Power & Market
Deutsche Bank Strategist Jim Reid suspects that global demographics and other realities may be soon putting the current fiat-money regime to the test. According to Business Insider:
Reid's basic contention is this: The dominance of the fiat currency system since Richard Nixon decoupled gold from the dollar in 1971 "is inherently unstable and prone to high inflation," and an offsetting disinflationary shock that kept it afloat since 1980 is now slowly reversing.
If that's the case, Reid says the fiat currency system — a term which describes any currency whose value is backed by the government that issued it, rather than by a commodity like gold or silver — could be "seriously tested" over the next decade.
But why now?
According to Reid, since the 1970s, many world economies have benefited significantly from a number of deflationary forces. Chief in Reid's mind is "an explosion in the global working-age population" which has led to declines in wages and an ability to produce immense amounts of goods and services at low prices.
(Other deflationary forces, which aren't mentioned in the BI piece, include the technological gains that Alan Greenspan was always so fond on mentioning when he spoke publicly. It's true that labor has increased, but so has the usefulness of capital in making less-expensive goods.)
Reid terms the large growth in the global labor force as a "demographic super cycle" and that any reversal in the cycle "could spell problems for the fiat currency system."
Well, thanks to these deflationary forces, central banks "can respond with familiar tools: More leverage, loose policy, and extensive money-printing."
Thanks to so many factors that are pushing prices downward, central banks can massively expand the money supply and still maintain some semblance of price stability.
Buried in this explanation, of course, is what Austrians have long pointed out about prices: In a modern economy, the natural thing for prices to do is go down. Contrary to the deflation-phobia exhibited by so many economists today, falling prices are a signal of improvements in capital, and possibly of greater access to capital by workers. Neither of these things are a danger to an economy.
Thus, as Reid notes, without so much central-bank money printing, global prices would likely have been declining for the past two or three decades, just as they did during much of the late 19th century in the US when living standards were increasing substantially.
So, while central bank money printers think everything's fine because their price indices show "low" inflation, it is likely that the real cost of money printing has been a beneficial lack of deflation.
In other words, consumers could have benefited from repeated drops in the cost of living in recent decades. But instead, they get mild inflation which robs them of the cheaper goods that would have existed in the absence of central bank meddling. Fortunately for central banks, though, few voters and consumers view things that way, and instead have bought the idea that prices are naturally flat, and thus, an inflation rate of, say, two percent is no big deal.
In reality, voters and consumers should be comparing an inflation rate of 2 percent, not to 0% but to, say, negative 2%. In this scenario, central bank inflation should be viewed not as 2 percent, but as 4 percent. Every year. Compounding.
Reid is now worried that these deflationary factors may be coming to an end, and once it does, central banks won't be able to use their usual tricks. And if that happens, the age of fiat money will be in trouble.
Inside Higher Ed reports that yet another small private college is closing:
Two weeks ago, Memphis College of Art said it would close. Also last month, Grace University, in Nebraska, announced plans to shut down, and Wheelock College announced plans to merge into Boston University.
In another sign of the challenges facing small private colleges without substantial financial resources, St. Gregory's University, in Oklahoma, said Wednesday that it would end operations at the end of the fall semester. The university is a private liberal arts institution about 40 miles from Oklahoma City.
Last summer, Marketwire covered the topic with its article "Why so many small private colleges are in danger of closing" which analyzed how small colleges are having to offer discounts on tuition to get people in the door. Larger institutions, both public and private, aren't have this problem.
The miniscule size of some of these colleges is astounding. The Chronicle of Higher Ed reports:
Of the 1,600 private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States, almost 30 percent have enrollments of under 1,000 students. And though closings have amounted to less than one percent of private colleges, according to David Warren, president of the National Association of Independent College and Universities, a Moody’s Investors Services report last fall indicated that the pace appears to be increasing. As we know, when one of the more recognizable small institutions is threatened with closure — Sweet Briar, Mills, Antioch — and brought back from the brink, at least temporarily, there follows a flurry of new stories about small colleges and the economic peril they face.
