One country, setting the example of a very high carbon tax, and sharing out all its revenues equally among all its citizens, would be a real game changer, in so many ways.

Sir you correctly argue, “Time is running out for us to halt dangerous rises in temperature…this is no longer a scientific or technological challenge, it is far more a political and social one.”, “How to rescue the global climate change agenda” December 27.

But when you hold “The depressing reality about climate change is that we could solve the problem, at manageable cost” that is not necessarily so. Sir, let’s face it, the truth is that there are way too many whose real interest, more than solving the challenges of climate-change, is to profit from the process, whether financially or politically, whether they are aware of it or not.

I’m as concern as anyone with the problem but in my case I really did not mind so much president Trump’s blindness, since I have always thought of the Paris agreement in terms of being just an interesting photo-op that would serve as a very dangerous pacifier.

So to align political and social incentives; to allow the market signaling how the problems should be best tackled; and to keep costly profiteering out of the process, I have for years thought the best alternative is a very high carbon/pollution tax which revenues are shared out in their totality equally among all citizens.

Why does that idea not meet more interest? The answer is clearly that the redistribution profiteers see that route as one that could very dangerously affect the value of their franchise, since there could be pressure for the revenues to be redistributed to all, a sort of unconditional variable basic income, should also for instance include all income generated by any existing gas/petrol taxes.

Our planet that I often refer to as our pied-à-terre needs a champion that decides to go down this route to set an example to follow. My grandchildren are Canadian so I would love Canada showing the way.

PS. This is exactly what I proposed how Mexico City should tackle its serious pollution problems in a letter you kindly published in May 2016.

@PerKurowski

To save the earth, start by saving it from phony saving-the-earth profiteers

Sir, Martin Sandbu writes about “how a conflict of interests over climate change — something that really is humanity’s common challenge — aligns with and reinforces a deeper culture war dividing centrist urban elites from system-critical populists… [So] we have missed the potentially much greater obstacle of political polarization in the age of populism” “The burden of tackling climate change must be shared”, November 5.

Hear hear! This is exactly the type of issues and challenges we must learn to tackle, if there’s going to be any hope for us to survive as the society we always dreamt of, or avoid turning into that society we always dread, something that in fact means even more than our survival on earth.

But, when Sandbu speaks about what “reinforces a deeper culture war dividing centrist urban elites from system-critical populists”, I disagree, because the real hard core divide in this case is between those expected to pay for to help save our planet, and those who expect to profit from those efforts.

But Sandbu also refers to a remedy to that, when he mentions, “the carbon ‘fee and dividend’ approach advocated by climate scientist James Hansen [which] would levy duties on fossil fuels and redistribute the revenue in equal per capita amounts to all residents”

That’s precisely in line with what I recommended in a letter published in FT on how Mexico City should go about in order to reduce its serious pollution problems.

If Emmanuel Macron, perhaps hand in hand with Canada’s government that is also thinking about higher carbon taxes, decides that all revenues from taxes on fuel, and similar, are to be shared out equally among all citizens, that would set an example to other nations, that would at least be worth some ten Paris agreements.

Sir, let me be cleat about it. If I am going to help to save the world, by paying higher carbon taxes, I want all of it translate into a clear market signal that saves the planet, and not into something which unduly enrich those promoting saving the world, or those profiteering on the process.

@PerKurowski

The risk premiums for a suspect of human rights violating nation will increase, which, sadly, will also attract investors

Sir, Gillian Tett, with respect to how business should or could behave in cases of human rights violations, like that of Khashoggi, if confirmed, writes: “since western businesses are scrambling to maintain their investments there at a time of rising Sino-American tensions. “What will we do the next time that the Chinese toss dissidents in jail or clamp down on local journalists?” asks one chief executive. The answer is not clear.” “The Khashoggi case puts US businesses in a moral bind”, October 19.

