Category: Government

Pass the parcel

Congratulations to Martin Wolf of the Financial Times

An article was published in the FT on the 29th June that beautifully describes the ways in which we are all being so beautifully ‘screwed’ by the world of finance.  (Note, you may need to register to see this article, but please do.  Registration is free and the FT is full of great content.)

It starts like this:

This global game of ‘pass the parcel’ cannot end well

By Martin Wolf

Published: June 29 2010 23:31 | Last updated: June 29 2010 23:31

Paul here. Pass the parcel is a game for kids’ parties that involves passing a multi-wrapped ‘present’ around where the kid holding the parcel when the music stops gets to unwrap one sheet, then passes it on, etc., etc., until the kid holding the parcel with just one wrapper on it when the music stops gets the present.

Martin continues:

Our adult game of pass the parcel is far more sophisticated: there are several games going on at once; and there are many parcels, some containing prizes; others containing penalties.

So here are four such games. The first is played within the financial sector: the aim of each player is to ensure that bad loans end up somewhere else, while collecting a fee for each sheet unwrapped along the way. The second game is played between finance and the rest of the private sector, the aim being to sell the latter as much service as possible, while ensuring that the losses end up with the customers. The third game is played between the financial sector and the state: its aim is to ensure that, if all else fails, the state ends up with these losses. Then, when the state has bailed it out, finance can win by shorting the states it has bankrupted. The fourth game is played among states. The aim is to ensure that other countries end up with any excess supply. Surplus countries win by serially bankrupting the private and then public sectors of trading partners. It might be called: “beggaring your neighbours, while feeling moral about it”. It is the game Germany is playing so well in the eurozone.

It’s an article that really does need to be read in full. Martin concludes thus:

Yet it is quite clear that an isolated discussion of the need to reduce fiscal deficits will not work. These cannot be shrunk without resolving the overindebtedness of damaged private sectors, reducing external imbalances, or both.

The games we have been playing have been economically damaging. We will be on the road to recovery, when we start playing better ones.

Now I really don’t want Learning from Dogs to focus on ‘doom and gloom’. There’s more than enough of that to go round twice and thrice.

But when someone writes in such a great clarifying way – then it deserves the widest promulgation. The more we all know about the games being played, the better we can change the rules to benefit society.  Well done, Martin.

By Paul Handover

Greece and America — Similar crises?

Fiddling with gravity!

Financial crises can be very difficult events to understand.  Even for those who have spent a great deal of time studying such areas as finance and economics, comprehension of these disasters can be elusive.  However, analyzing shared elements in the recent American and Greek financial crises can help give even the economic layman insight into their common causes.

One word can be used to sum up the basic concept behind both of these crises – overextension.  Both the American and Greek governments attempted to take on a much heavier economic load than either could handle.  While, in both cases, this has been painted by some as a noble, humanitarian effort to help those in need, methods such as inflationary monetary policy tantamount to theft and the disguising of massive budgetary deficits (in both cases with the help of Goldman Sachs) would not justify the means employed even had these efforts been successful, and certainly should be taken to task considering the disastrous ramifications of these actions.

In both cases, many are citing unrestrained spending as the source of the problem.  For example, CNN wrote of the Greek crisis that “years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms…whisked away a curtain of partly fiddled statistics to reveal debt levels and deficits that exceeded limits set by the Eurozone.”

Without suggesting that CNN was attempting to be deceptive in this explanation, as the points made certainly are important, it must be noted that things like unrestrained spending, cheap lending, and fiddled statistics are merely symptoms of the deeper disease.  Instead of asking the government to spend less, tighten lending laws, and implement financial reform, one should instead ask the deeper question – how does the government even have the power to cause such problems in the first place, and why are the results of such government power so often much more hurtful than helpful?

This deeper problem, whose symptoms we are now dealing with, is central banking.  The Federal Reserve System and its Greek counterpart, the Bank of Greece, each had a heavy hand in their respective nations’ financial collapses.  This is due to these banks’ attempts at economic manipulation – the Federal Reserve directly sets interest rates, while the Greek system uses more indirect methods to do nearly the same thing.   Note that it is due to their attempts at economic manipulation, as attempting to set economic law is about as useful as attempting to set gravity.

Consider this metaphor of setting gravity.  A man claims to be able to set the force of gravity on the earth.  He tells a stunt biker that he can set gravity to be half as much as normal.  So, the biker attempts to jump a distance that is much longer than he normally would attempt.  Upon jumping, the biker finds that, obviously, the first man never was able to set the nature of gravity at all, and he falls to the ground long before reaching his destination.