Needless to say, its hard to take advantage of economies of scale with an institution that has only a few hundred students. The overheard costs of old buildings alone must be enormous.
And from a student's point of view, it's hard to see why many of them would want to drop everything for 4 years and move to a small town in the middle of nowhere to attend a tiny college with few resources, and which few people have even heard of outside the surrounding region.
Even worse is the fact that these small private colleges tend to be incredibly expensive. Nowadays, few people have the resources and leisure time to pay $80,000 for an education at a small college in a small town where there are few opportunities for earning income to supplement one's living expenses.
Indeed, many of these colleges have more the feel of a resort rather than a serious educational institution. Many of them are in bucolic settings with old-timey buildings that help one re-enact "the college experience" one sees in television shows and movies. And in the end, for those who earn degrees of little value, such as a women's studies degree, this is essentially what an "education" at these institutions amounts to: a very costly four-year vacation from the realities of the world.
For more savvy consumers of education, of course, a large university in the heart of a metropolitan area makes much more sense. These universities have laboratory resources. They have better faculty. They have access to better internships with businesses and hospitals and for part time jobs that can help pay the bills. And, of course, if one goes to a public urban university (such as IUPUI in Indianapolis) one is likely to leave school with actual job opportunities after paying a mere fraction of the price necessary to attend No-Name U in Tinytown, Illinois.
Moreover, if people stopped blowing tens of thousands of dollars on these schools, we'd hear less about the immense amounts of debt that many students take on and then claim they had to borrow in order to get an "education." A lot of the time, these huge debt levels were taken on to finance four years of not working in a charming small-town atmosphere, all the while claiming such expenses were absolutely necessary.
For all of these reasons, over time, we'll see more and more of these small colleges go away. Once interest rates in student loans start to go up — which is a certainty in the medium- and long-term — these Vacation Colleges are going to look even less attractive than they do now, and they'll become a niche market for the wealthy and/or clueless.
Is it illegal to physically attack another person in Kentucky? If so, it's unclear why there is any need or cause whatsoever for the involvement of federal authorities in Rand Paul's recent altercation with a neighbor at this Kentucky home. Indeed, even if Paul had been murdered, there'd still be no reason to involve federal authorities.
Murder is illegal in every one of the fifty states. It's even illegal in Puerto Rico. But, for the last several decades, there's been a disturbing trend in American criminal justice matters. Everything is being federalized.
This was not always the case, however.
This law provides for a death penalty for killing a member of Congress, a presidential or vice presidential candidate, or a Supreme Court justice, as well as imprisonment up to life for attempting to kill such a person...
The background of this law is interesting. When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, it was not a federal crime to kill a U.S. president. Had alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald been tried, the trial would have taken place in a Texas state court. In 1965, Congress passed a law, 18 U.S.C. 1751, making it a federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault the President or the Vice President.
In 1968, presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles. That was not a federal crime at the time, and Sirhan Sirhan was convicted in California state court for the murder and sentenced to death. (That sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972, when that state abolished the death penalty, and Sirhan remains in a California state prison.) In 1971, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 351, which extended the protection of the Federal criminal law to members of Congress, paralleling that extended to the President and the Vice President.
This fits well into the usual habit of transferring the business of criminal justice to federal authorities with the effect of further extending federal powers and increasing prosecutorial resources that can be brought to bear against the accused. This federalization helps to further diminish the role of the states in the administration of public policy, to extend the reach — and expense — of federal courts, and to impose the costs of a double-layered legal system on the taxpayers.
Prior to federalizing these laws, had there been ambiguity as to whether it was illegal to murder, kidnap, or commit battery against people? Where the streets running with the blood of murdered federal politicians?
Of course not. These laws do send a valuable message, however. They remind us that there are one set of laws for a special protected class of federal officials, agents, and employees. And there's a second set of laws for the people who merely pay for it all.