How much has the risk premiums required by anyone wanting to invest in Saudi Arabia gone up after the Khashoggi incident, and after how Saudi Arabia reacted against Canada when its Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland tweeted concerns about the news that several social activists had been arrested in Saudi Arabia? These must have increased a lot, and an initial public offering of the Saudi oil giant Aramco is rumored cancelled.

That costs of course the human rights violating nation a lot… but those higher risk premiums also attract… as we can notice when a Goldman Sachs finances a notorious human rights violating regime like Venezuela’s Maduro’s.

The answer to the chief executive’s what to do question, should have to include “what our shareholders have mandated us”. Unfortunately too many shareholders also turn a blind eye to ugly realities, when for instance a Goldman Sachs announces record returns on equity.

What do we lack? Perhaps the will of a responsible elite that is willing to shame those who behave in a disgraceful manner, in a completely apolitical way. We need a society whose members would not invite Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein to have tea at their homes. 

Sir, I have not been able to find the reference to it on the web but, some years ago, in Swedish television, I remember having heard something about a Swedish king who said he feared more the opinions of Stockholm’s high societies ladies than Russia. 

@PerKurowski

What if all finance help provided house buyers in Canada, which increases demand, reflects 30% of current house prices?

Sir, with respect to Ben McLannahan’s extensive report on the Canadian house market February 9, “Canada’s home loans crisis”, I would just want to ask:

What if regulatory and all other support developed in order to provide house buyers in Canada easier financing, something that obviously increases the demand for houses, translates into being, let us say, 30% of the current house prices in Canada?

Who has that then benefitted, buyers or vendors?

Does this mean Canada must now help with new financing to house buyers only in order to pay for old financing help?

How could something like that not end in a disaster?

As I see it much more important than helping our young to affordable houses, is helping our young to afford houses. Ce n'est pas la même chose!

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2018/01/many-of-our-young-will-be-without-jobs.html

@PerKurowski

Canada needs a Universal Basic Income, 1st class robots and the smartest artificial intelligence, and to be daring

Sir, as a Venezuelan I am so lucky and so grateful for having two of my daughters and my two granddaughters living in Canada; and so of course I gave special attention to Tyler Brûlé’s “My plan to make Canada great again” September 31.

Except perhaps for that of “some form of national service with both defence and civilian functions”, and which because of my Swedish connections rang a bell with me, his other proposals left me quite indifferent.

I would instead suggest the following three things.

1. To prepare itself for the possibility of structural unemployment that could cause a breakdown of social order. This will probably require the introduction of a modest Universal Basic Income, a social dividend, and not paid by taking on more debt.

2. To gather all possible brain power in order to guarantee that future Canadians live surrounded and served by 1st class robots and the smartest artificial intelligence possible. Thinking of mine being dependent on anything lesser is just too horrible.

3. To immediately get rid of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks. These have banks staying away from financing the “riskier” future, like SMEs, and just keeping to refinancing the “safer” past, or basements in which to live. Risk taking is the oxygen of any development. God, make Canada daring!

PS. On Bombardier the following was my pro-Nafta tweet: “The fundamental question: Would Boeing build better airplanes in the future with or without competition from Bombardier? Keep the pressure!”

@PerKurowski

In order to find common Nafta ground, US, Canada and Mexico must begin by clearing for robots and automation

Shawn Donnan and Jude Webber quote Robert Lighthizer, US trade representative, having told negotiators. “Thousands of American factory workers have lost their jobs because of these provisions.” “Canada and Mexico rebuke US as Nafta renegotiation starts” August 17.

If Nafta members take notice of what robots and automation has done to manufacturing jobs, in all of their nations, then instead of facing each other as enemies they would be sharing a challenge.

It still amazes me how the recent American elections failed to recognize the job opportunities lost to automation. Had that not happened, Donald Trump would have had to speak about a Wall against robots instead, and would not have become president… not that that would have solved much either.

