If our pied-à-terre falls into the hands of a Climate Stability Board, we’re toast.

Climate change dangers require:

Spending fighting it, trying to hinder it 

Spending adapting to it, to avoid its worst consequences

Saving, in order to be able to mitigate its worst effects

How should we budget for that to best avoid ending up toast?

Sir, let me begin with a very brief take on the last three decades of bank regulations.

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for” John A. Shedd. 

And neither are the banks, but that was ignored.

Before Basel Committee’s risk weighted bank capital requirements, everyone, whether perceived as a risky or as a safe credit, paid risk adjusted interest rates. After these were introduced, bank credit is allocated based on risk adjusted returns on equity.

The “safe”, meaning e.g., governments (bureaucrats/politicians), assets with high credit ratings and residential mortgages, pay relatively lower rates, because banks can leverage their capital/equity many times more with the net margin they provide. The “risky”, meaning e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs, must pay comparatively higher rates, in order to compensate for the fact that banks must leverage less capital/equity with their net margins.

That has caused banks to overpopulate the safe harbors of the past and present, and to explore the riskier oceans much less than the future of our children and grandchildren needed.

Of course, all for nothing, since those excessive exposures that can become dangerous to our bank systems, are always built up with assets perceived as safe, never ever with assets perceived as risky.

And since current bank capital requirements are mostly based on expected credit risks banks should clear on their own; not on misperceived credit risks, 2008’s AAA MBS, or the unexpected, COVID-19, banks now stand there naked, though few dares to call out the Emperor on that.

So, how did we end up with all this? There are many reasons but, if I must pick one, that would be, “mutual admiration clubs”.

Sir, in November 2004 you published a letter in which I wrote: “The Basel Committee is just a mutual admiration club of firefighters seeking to avoid bank crisis at any cost - even at the cost of growth. Unwittingly it controls the capital flows in the world, and I wonder when will it realize the damage they’re doing, by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector.”

In “A new dawn for globalization” FT, Life & Arts, March 20, Mark Carney is allowed to write: “As chairs of the Financial Stability Board, Mario Draghi and I were at the forefront of efforts to reform the global financial system. Our aim was a system that once again valued the future, financed innovation and was prepared to take action in the event of failure. As its performance during the Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated, although far from perfect, the financial system is now safer, simpler and fairer”

If that’s not spoken as a member of a club that will not call him out on anything, what is?

And now Carney wants “a set of networks that can turn the existential threat of climate change into the greatest commercial opportunity of our time… and the Institute of International Finance’s Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets is developing a large-scale, high-integrity carbon offset market.”

A new powerful mutual admiration club, backed enthusiastically by all climate-change fight profiteers. Scary indeed!

PS. As I read it, Pope Francis, when nailing his “Encyclical Letter LAUDATO SI’” to the web, denounced carbon credits to be just like the indulgences Martin Luther protested, when he nailed his “95 Thesis” to the church door.

PS. Why do you not ask Mark Carney to comment on Chris Watling’s “Now is the time to devise a new monetary order”, FT, March 19.

@PerKurowski

Thou shall not sell environmental crimes indulgences

Sir, albeit a bit late, I refer to David Sheppard’s Big Read “Carbon trading: the ‘one-way’ bet for hedge funds” FT August 23.In his Encyclical Letter 'Laudato Si’ of 2015, Pope Francis wrote:

"171. The strategy of buying and selling “carbon credits” can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors."

With “permits” Pope Francis was here de facto referring to some type of “indulgences”, which help pardon environmental sins. 

It was Martin Luther’s attacks on the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences for the remission of temporal punishment for forgiven sins, which caused the rift that led to the creation of the Protestant Church. Therefore, more than 500 years since Luther in 1517 (supposedly) nailed his “Ninety-five Thesis” on the door of Old Saints' Church in Wittenberg, I found it curious (and equally correct) to read a Catholic Pope accusing many protestants who favor carbon trading, for sort of a similar procedure.

As a protestant belonging to the Swedish church, ser wife and catholic children, I do not like carbon trading, as I previously explained in a letter you published, I much prefer high carbon taxes shared out equally to all, as that would align the incentives in the fight against climate change and the fight against poverty. 

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

@PerKurowski

Bank capital requirements based on credit risk serves no purpose, based on fighting climate change does.

Sir, Ben Caldecott writes: “The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate change agreement will be unattainable unless banks finance solutions to these massive social and environmental challenges.” “Banks need a better climate change strategy” July 1st.

