Who would have thought it? Oxfam, the charity normally associated with a fairly leftist view of overseas poverty, has released a big document charting how the best hope for the world’s poor lies in more free trade, not less. Not exactly an earth-shattering revelation to Samizdata writers or most of its readers, I am sure. Nonetheless, for such a well-known and prestigious body to have set its face against the anti-globalisation crowd is good news. It looks like this liberal (in the true sense of the word) meme of ours just keeps on spreading.
|
|||||
|
You might want to take some time today, of all days, to check out The Centre for Freedom and Prosperity. If you need to know why you should look into the idea of organising your life around off-shore banking and business, then might I suggest you need look no further than what today means for your personal wealth… or at least the part of it you are permitted to keep. Avoiding tax all together can be difficult for most people but you owe it to yourself to try and minimise the extent to which you are financing your own repression (and mine too). It is quite possible to do it by using the law against itself, though frankly whatever means you have to use when dealing with the state is fine by me. Any oath or declaration extracted under the threat of force has no moral basis whatsoever and breaking it is just a matter of deciding based on risk/benefit analysis, not morality.  April 15th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 As Jason Pontin points out in his article on Red Herring, there is a bifurcation of inventiveness on the planet. A few places do all the entrepreneurial heavy lifting, the rest look on. It is not just circumstances but also cultural factors which produce innovation. April 12th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Lloyd’s of London has reported a record loss of £3.1 billion ($4.44 billion) directly related to the 11 September attacks. Similarly Swiss Re reported the largest loss in its 138-year history of 165 million Swiss francs (£69 million/$98.9 million). This might be interpreted by some as a sign of the vulnerability of global capitalism but in fact it indicates quite the opposite. The fact that the effect of a huge capital loss in the USA can be spread around the world, rather than born entirely by the target of that loss is an impressive demonstration of the ability of modern networked capitalism systems to absorb losses and ‘keep on ticking’. And just incidentally, it also highlights that it was far more than just the United States which was attacked by the two aircraft which crashed into the WTC. April 11th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Is that the headline you saw all over the US media the other day when the US government imposed import tariffs on Canadian lumber? No? I wonder why that was? A question to all those people who sent me e-mails following my claims after Bush’s imposition of the steel quotas that his economic views were ludicrous. Many of you said he was just playing an inconsequential domestic political card and said George Bush was still a committed free trader. Given that:
Are you still unconcerned about the economic and political damage being done to the US economy (not to mention the rest of the world’s economy)? March 27th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Anyone opened a bank account of late? Transferred an account? Dealt in cash? Sent money abroad? Have you been sent half-insane by the form-filling and ID checking it involved? If so, then please point an accusatory finger at people like Jonathan M. Winer a former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State International Law Enforcement who has written a rather plaintiff article in the Financial Times exhorting the entire world to join him in his campaign against what he calls ‘dirty money’. The anti-money laundering regime, in which doubtless Mr. Winer was instrumental, sought to scupper international terrorists and drug-dealers by imposing a regulatory regime on all financial institutions requiring them to act as investigators and policemen on the state’s behalf. I have witnessed the absurd results of this first-hand as lowly pensioners from Essex are told to hand over their passport when signing a loan agreement just in case they are really Osama Bin Laden in deep cover. Added to the humiliation of treating people like criminals, the cost-burden on financial institutions are awesome and let us not forget the many small countries which have been bullied into surrendering their banking secrecy and legal safeguards of anonymity which are the only comparative advantages they possess. After all that, it is more than a little galling to hear Mr. Winer say:
