy:
“As you listen, you realise that these performances were the result not just of physical genius, but also of colossal intellectual and emotional effort — years of self-discipline. The Olympics, in other words, is about character. It’s about the will. Of course, as Baron de Coubertin was at pains to point out, it is not all about winning. But if you want to win, then you need to work. That is the basic message of the Olympics.”
There is a problem here. Sport – so long as it does not involve cheating the rules (key qualification) is a strict meritocracy, and effort and reward hopefully are closely aligned, although that doesn’t allow for the blessings of inborn physical and mental capabilities, nor that of simple luck. There is, in my view, a danger in supposing that the qualities that are good in sport can be easily carried across into other fields. One thing that Boris J. probably understands better than some of his fellow Conservatives is that with sport, it is, at least as far as competitors are concerned, zero sum. If Bradley Wiggins wins the Tour, that means someone else doesn’t, and so on. It is not of course zero sum for the spectators and fans who get a vicarious sense of enjoyment from watching it all. But in a free economy, there is a positive-sum game: everyone “wins” as the economic pie expands as more efficient and effective ways of delivering goods and services are arrived at. And to do that, requires, not some sort of endless preaching about the need for hard work and conquest of pain, but about allowing free men and women to interact how they want, subject to as few impediments as possible from the State.
The late Robert Nozick once criticized the notion that inheritance of wealth is unfair by pointing to how people who say this often liken their ideal society to a sort of athletics race, where there is a track of fixed length, a fixed starting point and end, and a set quantity of runners seeking to acquire a pre-determined prize. A free, open society is very different. It is, as he said in Anarchy, State and Utopia, about people exchanging different things with one another without worrying about any set starting point or finishing line.
Like Boris Johnson, I agree we can and should be inspired by the courage and determination of people such as Bradley Wiggins and other athletes. Let’s not, however, confuse a sadistic 3-week peloton through the French countryside with what needs to happen to revive an over-regulated and over-taxed economy.
In the meantime, well done to Wiggins. Fantastic achievement, and he appears to be a likeable bloke as well. I hope he can cope with some of the fame and hangers-on who will be attracted to his presumed new wealth.
“Obama also wishes us to believe that, because successful producers learned something from government teachers, used government roads and bridges, employed government research, and the like, this means they don’t really own their success or wealth. Rational Americans know full well that the government funds such things by forcibly confiscating the wealth of producers. Rational Americans also know that a bum is as free to use a government bridge as is a successful business owner, but the business owner chose to apply his intelligence and work hard to build something great.”
– Craig Biddle.
In some ways, Obama’s assertion that we don’t really deserve credit for, or earn, what we produce because of such factors is a bit like the idea that the guard-dog that protects our house owns it, not the owner. I get the impression that Obama’s comments are causing him quite a lot of damage, and I hope he continues to be pounded for them.
While the weather in the UK has been, with barely a break, a miserable wet time resembling one of those bits of the Old Testament where God gets a bit pissed off with His Creation, it has been stinking hot in some other countries, notably the wheat-growing parts of the US. Hence, all kinds of grim predictions of shortages, and ensuing higher prices for bread and other foods, as reported by Reuters.
But there is another factor besides the weather – deliberate government policy concerning biofuels. Here is blogger Bishop Hill on the matter:
“I’m sure that people who can no longer afford a loaf of bread will be much reassured by the fact that the UK government is discussing flexing their biofuels mandates.”
Of course, the idea that misguided environmental ideas might make poor people even poorer is a notion that does not fit with the conventional narrative from our political class. I doubt that our own benighted Prime Minister, David Cameron, gives this much thought, or if he does, evades the implications thereof. One of the biggest scandals of our time, in my view, is not private banks cooking up “LIBOR”, or MPs fiddling their expenses, but the fact that a mistaken or overwrought theory about climate change was used to justify loading extra costs on the global economy and those least able to bear it.