The current risk weighted capital requirements for banks are idiotic since these are based on the assumption that what is perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what is perceived as safe. But these are also totally purposeless. I do not really favor this type of distortion but there’s no question banks would serve a better purpose if their capital requirements were based, not on credit ratings, but on Sustainable Development Goal ratings.

Obviously such capital requirements would automatically generate “loans that charge lower interest rates to borrowers who meet or outperform sustainability targets” just as the current ones generates lower interest rates to the sovereign and “the safe”, all paid by less and more expensive credit to “the risky”

Of course it would be of utmost importance in that case that the SDG rating agencies are not captured by any of the climate change fight profiteers that abound.

That said, before any climate change fight initiative, including the Paris agreement, what would be most effective is a high carbon tax, with all its revenues shared out equally to all citizens. Why has that not been implemented yet? The simple answer is that because for states that lives on cronyism that is of absolutely no interest.

Sir, if the world is to have a chance to afford successfully fighting climate change, or at least afford to mitigate some of its worst effects, we have to circle all our wagons in an effort to keep out of it all those who are just out to make monetary or political profits.

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2015/04/my-proposal-for-this-earth-day-2015.html

@PerKurowski

A real review of UK’s financial system requires breaching the etiquette rules of a mutual admiration club

Sir, I refer to Huw van Steenis’ “An opportunity for the Bank of England to rethink its priorities” June 21.

Is he really recommending among other for banks to “use machine learning”, so that they can better cope with even more voluminous regulations…like that on climate change that has become so fashionable nowadays?

Well no Sir. “A review of the UK’s financial system to strengthen the BoE’s agenda, toolkit and capabilities” should, foremost, include a review of the credit risk weighted bank capital requirements. 

That could start by asking Mark Carney, why do you believe that what is perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank system than what is perceived as safe.

You could follow it up with: Does the use of this not guarantee especially large bank crisis, caused by especially large exposures to what was perceived (or decreed, like the Eurozone sovereign's 0% risk weight) as especially safe, and ended up being especially risky, against especially little capital?

You could follow it up with: Favoring so much bank lending to the safer present over that of the riskier future not risk weaken our real economy? 

But of course, asking those questions and similar that shall not be asked is not comme il fautin the central-bankers’ and regulators’ mutual admiration club.

Sir, one single capital requirement 10-15% on all bank assets would serve us much better than the BoE’s entire current rulebook, distorting less the allocation of credit and bringing back into banking all that “risky” activity that has been expelled by regulators to be handled by other intermediaries. 

But how would then ten thousands of regulators justify their salaries? 

PS. My letter to the Financial Stability Board

@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

It suffices for one single nation to set a high tax on carbon emissions and share out its revenues among all its citizens, to really begin saving our pied-a-terre.

Sir, Martin Wolf, whether it is true or not, is absolutely correct calling out: “It is five minutes to midnight on climate change”. We have no right to ignore that threat, even if its possibilities were low. “Inaction over climate change is shameful” October 23.

Wolf asks and answers: “So what needs to change? Net global CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions would need to fall to zero” though he also observes. “This is very unlikely to happen. That is no longer because it is technically impossible. It is because it is politically painful.”

It should not be! If only one nation went ahead and placed a big tax on carbon emissions, and shared out all resulting tax revenues equally, unconditionally, among all its citizens that would be a game changer… many would be politically pressured to jump aboard saving the planet that way.

Why does it not happen? Quite simply, the redistribution profiteers, those who profit from negotiating conditions, won’t touch with a ten feet pole an unconditional pay like this, less it spreads to other areas of their franchise, for instance by means of a Universal Basic Income.

Do I know? I come from Venezuela where nothing similar to its current tragedy would have happened had its oil revenues been shared out equally to all Venezuelans, and yet that possibility is rarely mentioned by the opposition, because there’s always an infinite pool of aspirants to be the next redistributors on turn.

Paris Accord? To me it was just a great photo-op for redistribution and fight against climate change profiteers that would do little to improve the chances for my grandchildren to live better.

More than a year ago the Climate Leadership Council proposed a carbon tax along the lines of what I describe here… seemingly they were silenced!

PS. For Mexico City, to combat pollution, I proposed just that..

@PerKurowski

What’s the safest way to fight climate change: by centralized planning or through the market?

Sir, Tim Harford writes: We should do more to encourage innovation that attacks the climate change problem… The most obvious first step (among several worth trying) is a stiff tax on carbon dioxide emissions” “Let’s innovate a way out of our climate crisis” October 13.

I agree 100% with that. The real question though is what is to be done with the revenues of such stiff tax? There are different options. 