In a new report for the TaxPayers' Alliance in the UK, Ben Ramanauskas makes an important point: deficit spending and government debt are moral issues, and not just matters for arcane economic theory. That is, when current voters side with current politicians to drive a government deeper into debt, they hand down a big fat bill to future taxpayers and citizens who have no say in the matter right now:
There are significant moral implications of having a large national debt. Money which is borrowed today will have to be paid back at some point in the future, perhaps by people who are yet to be born. As a result of the profligacy of current governments, a burden will be placed on future generations who will have to pay higher taxes and have less money to spend on essential services. It is one of the defining principles of Parliamentary Supremacy that Parliament cannot bind its successors. The reasoning behind this is that it would be an affront to democracy to allow future generations to be bound by previous generations.However, by having such a high national debt, the government binds future generations and curtails their freedom to choose by ensuring that they will have to spend a significant proportion of their money servicing the debt which also places restrictions on what they can spend their money on, and will also have implications for levels of taxation.
Therefore, increased borrowing will result in a burden being placed on future generations. A high national debt can have numerous negative consequences. For example, a high level of debt can lead to an increase in the yields paid on UK sovereign bonds. This is because if investors believed that the UK’s national debt was so high that it would be at risk of defaulting on its debt or that the country would inflate them away, they would need to be incentivised to purchase the UK’s gilts by high yields. Very high national debt can have a negative impact on economic growth. For example, borrowing can crowd out other investment as investors loan money to the government, rather than to the private sector. Nations typically see growth slow when their debt levels reach 90 percent of GDP, with the median growth rate falling by 1 percent and average growth falling by even more.
Moreover, research focussing on the US has found that raising the Federal deficit has an adverse effect on the economy by reducing private sector investment, economic growth, and employment. As mentioned above, government debt has to be paid. Furthermore, interest payments have to be paid on the debt. This, therefore, places restrictions on government budgets and so diminishes their ability to be able to spend money on essential services. Moreover, in order to repay and service the debt, governments tend to either raise taxes or decide not to lower them. An in depth explanation of the folly of increasing taxes and the benefits associated with tax cuts goes beyond the scope of this paper, and the TaxPayers’ Alliance has written extensively on this topic. However, the evidence is clear that tax increases tend to be harmful for the economy, whereas tax cuts tend to have a positive impact.
Although it may seem an attractive policy to borrow money in order to fund government spending, this is not a sensible approach. Although interest rates are historically low, government borrowing is not free and has to be funded. Furthermore, although there have been other periods in its history when the UK has had a high level of national debt, the socio-economic situation is very different from those periods. It should also be remembered that not only has this money got to eventually be paid back, but that also interest has to be paid on the debt too.
These interest payments represent a significant proportion of government expenditure, and is money which could have been spent on essential public services such as healthcare, education, or provision for the elderly. Moreover, proponents of the idea that the government should take advantage of low interest rates by borrowing more are correct to point out that rates are historically low, but that is precisely the point. They are historically low, and so one should not expect them to remain as such over the coming years and decades. Furthermore, we have seen that even a small increase in rates of one per cent, increases the national debt as a percentage of GDP significantly in the long term. Furthermore, there are serious economic and moral ramifications to increasing national debt. For example, a high national debt can seriously hamper economic growth. Moreover, increasing the national debt places a burden on future generations who will have to pay it back.
As Ramanauskas notes, it's not just a matter of higher bills for government services either. All that extra spending discourages private-sector investment as well, creating a more run-down, more capital-impoverished version of the future than would have otherwise been the case.
In America, at least, this is the legacy of the current Baby Boomer generation, and their parents. They want their Medicare, and their highly-paid government jobs, and federally-subsidized roads, and endless wars fought in the far reaches of the world. But their children and grandchildren will be paying the bill.
Apparently, South African Airways is "on the verge of bankruptcy" and is, according to the BBC, "haemorrhaging cash." Unfortunately for South African taxpayers, SAA is also a state-owned operation, it's deeply in debt, and it may not be able to make payroll in the near future.