This is exactly what happened due to the actions of central banks in the cases of both the United States and Greece.  Interest rates and other natural economic restrictions were said to be more flexible than they truly were. Thus, individuals who based their actions on this information ended up engaging in activities that were far more risky than usual.  However, once they had “jumped,” so to speak, they found that, in fact, economic law was as strict as ever, and they “fell.”

However, if the answer is so obvious, why are we not hearing more about it?  Each of these financial crises is extremely complicated, and the above described scene is, it must be admitted, an oversimplification.  This is not to say that it is not accurate, but rather that this nature of the crises’ root cause is not immediately apparent to all upon examining the situation.

For example, a person who has been educated their entire life in an economic school that praises central banking, deficit spending, and government action in general would certainly seek to find another cause for the crisis, perhaps by blaming business owners for making risky investments or stating that government controls were not strict enough.  However, a person who has studied and understands the damage done by central banking and government economic controls will be quick to realize what has occurred.

People with such knowledge are becoming more and more common in both the United States and around the world.  “Even today, with an economic crisis raging, the response by our government and the Federal Reserve has been characteristic,” Ron Paul writes in his recent book, End the Fed.  “Interest rates are driven to zero and trillions of dollars are pushed into the economy with no evidence that any problems will be solved.  The authorities remain oblivious to the fact that they are only making our problems worse in the long run.”

While he may be one of the most popular adversaries of central banking, it is not just Ron Paul, or even Austrian economists, who are calling out government for its role in these financial crises.  In an e-mail to supporters, Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich cited “the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, the banks’ fractional reserve system and our debt-based economic system” as major factors in the American crisis.

Such complex and important issues as economic crises need all the attention we can give them, and it is impossible here to provide the in-depth analysis that these situations merit.  It also must be noted that while both the United States and Greece have to an extent both engaged in central banking to their detriments, each country does have a different system.  Still, the general principles hold, always returning us to that first word – overextension.  As long as nations attempt to manipulate the laws of economics to engage in far grander pursuits than they can sustain, we can expect to see such economic crises as have been seen in the United States and Greece in the future.

By Elliot Engstrom

BP and Congress

Truth – 0, Lawyers – 1

Hayward of BP taking the oath

I can’t possibly add anything of substance to the hours and millions of words spoken about this tragic event.

All I felt as I watched the Congressional Hearing live on CNN was both embarrassment and sadness as a fellow Englishman demonstrated how the lawyers have won.

Hayward, from the couple of hours that I saw, said nothing of substance, nothing of real value and nothing that recognised how the American people, and the world in general, deserved openness and in-depth answers.

Very poorly advised, in my opinion.

Tragic.

By Paul Handover

Drink-Driving

Amazed they don’t just tax Fun and leave it at that!

Lemonade isn't a substitute!

Once again the British Politically Correct nanny-state lobby seems about to pounce by reducing the drink-driving limit to 50 mg. This is yet another fatuous knee-jerk “Let’s give the image that we are responsible and doing something” initiative.

No, I do NOT favour driving while drunk, but at 80 mg per ml you are not “drunk” or even impaired. The introduction of the 80 mg limit was a great step, but more would be a mg too far.

I know for an absolute fact that if I drink one pint of beer I am in no way more dangerous than if I drink nothing. Don’t ask me how I know; I just do. I’ve been driving all over Europe for 40 years; and experience counts for something after all.

Yes, I do want to see road accidents reduced, but let’s see something REALISTIC and EFFECTIVE. Why are most accidents caused? (apart from people way over the limit, unlicenced or driving unroadworthy cars and so on)

  • arrogance and lack of imagination: “It can’t happen to me.”
  • impatience: overtaking dangerously to save 45 seconds on a two-mile journey
  • driving too fast in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  • driving without consideration for others
  • not driving as if every other driver was an idiot
  • failing to give yourself enough of a margin for error
  • failing to understand statistics

The last two points are perhaps crucial. Drive on the périphérique in Paris and you’ll see examples of both. Of course, the French are, in general, brilliant drivers and 99.9% of the time they can get away with driving up someone’s boot, but statistics tell us that there is 0.01% of the time when this will NOT be OK.

What steps COULD be taken instead of clobbering the one pinter?

