Money from heaven can be real or fake and it can be dropped by trusted helicopter pilots or as Universal Basic Income

Sir, Robert Skidelsky writes: Because “there is no assurance that a lot of such helicopter money would not be hoarded…contemporary advocates of helicopter money like Willem Buiter and Adair Turner see it mainly in terms of monetary financing of additional government spending. The government should pay for, say, an investment programme not by issuing debt to the public but by borrowing from the central bank. This will increase the government’s deficit, but not the national debt, since a loan by the central bank to the government is not intended to be repaid. Thus the government acquires an asset but no corresponding liability.” “A tweak to helicopter money will help the economy take off” August 5.

Have these statists gone raving mad? “The government acquires an asset but no corresponding liability?” Is this a Ponzi fiscal revenue scheme?

Have these statists gone raving mad? In this world of cash-strapped citizens would they not know better what to do with their helicopter money than some bureaucrats with other people’s helicopter money?

And besides, helicopter money could be real money and it could be fake money… and only fiscal revenues Ponzi schemers would be thinking of dropping what’s fake.

And besides, helicopter pilots could be trusted, or only doing the drops on their favorite neighborhoods.

So, if you introduce a Pro-Equality tax, and drop all those revenues by means of a Universal Basic Income scheme equally to everyone, both the hoarding and the redistribution profiteering will be small.

Sir, if we are not expecting to profit on the redistribution, is that not what we, poor and rich, all want and need? 

@PerKurowski ©

Governments, start by guaranteeing one hour of work per week for absolutely everyone, and then take it from there

Sir, Robert and Edward Skidelsky, in “Enough is enough of thewest’s age of consumption” write that “Government should gradually reduce the maximum allowable hours for work for most occupations, guaranteeing a job for everyone who wants to work that amount of time” July 5. 

Wrong! Governments should gradually increase the guaranteed hours of work for all workers. Start guaranteeing one hour and move up from there! 

Government has no role guaranteeing more hours of work to one who already has more than the average hours of work.

Naïve regulators went to sleep like babies.

Sir in “Do not rush to switch off the life support” March 4Robert Skidelsky and Marcus Miller refer to “flaws in regulatory philosophy that stemmed from the belief that the banks could safely be left to regulate their own risks”. That is simply not true!

The fundamental flaw was that regulators replaced the hard-work that financial supervision ensues with a naïve belief in some capital requirements based on risk they concocted and in the capability of some credit rating agencies to adequately measure risks… and then went to sleep like babies.

Had they left the banks to their own design and not influenced them with absurd low capital requirement for what was perceived as having low risks of default... something else might have happened, but not this crisis.

What we need more than anything is to get rid of the current bunch of regulators who have entrenched themselves in the almighty and to no-one responsible Basel Committee and which’s has in the Financial Stability Board its first line of defence.

Don´t point fingers at the economists

Sir, I refer to Robert Skidelky´s “How to rebuild a shamed subject” August 6. There should not be any finger pointing of the economists specifically. Many are to blame, including the financial press. 

This crisis has nothing to do with economics and all with the lack of ordinary good common sense. Given the strong incentives of the minimum capital requirements for banks concocted by the Basel Committee for to follow the opinions of some few credit rating agencies, everyone should have known that, sooner or later, something was doomed to go wrong.

I, as an Executive Director at the World Bank (2002-2004) said so over and over again; and FT even published a letter where I, in January 2003 said that “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic error to be propagated at modern speeds.” 

Now why could we not react and stop what was being done? Because the whole regulatory debate was captured by some regulatory gnomes in Basel, who let no outsider question anything in their cozy little mutual admiration club. 

By the way, in the context of this crisis, please stop talking about a black swan or, at least, as a bare minimum, clarify that it was a black swan fabricated by the regulators.