Jobs lost to robots and automation is not an easy problem to handle as it does produce good results too. If I was Nafta I would begin by asking my partners: “How do we make sure our grandchildren will be able to live surrounded by 1st class robots and smart artificial intelligence and not end up with 3rd class ones and dumb AI? That would be a real positive and constructive challenge for it.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2017/02/here-some-disorderly-lose-cannon.html

@PerKurowski

Current bank regulations also guarantee Canadian covered bonds will have more demand than Italian.

Sir, Thomas Hale while explaining the appetite for Canadian covered bonds quotes Michael Spies, a strategist at Citi with: “I’m buying a collateralised bank bond rated triple A, from a bank which is rated double A, in a country which is rated triple A,” he adds. “Now let’s put this together and compare it to an Italian covered bond.” “Canada’s housing rally owes a debt to Europe” July 12

That is not the whole story. Those Canadian covered bonds can, as a consequence of the risk weighted capital requirements, be held by banks against less capital than those “risky” Italian ones; and so therefore the banks can multiply their equity with more Canadian net risk margins than with Italian; and so banks will earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity with the Canadian than with the Italian; and so the Canadian covered bonds, when compared to the Italian, will have more demand than these would have had in the absence of the risk-weighting, and the Italian less.

That the distortion in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks cause is not more discussed, is one of the great mysteries of our times.

PS. I was kindly informed of that "The risk weighting for a highly rated Italian covered bond is actually significantly lower (10%) than for a Canadian covered bond of the same rating (20%). This is because the European legislation (CRR) affords preferential treatment to issuers in the European Economic Area." I did not know that, but it sure makes me question whether Canada is aware of that it is subjected to this kind of European regulatory protectionism. 

@PerKurowski

My Industrial Policy would be to try having the best robots, and the most intelligent artificial intelligence

Sir, I refer to Rana Foroohar’s “Wanted: an industrial policy for America” May 8.

The 2007/08 financial crisis resulted from excessive exposures to what had been perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, those assets which therefore regulators allowed banks to hold against very little capital. Examples: the AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector and loans to sovereigns like Greece.

That should have been more than enough proof that, distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy with risk weighted capital requirements for banks, was not the way to go. But they all left it at that. As a consequence, only because they were as “risky” discriminated against by bank regulators, perhaps hundred of thousands SMEs and entrepreneurs have since then gotten their requests for bank credit rejected, or priced much higher. So Foroohar’s referencing an “Obama administration playbook” as especially favorable to job creation, sounds way out of place.

Yes, it is great that any government focuses its interest on job creation, but sometimes it must also give considerable thought to what to do if those jobs are nowhere to be found. That is why some years ago I wrote: “We need worthy and decent unemployments”.

I am against protectionism but, at this particular moment, if it were up to me, I would protect all learning and developing opportunities that could help my grandchildren to have access to the absolutely best robots and absolutely most intelligent artificial intelligence.

That is because if they don’t have it, they will benefit less or, in order to compete, have to work much harder for less than others.

That is because the Chinese curse “May your children live in interesting times”, might soon be upgraded to “May your grandchildren live surrounded by 3rd class robots, and dumb artificial intelligence”. 

PS. Sir, my granddaughters are Canadian so this message is in fact directed more to Mr. Trudeau than to Mr Trump.

PS. Again, please FT you who are so without fear, dare to ask regulators the questions below and dare learn the truth.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2016/12/must-one-go-on-hunger-strike-to-have.html

PS. Then in 2023 I discovered OpenAI – ChatGPT. And boy could artificial intelligence help empower a citizens’ democracy. That is if, of course, if #AI regulators allow it. It could endanger their current Bureaucracy Autocracy.

 

@PerKurowski

More important than air traffic control is to place bank regulation in a public/private non-profit entity

Sir, Gillian Tett discusses the head of the US Council of Economic Advisers’, Gary Cohn, plan to take the air traffic control system away from the Federal Aviation Administration and place it in a non-profit entity, funded by public and private finance. “Canada inspires US reform plans to take off”, April 7.