  • Start with the apparent ONE MILLION people in Britain driving either unlicensed and/or in uninsured or unroadworthy cars.
  • Ban rich Daddy’s boys from driving high-powered sports cars: nobody under 25 should be able to drive anything over 80 bhp for a start.
  • Where is the logic in manufacturing cars that can drive at three times the speed limit? BAN THEM. BE LOGICAL.
  • Make the viewing of video of the aftermath of accidents a compulsory part of the driving test so that people came reeling out of the room white and vomiting at the sight of accident victims with their faces smashed up and/or their heads severed. This is the REALITY of accidents. Let’s GET REAL.
  • Prevent people from driving for TOO LONG. Tiredness is a MAJOR factor in accidents, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over the hours that private motorists can drive. Modern technology could do something here.
  • Make the punishments for careless and/or dangerous driving SEVERE.
  • Make people AFRAID of causing an accident.

The truth is that a car is as dangerous as a gun and people should treat them as such. Sadly, familiarity breeds contempt and people too often forget the basic principles.

Every time I get in my car I tell myself the following:

  • Drive with as much care as when you first drove so nervously and gingerly on your first trip with your new licence.
  • Every journey could be your last. Just because the last n days have been trouble-free it doesn’t mean that today will. (statistics again)
  • There could be an idiot around the next corner, so drive defensively. (there is always a percentage of idiots, so statistically you are CERTAIN to meet one now and again)
  • Going too fast in the wrong place and/or conditions isn’t worth the risk. (stats again)
  • You have no right to maim or kill anyone else by bad driving and causing “an accident”‘.
  • Be afraid – think of what a serious injury or even your death would mean to your family.
  • It’s no good being “sorry” afterwards ……

Let’s hope the new British government has a bit of commonsense about this.

PS The Police could do their bit, too. A significant number of people are killed by policemen rushing about.

By Chris Snuggs

IAM Logo

A P.P.S. from the Editor. In fact, one of the best things that could be done is create an


incentive for passing the Institute of Advanced Driving driving test.  I passed the test in 1966 and it has been the best investment I have ever made.

Why doesn’t the UK Government give a free year’s road-tax for every person who passed the IAM test.  All this proposed change in the drink/drive limit will do is to put yet more British pubs out of business.  G’rrr.

Laughing as you sink!

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe on the million dollar questions – courtesy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

This sketch is doing the rounds and deservedly so – it’s a very funny skit on Europe’s troubling financial situation.

As ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, is reputed to have quoted, “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.

By Paul Handover

Elliot’s Schooling: The Role of Government

This continues the series of posts on education.

Abraham Lincoln

What is the role of government in education?  The problem of central government power and corruption in relation to education is a cause of great concern for me.  I still remember learning that Abraham Lincoln was a champion of civil rights who wanted to end slavery, and that American exceptionalism defeated the aggressive Soviet Union.  I also now realize that there were gaping absences from my education, like the complete absence of any classes concerning philosophy, even as an introduction that scratched the surface, or any study of the decline of empires such as Rome whose glories I studied so intensely.

Ancient Rome

If there is any quick fix for the problems I am noting, it would be decentralization of power in respect to our education system.  This becomes more problematic on a daily basis, as more and more federal stimulus funds are poured into local education systems.  While the beltway political community often paints this as government helping small communities, I see the benefit of a temporary boost in funding being far outweighed by the cost of our central government grabbing more and more local power.  Education systems will, in the long run, be forced to either permanently entrust more of their budgetary matters to federal power, or suffer the pain of doing away with an infrastructure that big government created and, consequently, only big government can support.  Decentralization would help the education system of the United States to be more diverse as well, as different regions would certainly have different educational programs, and these programs could compete in the form of their graduates to show which programs had the best results.

However, no discussion of education in the United States would be complete without taking a look at the intent of our country’s founders.  Here I must thank Professor Jarrell for injecting this concept into the current discussion.  In a recent LFD post addressed to me and interested others, she wrote:

The Federalist Papers made it clear, to me at least, that our founding fathers believed that the government, our federal government in particular, should have nothing to do with educating the populace.

I realize it sounds a bit radical now, but I believe that any discussion of what is right and wrong about public education today must begin with a healthy debate about whether the federal government should be involved in public education at all.

Your thoughts?  Thanks!

In a very soon-to-come post, I will begin yet another discussion,  one that I hope will heavily involve Professor Jarrell and many others, about the original intent of our founders in relation to public education, and whether or not there is any hope of returning to their proposed system at any point in the near future.

by Elliot Engstrom