Is it just me, or does that sound suspiciously like an admission of failure? I cannot say that I am surprised. I (along with many others) predicted long ago that these regulations would do nothing to stop or even slow down determined terrorists or drug-runners. People who are ruthless enough to fly aeroplanes into buildings are hardly going to be phased by having to practice some sleight-of-hand with a bank teller or two. Mr. Winer goes on to remind us of just how evil money-laundering can be but, rather hilariously, cites economic woes in countries such as Argentina, Mexico and Albania as proof, while forgetting to mention that these countries were hardly paragons of financial virtue to begin with. But, this aside, there is some refreshing frankness in the article. Mr. Winer admits:
You’d think that Mr. Winer might have considered this beforehand because it is screamingly obvious. Asking bankers to become policemen is not only a good way to ensure that policemen get lazy but it is also an attempt to get banks engaged in an activity that is diametrically in conflict with their primary function, like asking a cat to bark. Mr. Winer goes on to suggest a better method for bringing these terrible terrorists and drug-runners to their knees: This ‘white list’ is something which banks all over the world could apply to join once they have satisfied all the states criteria of compliance to the very highest degree. Then they could proudly advertise themselves as ‘the best of the best’ and all their competitiors would rush to join for the kudos it would give them. Mr.Winer expects this to be a ‘race to the top’. This is an idea born of hope rather than judgement and is likely to be as successful as his last good idea i.e. a total dud. Complying with the standards required to get on this ‘white list’ would cripple any bank with unendurable profit-eating costs and any that were stupid enough to try would slide dolefully into liquidation while their competitors died laughing. I am quite pleased that the likes of Mr. Winer are pinning their hopes on this because it is further confirmation that they have lost. That’s what the whole article smacks of really; an almost pathetic, desperate attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. This may be futile but it is, from Mr. Winer’s point of view, understandable because the ‘anti-money laundering regime’ is not really about drugs or terrorists at all, it is a sordid attempt at self-preservation. The global movement of capital represents a grievous threat to national tax bases, particularly those that demand up to one-half of their citizens earnings. But that little game is up if the citizens in question can move their money beyond their local tax inspectors reach. All this chaffe about drugs and terrorists is really a vehicle by which the public sector can try to defend itself against the vigour (or what they see as ‘virulence’) of the free market and, in doing so, they are quite happy, indeed almost compelled, into press-ganging every bank clerk and accountant into their fight. But no laws that Mr. Winer can pen will upend the immutable laws of physics and, sooner or later, the international money-laundering regime will be buried in the Graveyard of Grand Schemes. Mr. Winer’s article is not so much a helpful analysis or even a plea for help so much as notice of his intention to go down fighting. March 25th, 2002 | Comments are closed
In this report in the Times of India, US reduces reward on Bin Laden, we see the strangest manifestation of the backward bending demand curve I have ever seen!
Example 1: A high price designer ‘name label’ dress is offered at a reduced price… still out of reach of the ‘woman in the street’ buyer. Paradoxically the high end target market buy less of the dresses, presumably because the reduced price indicates it is probably ‘last years design’ (even if not true, the price is used as the primary source of information by the potential purchaser as to ‘what is hot’). Example 2: Soviet made wristwatches, made to uncharacteristically high quality and standards were marketed in Britain in the early 1970’s. They were every bit as good as other high quality wristwatches available at the time but were almost half the price. Even though Soviet products were a relative rarity in the UK, British buyers stayed away in droves, presumably taking the view that any watch that cheap had to be complete rubbish. The Soviets were baffled but on advice from a British consultant raised the price to just below the typical UK price and they stared to sell. Thus, the US is lowering the price on the head on Osama bin Laden in the hope the new level of reward is something rural Afghans can actually relate to in the real world. In each case the specifics are different but price is just a form of information and sometimes if the price of something is unexpectedly high or low, the effects is the opposite of what one might normally expect. That is what I mean by a ‘backward bending demand curve’! Also on reflection, I was thinking of this in terms of the US doing the ‘selling’ of an outsourced service here (terrorist removal)… but I suppose one could argue that this is a backward bending supply curve: the US is offering money in the hope some impoverished Afghan will ‘supply’ a dead or bound-hand-and-foot Osama bin Laden March 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed
All those people who greeted the inane steel tariffs with a yawn (“No one is interested in steel tariffs”, “it is just a bit of politics”) will be no doubt equally uninterested that the European Union, you know, the USA’s largest trading partner, is now planning fast track retaliation against the USA that will specifically target US states that benefit from the US protectionist measures. They join Russia, Australia and Brazil looking into setting up a splendid little self-reinforcing destructive anti-international trade harmonic that will hurt everyone. If there is anyone out there who did NOT think that international retaliation against US goods and services was the guaranteed response to the new US steel tariff, can they please e-mail me to explain why they did not think that was going to happen? Now what were you guys saying about it not being any big deal and just being about internal US politics? So what’s next George? “Read my lips: No New Tariffs” perhaps? March 17th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Given my long and strongly held reservations about the European Union (EU) and my enthusiasm for most things Internet and World Wide Web, I felt considerable discomfort reading an Accenture paper The euro and eCommerce: Bringing Europe closer to a single market. The reason for my discomfort, apart from the source of the paper, was its argument that ‘the interaction of a single currency and e-commerce will forge powerful synergies across the euro zone, enhance European competitiveness and accelerate the emergence of pan-European capital market’. So does Bad [EU] plus Good [e-commerce] equal an enhanced Good [capital market unification and its benefits]? How is it possible that something as centralising and anti-competitive as the euro can provide such a fertile ground for e-commerce, a symbol of non-regulated and most free market business model? At first I could not fault the paper’s conclusion or even its argument, but then I realised that a dose of ‘meta-context’ analysis is needed to understand what are the underpinning ‘world views’ at work here. The EU debate (a civilised term for the battle between the strongly opposing camps) seems to be conducted on a simplistic utilitarian level, an argument that cannot get beyond the second-tier logic and with a short to medium-term horizon. It consists, at least in the media, of collecting examples and anecdotes of beneficial or damaging effects the European project will or might have. The EU supporters put forward the positive results of their efforts and EU opponents strive to point out their negative impact. Although consequences are an important measure of success or failure, this approach rarely addresses the fundamental premises from which both sides launch their campaigns. An EU supporter would use the paper’s conclusions to point out that the positive impact of the euro, as enhanced by e-commerce, makes the justification of monetary union more powerful. The euro together with e-commerce further breaks down the barriers between the nations and moves us closer and more rapidly towards the ‘glorious day’ of pan-European capital markets. This also:
There you are – all of the above worthy of any libertarian, or indeed common sense, endorsement. Why would we want the UK to forgo such lovely things, which is what will happen, if we don’t join the €uro? To me the issue is not about centralisation and efficiency versus free market and disorder. The successful coupling of the euro and e-commerce has a straightforward explanation – the euro provides, by default, a transparent standard for transactions. E-commerce, e-business or any e-prefixed interaction cannot reach its full potential without it. The issue is about the distinction between standards (good) and uniformity (bad) – uniformity as an objective, out of context and without regard for the long-term consequences (if we are to play the utilitarian game) does not sit comfortably with the pursuit of freedom. The distinction between inefficiency (bad) and variety (good) – although a certain degree of inefficiency may have to be the price we pay for variety. It seems to me that the EU has been designed and promoted by the kind of mind that does not value variety and freedom as much as it values uniformity and supposed efficiency. I believe that the truth about the EU lies in understanding and exposing the true objectives and motivations of its supporters. An understanding of the unintended consequences of market and human interactions will have to play an important role. Therefore I call for a meta-context based examination of the EU debate that reveals the actual view of the world its supporters would have us accept instead of wasting our adrenaline on specific EU horror stories.  March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Paul Staines writes in with a rational explanation about how the advocates of flat-earth economics want to ‘end poverty’ by taxing the very mechanisms of trade.