Sounds like a good idea but, much more important for both America and Canada, would be to place bank regulations in the hands of such an entity… like a BankReg.org!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with regulating banks without defining the purpose of banks? No way Jose!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, to regulate banks without empirical analysis of what has caused the bank crises in the past? No way Jose!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with making it harder than it always has been for “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs to access bank credit? No way Jose!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with risk-weighing the Sovereign with 0%, and We the People with 100%, and thereby through the Bathroom Window introducing runaway statism? No way Jose!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with risk-weighing the dangerous corporate AAA rated with 20%, while assigning a 150% risk weight to the so innocuous below BB- rated? No way Jose!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with giving banks incentives to finance the “safe” basements were our unemployed kids can live over those, who though riskier, could provide our kids with the jobs they need in order to also have kids and basements? No way Jose!

I mean would those working in BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with not having some psychological tests made on them in order to guarantee their suitability? No way Jose!

I mean would BankReg.org have gotten away, like current bank regulators have, with causing the 2007-08 crisis without suffering any consequences for it… in some cases even being promoted? No way Jose! We would have sued and fined its technocrats for their last socks!

I mean would FT have treated BankReg.org as leniently as it has treated the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, the Financial Stability Board, IMF and other clearly failed bank regulators? No way Jose!

PS. Here are some of my questions looking for answers

@PerKurowski

To who should productivity of robots belong? Why not tax it and share it out with a Universal Basic Income scheme?

Sir, I refer to Carl Benedikt Frey’s “Make technology work for the many not the few” December 13.

In 2012, in an Op-Ed titled “We need worthy and decent unemployments” I wrote: “The power of a nation, and the productivity of its economy, which so far has depended primarily on the quality of its employees may, in the future, also depend on the quality of its unemployed, as a minimum in the sense of these not interrupting those working.” And I feel that statement is becoming truer day by day.

What to do about it? Day by day I am becoming surer that in some sort of Universal Basic Income lies the answer. Let us put some payroll taxes on robots. That would not only allow many humans to compete better for jobs but, if the robots win, then those taxes could help fund a Universal Basic Income.

In Trump terminology: Let us build a wall against robots and have these pay for it!

@PerKurowski

PS. Canada

Much of those interest margins banks now obtain financing what’s perceived safe, used to belong to pension funds.

Sir, I refer to Mary Childs and John Authers’ “Canada quietly treads radical path on pensions: Retirement funds are pushing beyond bonds and stocks in search of better returns” August 23.

Please hear me out. Before the introduction of the risk weighted capital requirements, banks spread out their credits to those who offered them the best risk-adjusted margins, while subjecting the size of the exposures to the same perceived credit risk. Taking risks, with reasoned audacity, was the business of the banks. In comparison, avoiding risks, and looking for certain minimum returns, was the business of pension funds.

But, with the risk weighted capital requirements that allow banks to leverage much more their equity with what is perceived as safe than with what is perceived as risky, banks began maximizing their returns on equity by minimizing the equity they needed to hold, something which meant going for what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe.

As a result the bankers were able to realize their wet dreams of huge perceived risk adjusted returns on equity for playing it safe.

But that de facto meant that banks occupied the investment space pension funds use to occupy, and so now we have that pension funds have to go out there and take the risks banks used to take.

Sir, you can be damn sure that if banks needed to hold the same capital against all assets they would not be swamping the safe havens, and pension funds would not have to be “facing the challenge of [so] low returns on traditional assets”

This is all so foolish. Why can’t we allow banks to be banks and pension funds to be pension funds?

This is all so dangerous. If banks do not finance risky SMEs and entrepreneurs the real economy will stall and fall, and then even the safest will not buy retirement tranquility (or jobs for our children and grandchildren).

Should not those who live under the thumb of blatant redistribution profiteers have safe access to safe tax havens?