This item at the Harry’s Place blog, concerning the Guardian newspaper’s coverage of issues such as Israel and Islamists, needs to get the widest possible attention:
“If Guardian journalists are twitchy about what is happening to their newspaper, they have only themselves to blame. The Jews were, as always, the canary in the coal mine. When those journalists stayed silent, either because they didn’t think they could say anything, or because they didn’t care, or even because they partly agreed, they allowed a culture of zaniness and extremism to take root at the newspaper. Now, the guns have been turned on them, over Syria and Middle East reporting generally, and it may well be too late for them to stop it. The Indymediaisation of The Guardian is likely spread further, across its other departments, as experts leave and are replaced by “Open Journalism” monomaniacs.”
“It is the job of economists to point out trade-offs; it is the job of politicians and planners to deny that trade-offs exist.”
– William Easterly, The White Man’s Burden, page 256.
Here is a terrific piece on the problems posed by the mounting costs of funding retirement, and the tax implications thereof, from Reason’s Nick Gillespie. It is obviously written from a US perspective but as always, the lessons are broader than that.
I particularly liked how he lampoons old Baby Boomers calling for a return of the draft. That bad idea never seems to entirely die off.
“We’d rather like people not to live on flood plains. Because, you know, their existence is evidence that that’s where it floods sometimes. Not being able to insure your house against floods if you live on a flood plain is what is known, in technical language, as a “fucking clue” that perhaps you shouldn’t be living there. Surely to God at least one person in government knows someone at Lloyds of London?”
– Tim Worstall. I love it when he gets justifiably riled.
“The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “first comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) The protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) Even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights — or its systematic violation of rights — can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) At least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.”
– Randy Barnett.
“In order to punish Barclays further, they should have to start life again as a third division Scottish football club.”
Mark Littlewood, boss of the Institute of Economic Affairs, in a private communication via Facebook. It is so good that I don’t think he’ll mind me quoting him here.
He is talking about the resignation, announced today, of Bob Diamond as CEO of Barclays. That bank has been fined a total of £290 million by US and UK authorities for manipulating the inter-bank interest rates known as LIBOR. Criminal prosecutions are high possible and the net could widen very far indeed.
Barclays is one of those UK banks – HSBC being the other big high street one – that did not receive, nor ask for, bailouts by the UK taxpayer. However, that bank, like all the rest, did benefit from the privilege of being able to get access to cheap Bank of England funding; and it also benefited from state-backed guarantees. The point cannot be made too often: we don’t have a proper capitalist banking system but at best a hybrid. But it also needs to be recognised that even in a world of total laissez faire and no funny fiat money, there might still be market conventions for setting a benchmark reference rate for interest rates between banks, just as there is a daily “fix” for the gold price in the London spot gold market. Such market benchmarks arise, like a sort of Hayekian spontaneous order, because they are useful for other economic actors in pricing products of their own.
However, when a bank or other institution fiddles the prices submitted for these benchmarks, it erodes confidence in the system and the reputation of the miscreant will be badly damaged. In a crude sort of way, what has happened is a good sign that organisations which screw up suffer.
Update: Guido Fawkes weighs in, and points out that the manipulation of interest rates has also been government policy for years.
There might be a tendency, I think, among some world-weary types to say that this whole “Fast and Furious” disaster now unravelling is nothing more than the US equivalent of the sort of “Westminster Village” obsessions that we Brits got engrossed over more than a year ago. Nothing much to see here, please move along, etc. But I don’t see it that way. The use of executive privilege to squash oversight of key decisions made by this administration seems to be a serious matter that ought to concern the wider public, not least as people got killed and hurt.
Jennifer Rubin weighs in on the subject of the lamentable US Attorney General, Eric Holder:
“If he were a first-year law student asked to explain how the president could refuse to allow House oversight on a botched operation in which Americans and Mexicans died and the administration has twice had to cop to providing erroneous information to Congress, Eric Holder’s letter would get an “F.” He doesn’t set out the nature of the document being withheld, the type of privilege being asserted, or the argument as to why it supersedes the right of Congress to oversee executive branch misconduct. Congress is certainly within it rights to hold him in contempt. But really the president should can Holder.”
Bear in mind this appeared in the Washington Post, the same newspaper that we associate with the Watergate scandal, and hardly a bastion of the “vast rightwing conspiracy”.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