The first to allow governments to manage these, setting it up for good results, but also a quite likely having it much captured by the war-on-climate-change profiteers. 

The second to share out these revenues equally among all citizens, like by helping to fund a Universal Basic Income, and so that it is the market that will take the decisions on what’s to be done.

Of course there are also pseudo market solutions, like those carbon emission permits trading that handed over to speculators, a market in non-transparent carbon emission indulgences.

Sir, I am totally for the sharing out all those tax revenues among the citizens option. That would minimize the distortions, and align everyone’s incentives in the fights against climate change and poverty.

PS. In May 2016 you published a letter I wrote on how to fight the pollution in Mexico City, which was based on these arguments.

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

@PerKurowski

If you really want banks to make green investments, allow bank to hold less capital against these than for instance against residential mortgages.

Sir, Suleika Reiners, Senior Policy Officer for Financial Reform, Institute for Financial Services, Germany writes: “banks need more equity, not less, in order to fulfil their key responsibility — namely to cushion risk, including for green investment. Lending for long-term endeavours such as large-scale renewable energy projects particularly deserves high-risk weightings” “Banks need more equity to boost green investment”, January 4.

Boy, has she got it all upside down. I have nothing against higher capital requirements for banks, unless these are imposed so irresponsibly so that the while bank credit machinery freezes. But, in order for banks to really boost green investment, they should be allowed to hold less capital against these investments than against other assets, so that they can earn a higher risk adjusted return on it.

Just look at how much they are financing residential housing, only because that’s perceived safe by regulator safe, and who therefore allow banks to hold little capital against the mortgages.

Reitners refers to “a study by the University of Cambridge in association with the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative [that] has proved that stricter equity requirements are an insignificant factor in influencing the bank’s pricing of the loan or its willingness to lend.”

I have not read that study but, if those are the results, I am sure it contains major design flaws.

Sir, you refusal to discuss the distortions produced by risk weighted capital requirements, perhaps so as not to disfavour your bank friends, is partly to blame for the continuation of misconceptions as those expressed here by Suleika Reiners.

I don’t like the idea of distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy but, if we have to do it, let that at least be in pursuit of higher objectives than a simple risk avoidance, which will anyhow not isolate us from bank crises.

God make us daring!

@PerKurowski

Climate-change fight profiteers capture governments (and perhaps FT too). Only citizens can really fight climate change.

Sir, you write “The UN issued a stark warning last month on the scale of the challenge, noting that even if governments act on their plans to cut or slow emissions, national pledges so far add up to only a third of the reductions needed to meet the goals of the Paris accord. Negotiators meeting in Bonn this week are supposed to be crafting rules to ensure countries step up their efforts.” “A sharp reality check on the climate challenge” November 15.

Forget it! The Paris agreement was just another great photo-op. If you really want to be able to do what it takes to save our pied-à-terre, you have to keep out the few big green profiteers able to lobby governments (and perhaps You too), and incorporate all the citizens in that quest.

How? Huge national carbon taxes with all its revenues shared out equally to all citizens. The moment a citizen gets a check and is himself turned into a small profiteer of the fight against climate change (and of the fight against inequality) all changes.

Sir, you have published a letter of mine before describing this type of solution, but you might be mightily targeted by those green profiteers too. So beware!

@PerKurowski

An all out war against inequality would be extremely harmful to us all.

Sir, Tim O’Reilly writes: “Clayton Christensen’s, “law of conservation of attractive profits” holds that once one thing becomes commoditised, something else becomes valuable.” And that “Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, noted that ‘if you want to understand the future, just look at what rich people do today’. “People power, not robots, will overcome our challenges” October 20.

But I ask, does that not require a strong supply of rich and unequally wealthy, in order to power that demand for the new, that which majorities never generate? And, if so, does that not put a dent on the argument of: “the fundamental question of our economy today is not how to incentivise productivity, but how to distribute its benefits”?

Sir from this perspective the current all out war against inequality could be extremely harmful for all. For instance, as I have, unanswered, often tweeted to Mr. Thomas Piketty “Visit the Museum of Louvre in your Paris and try to figure out how much of it would have existed, had it not been for extreme inequality.”

And O’Reilly, as a source of jobs refers to that “there is the looming spectre of climate change”. Indeed but who is going to pay for the fight against it? If government takes on debts to fight climate change, who will volunteer to repay those debts tomorrow, whether we are successful or not? No one!

That is why I have argued so much in favor of creating a whole new generation of social incentives, which could help get the world to work in the same direction on at least some important issues.