Tom might admit its not so weird when you know that contact was myself, I took his advice and put on a pinstripe, garish shirt and clashing braces – if you are going to be an evil currency speculator, best look the part he said. Bizarre gathering, left winger Shirley Williams was the keynote speaker, ‘anti-poverty’ campaigners, the Guardian’s economics editor and a couple of economists who have never worked outside academia made up the panel. If you plan to tax foreign exchange transactions best not to involve anybody who has actually done an FX trade in the planning I guess. Besides myself, amongst a sea of ‘anti-poverty’ campaigners the only dissident voice was a journalist from the Financial Times and a pretty young student thing from London School of Economics. The cherub from the LSE asked the entirely logical question “won’t this be a regressive tax on third world traders?” For example I’m a gum farmer from Sudan, I sell my gum to Rowntrees Ltd. in the UK so they can make fruit pastilles. I want Sudanese dinars, Rowntrees pay pounds sterling, I sell the pounds for dollars (Tobin tax time), I sell the dollars for dinars (Tobin tax time). Minor currencies are always quoted against the dollar, so if you come from a small country you pay the tax twice – and this regressive tax helps the developing world? War on Want reckon that $250 bn a year can be raised by taxing currency speculation at a mere 0.1%. Sounds like a cheap tax with great rewards. Lots of talk about how $1 trillion a day passes across the FX markets daily. You know how it is, I buy a $1m you sell ¥130m, I buy £1m you sell $1.6m next thing you know, by days end we’ve consummated $1bn in trade. And hopefully I’m up $10,000. Did you notice how the big numbers and the profits are very different? Banks also have their profits taxed by the way. I pointed out that if you add up the profits of all the investment banks this year, it probably doesn’t even make $10bn. Its been a tough year. So where will this $250bn come from? Stand up row ensues, I don’t care about the poor being the conclusion. They were, genuinely, quite shocked to realise the sums couldn’t add up by a factor of 2500%. So much for ending world poverty next year. Have you ever played poker for hours and ended up with the same money you started out with? Well these jokers think that we’d still play cards if the croupier stole a chip every deal. Obviously we’d play at a casino that didn’t steal our chips, say the Bahamas, Zürich or cyberspace, but I suspect Chancellor Gordon Brown will continue to be the croupier for a free market City of London, home to nearly half the world’s FX deals, he won’t start stealing the chips any time soon. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
This morning a contact of mine called up to say he was attending an event discussing the so-called Tobin Tax, which is a levy on foreign exchange transactions named after the Nobel Prize Winning Laureate of 1981, James Tobin. The tax is proposed by such politicians of usually leftist anti-market hue as French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who favour the tax as a way of reducing the massive flows of foreign exchange business and hence, they hope, in reducing the power of global markets. It is a vain hope. For starters, any attempt to tax foreign exchange deals would be a massive boost for the offshore tax-haven market, already booming as investors wisely choose to domicile their businesses there to avoid paying tax. It is an idea that has, in my view, very little chance of taking form. It would be a particular blow to the City of London, which boasts a vast foreign exchange market on which many jobs depend. Anyway, on Monday Professor Tobin, a former adviser to President John F. Kennedy, passed away. One should not speak ill of the dead, and on the whole my impression of Tobin is that of a distinguished economist. But let us hope the foolish levy that bears his name passes away also to the great dustbin of bad ideas in the sky. March 13th, 2002 | Comments are closed
David Carr in a post below seeks to reassure us Brits that the US steel tariffs do not matter because they will help rather than harm our economy. That’s like being reassured that it is the house next door burning down, not one’s own, and with a kindly additional word pointing out that all this nice warm air wafting over from the conflagration will reduce one’s heating bills. The tarriffs will (a) directly harm the economies of many other countries, to whom I am not indifferent; (b) allow the European Union the excuse they’ve been praying for to put tarriffs on the South Korean and Chinese steel you mention – so no, the British consumer will not benefit; (c) give strength to the yelps of half a hundred other US lobbies; (d) start another round of retaliation with all the effects above applied to some other randomly chosen commodity, thus screwing up another bunch of people’s prosperity. And they make Bush look weak and hypocritical, which the world could do without right now. March 10th, 2002 | Comments are closed
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Update: As a couple people have ask me to simply explain what a ‘backward bending demand curve’ is, it is a strange and counter intuitive phenomenon in which sometimes as a product gets cheaper, people buy less of it or if a product gets more expensive, they buy more of it. This does not seem to make sense but it does occasionally happen. 