Clearly, there's a problem.
James Peron, writing at South Africa's Business Day suggests Ludwig von Mises may have the answer:
The mess that is South African Airways (SAA) is widely known today. What many do not realise is that in 1944, Yale University published a book that laid out the reasons for the mess.
While it is true that Ludwig von Mises’s Bureaucracy does not mention SAA by name, it does dissect the differences between "profit management" and "bureaucratic (or political) management".
Mises argues that under each system of management, there exist incentives. Managers and/or owners respond to those incentives.
Transfer the bureaucrat to a system of "profit management" and his actions will change. Put a businessman in charge of a bureaucratic system of governance and he will act like all the bureaucrats before him. Change the incentives and you change the response.
The key word here, when it comes to incentives is "political." It's not the fact that SAA has a bureaucratic structure. Most large organizations do. The difference between SAA and a private organization is that profit is not the primary motivation — because bailouts and other political solutions can substitute for serving customers in the marketplace. IF SAA ceases to make a profit, as is already the case, it seems, it will continue to exist so long as government agents see fit to continue subsidizing it. In a truly private market, of course, an organization that fails to make a profit — regardless of how "bureaucratic" it is — ceases to exist.
Articles about the tax exploits of global corporations generally are short on facts and long on innuendo. This recent missive from the Associated Press about Apple is a standard example of the genre: full of breathless accounts (Bermuda! Loose rules! Shelters!) that imply sinister motives behind standard business practices. Call it whatever you like, but tax avoidance is perfectly ordinary for a public company like Apple. It owes shareholders an obligation to operate in a cost-effective manner. Taxes are a cost, not some social duty owed to the world.
It's tempting to think progressives like Apple CEO Tim Cook deserve scrutiny on grounds of hypocrisy, but we should resist this temptation. Apple has done nothing wrong, nothing illegal, and nothing immoral. Every dollar it saves in taxes goes somewhere much better than Washington DC (such as into product development or even to Apple's hedge fund in Nevada).
"Offshore" simply means not within US tax jurisdiction. Every other sovereign country technically is offshore by this definition, so journalists should dispense with the nefarious language. Reporters and even tax professionals use lazy jargon to insinuate unregulated activity is happening somewhere, without US oversight. Yet I'm confident the AP understands that actual business activity occurs outside the US, some of which presumably is not the business of the IRS or American regulators. This maniacal insistence on taxing every US person or business on everything they do around the globe is the unfortunate result of our "worldwide" income tax system. Blame that system of government greed, not corporate greed, for complex tax structures and creative avoidance.
Moreover a "tax shelter" is any device that permits a taxpayer to reduce his/her/its tax bill. The garden variety mortgage interest deduction is as much a shelter as the most complex corporate tax structure (e.g. the "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich," preferred by big US tech companies until a few years ago). Living in Texas creates an income tax shelter relative to living in California. Buying and holding stocks for more than a year shelters long term investors from paying higher capital gains rates than day traders. And so forth. Shelters are a good thing.
Finally, neither Apple nor any other US multinational corporation "avoids tens of billions of dollars in taxes by using overseas havens." At most they delay paying US taxes. They do not avoid nor postpone income foreign taxes. Those "havens" are real countries with real people who buy Apple devices, including nations across Europe and Asia. When Apple devices are made in foreign countries, then sold in foreign countries by foreign salespeople, when the money collected remains in that foreign country, and Apple pays income tax to that foreign country, why should Uncle Sam demand a cut? This is not tax evasion, this is what doing business on a global scale looks like. If and when Apple decides to repatriate wholly foreign earnings to its US parent company in the form of a dividend, then the IRS can have its way. But it's outrageous to insist on taxing income that has not been paid. It's also a form of hubris that imagines all business earnings around the world should roll up into the US government's coffers.
Apple is not the British East India Company. It need not pay tribute to Washington, DC as a surrogate Queen.