For instance, if there was a huge carbon tax, which revenues did not go to the redistribution profiteers but were shared out equally among all citizens, then we could link up the fight against climate change with the fight against inequality, without affecting the remaining societal incentive structure… that which helps to create the inequality we need.

PS. And please never forget, just in case there will not be enough jobs tomorrow, to think about how we can create decent and worthy unemployments.

@PerKurowski

Much more than the Paris Climate (photo-op) Agreement, our pied-à-terre needs revenue neutral carbon taxes

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “In no area are global spillovers more significant and co-operation more vital than climate… The main obstacles to such action are three. First, specific economic interests, notably in the fossil fuel industry… Second, free-marketeers, who despise both governments and environmentalists, reject the science, because of its (to them) detestable policy implications. Third, few wish to…threaten their standard of living, for the sake of the future or people in poorer countries” “Climate change puts poorest nations at risk”

Not so fast! There are those of us who believe that the threat of climate change is so real that there is no need to convince us with the “people in poorer countries” argument. The best interests of our grandchildren suffice. And there are those of us that despise the idea that so much of the important sacrifices required could be dilapidated enriching governments and environmentalists. To mostly attribute “specific economic interests” to the fossil fuel industry is to be too biased.

Of course the poorer countries should be helped, but the brunch of the climate change war effort, needs to be carried out as much as possible by sending out strong market signals, letting the markets operate freely assigning resources; and aligning the incentives as best as possible.

For that I strongly believe that a huge carbon a tax, shared out entirely to the citizens, is what first should be happening. Let us for instance suppose that petrol (gas) was sold all over the world at Norway’s current price of about US$2.10 per liter (Venezuela would have to increase its prices US$2.09 per liter) and that 100% of what that tax produces, goes directly back to the citizens.

Then we would fight climate change and inequality at the same time; which would be great since as Martin Wolf rightly holds: “The linked challenges of climate and development will shape humanity’s future.”

Sir, nothing in the Paris Climate (photo-op) Agreement seems to me remotely as powerful and effective as revenue neutral carbon taxes.

Similar to what I proposed for Mexico City

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

@PerKurowski

World Bank has thrown a very timely and important spanner into the works on how to combat climate change

Sir, Henry Sanderson reports on a report of World Bank that states: “Technologies needed to meet the Paris climate agreement from wind, solar and electricity systems are “more material-intensive” than current fossil-fuel supply systems, a report by the bank says.

The mining or extraction of metals and rare earth elements could create environmental problems in terms of energy, water and land use” “World Bank flags up renewables resource risks” July 18.

This makes of Trump’s refusal to play along with the Paris Agreement, a truly minor event. That the reports comes up only now, further evidences how green-business’ interests is skewing the whole debate. I have for years held that if our fight for saving the environment is planned or commandeered by profiteers, we are toast.

If the world adopts a revenue neutral carbon tax the resulting price signals will not only reduce the demand for carbon containing energies but will also allow for a more efficient allocation of resources. 

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, if we are to save our pied-a-terre, that will not happen by pitting clean Obama against dirty Trump

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Trump’s bad judgment on Paris” June 7. 

Wolf writes: “Above all, the earth is not just an arena. It is our shared home. It does not belong to one nation, even such a powerful one. Looking after the planet is the moral responsibility of all”. Precisely! I agree 100%!

But when Wolf suggests, “the remaining participants in the accord must… commission an analysis of how to deal with free riders. Everything must be considered, even sanctions.”, then I disagree, 100%.

That has clearly little to do with how to help our planet and all to do with furthering the ongoing polarization in the world, all to do with fighting it out in an “arena”.

Really, what does “free riders”, in a “non-binding” agreement, in which “no coercion was involved” mean? So if US had remained in the “framework” (because a framework is all the Paris Climate Agreement is), and not done anything, would that have been better?

I was like most against Trump (the US) pulling out of the accord, but, after it happened, I take it as the best thing that could have happened. At least now we will no longer be lulled into feeling more secure about our planet by something that might just be a dangerous illusion of a solution. Something that might just have been a huge political photo-op; and a congenial gathering of green subsidies distributors and customers. Now at least we all know better how little punch that Paris Accord really carried.

So, let’s take it from here. Let us inform the Americans that a revenue neutral carbon tax, like the one recently proposed by some republicans, might carry ten times as much environmental saving punch than the Paris Accord. Let’s inform Trump that if he helps to support a successful implementation of such plan he could become even a greater hero to the Greens than Al Gore… that he would have been touched by Abraham Lincolns’ “the better angels”.