Sir, David Pilling raises a question that needs to be asked more often, especially when inequality is debated “Why would people pay tax if much of the money is simply stolen or distributed to others, and provision of public goods is so inadequate?” “Where states remain at the mercy of their elites”. March 17.

In my country Venezuela, the really poor have not received more than a maximum of 15% of what would have been their per capita share of the nations net oil revenues. The rest if not just wasted, has gone to redistribution profiteers and associates.

And Pilling quotes Senator Alphonso Gaye from Liberia saying: “You need some cash. Your respect in this country depends on your capacity to respond to people’s demands.” Of his salary… how much do you think goes into his responses? 10 percent?

This is why I am hopeful the universal basic income that currently is being studied, for instance in Finland and Canada, could become a reality.

That would help us to get rid of all those odious redistribution profiteers. And with such a redistribution mechanism many would look much more favorably on a pro-equality tax on wealth.

Question: Where would inequality be today if all social redistributive spending had been done by means of a cost effective Universal Basic Income?

PS. My tax paradise (Nothing as powerful against tax havens as tax heavens)

@PerKurowski ©

Why did not Mark Carney warn long ago entrepreneurs and SMEs, they would no longer have fair access to bank credit?

Sir, Pilita Clark reports on how Mark Carney, the current chairman of the Financial Stability Board “warns investors of ‘huge’ hit as climate action ‘strands’ fossil fuel assets” September 30.

Because nervous regulators thought bankers did not see or responded sufficiently to the credit risks that were perceived, they forced banks to hold more capital when lending to the risky, than when lending to the supposedly safe, like to Sovereigns and members of the AAArisktocracy.

And so why then did not Carney long ago warn all aspiring “risky” entrepreneurs to forget their plans, since they could not any longer count on fair access to bank credit?

And is not Carney Canadian? Should he really be talking down the value of “stranded fossil fuel assets” just like that? It sounds a bit irresponsible to me.

And if Carney is so concerned, why does he then not require banks to hold capital based on the risk of the sustainability of planet earth?

For instance, if banks when financing something that supposedly helped sustainability were allowed to hold less capital, and could thereby earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity, that would at least induce them to serve a purpose. Basing it like now solely on perceived credit risk does not. It is both useless and dangerous… dangerous because big bank crisis never result from excessive financing of what is perceived risky, but from excessive financing to what is erroneously perceived as very safe.

Disclosure: My granddaughters are Canadian.

@PerKurowski

I expected the Canadian bankers not wanting to live in never-risk-land.

Sir when the heads of the six major Canadian banks, those banks which better health makes them the object of envy of so many regulators and taxpayers in the world, issue a joint communiqué, we should read it very carefully “It is time to press on with bank reform” April 22. Unfortunately, my expectations were too high and I was disappointed.

Not only did it read almost like a Julia Child recipe... a little bit more of Tier 1 capital here.... and some more leverage testing there... but it also showed that neither they have a clear idea of what hit us.

Though they correctly state “Regulators do not need to specify which businesses banks should enter” they do not realize that is exactly what regulators do when they risk-weigh assets. Markets discriminate risks by charging different interest rates and so, when regulators award the lending to some assets lower capital requirements, because these are perceived by the credit rating agencies as less risky, they are actually instructing bankers to go to “risk-free” land. And, our problem, as a society, and though we do appreciate the efforts of lowering the risks in banks, is that we are not sure our best interests or future really lies in Never-risk-land.

They also write that if no distinctions, in terms of capital requirements, between low-risk and high-risk assets, something that I much favour, this “would encourage financial institutions to take more risk, which could make the system less stable”. Are they blind? Have they not wakened up to the fact that this crisis resulted from capitals stampeding in the search of AAA ratings, precisely as a consequence of the low capital requirements?

Where are the bankers who want to have the right to lend to their traditional client small businesses and entrepreneurs on their way to capital markets, without being distracted only because regulators favours what is perceived as having less risk? I had hoped these bankers were in Canada, now I am not any longer sure of that.