Sir, I sincerely believe that the price signals of a carbon tax; with all its revenues distributed among citizens, instead of being redistributed by some few, is the best way to live up to our moral responsibility towards what I often lovingly refer to as our pied-a-terre. If Donald Trump helps that to come thru, I at least am more than willing to forgive most of his very much salon inappropriate behaviors.

PS. And really, what is a Paris Climate Agreement that was signed by a president but not put up for ratification by the US Congress? In 1920, it was the US Senate that said no to the League of Nations with a 49 to 35 vote.

@PerKurowski

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

To sell the Paris Climate Agreement as a real solution to our pied-a-terre’s environment problems, that’s a disgrace

Sir, Pilita Clark writes: “Mr Trump has exposed the fragile nature of the Paris accord. Countries face no legal obligation to meet any emissions-reduction target in their national climate blueprints, including the US. Nor is there anything legally to prevent them from submitting weaker plans” “US dithering exposes fragility of Paris accord” June 1.

If so then all those who sell us the illusion of the Paris Climate Agreement being a real solution, are more in fault hanging on to it, than Trump reneging it.

I have of course not read the Agreement. Who has read it all? To me this type of global agreements too often just feeds crony statism. To me this type of global agreements becomes too often just another photo-op for politicians.

To have a chance to really dent the environmental problems of the world, we need to come up with incentive structures that are green-profiteers proofed. Otherwise we will most probably not be able to afford it.

My preferred solution is to send the right market signals by means of for instance carbon taxes, and distribute all those revenues to all citizens in order to compensate for the increased costs. That would help many citizens to contaminate less, while affording to do more of something else they could want.

Another example: The Economist writes: “Climate policy, a jerry-rigged system of subsidies and compromises, in America and everywhere, needs an overhaul. A growing number of Republicans want a revenue-neutral carbon tax. [Like the one I suggest] As this newspaper has long argued, that would not only be a better way of curbing pollution but also boost growth. A truly businesslike president would have explored such solutions. Mr Trump has instead chosen to abuse the health of the planet, the patience of America’s allies and the intelligence of his supporters.” “The flaws in Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord”, June 1.

The question is then: Why does The Economist not denounce the Paris Climate an Agreement for what it is, a political convenient illusion of a solution? Just because being against Trump trumps all other considerations?

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.ca/2017/04/solutions-that-share-out-all-benefits.html

@PerKurowski

We must learn how to keep all the profiteers of all the worthy social causes and fights at bay.

Sir, Jonathan Ford is on a very right track with his “How subsidy culture keeps Britain’s green industry in the black” October 31.

Of course we all want more jobs, a better and more sustainable environment, more equality in the world (at least most of us), and many other good things. But, in order to afford helping that to happen, we must learn how to keep the profiteers of those causes and fights at bay.

That, we do much better by providing the right economic signals, than by having some few deciding on how to allot among some other few, our contributions to the cause.

For instance, instead of capital requirements for banks based on perceived risks, credit ratings, and that only help to increase inequalities, we would all be better if regulators used some based on job creation and environmental sustainability ratings. Some lower capital requirements when financing those social goods would allow them to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity.

And we should also use specific taxes that send the right economic signals, without causing too much pain or generating direct distortions. For instance a huge carbon tax, which revenues are all poured back to the economy by means of a Universal Basic (variable) Income, would be a great help, for the environment, for the economy, and therefore for jobs.

Sir, the problem though is that there we have to go up against the re-distribution profiteers, and as you know they are very very strong, since most of them are so firmly entrenched as do-gooders’ in the public sector.

@PerKurowski ©

When raising carbon taxes, let’s try to keep the war against climate-change and the redistribution profiteers at bay

While the crude oil price index fell from 100% in 1980 to 18% in 1998, the products price index on the consumer level increased in the UK in constant terms from 100% to 247%; a result of that taxes on petrol went from 85% added value in 1980 to a confiscatory 456% in 1998. And the tax increase, similarly applied in other European countries was predicated on environmental reasons… even though for instance Germany and Spain, were simultaneously subsidizing coal. And when consumer protested the increase of petrol prices the blame was laid on the sheiks.

And now Tim Harford argues for the need to “raise the price of carbon-dioxide emissions, using internationally coordinated taxes or their equivalent [because] such a tax would make renewable energy sources more attractive – as well as encouraging energy-efficient technologies and behaviour”, “Alternative energy’s power struggle” July 30. 

Sir, even though I come from an oil extracting nation, Venezuela, that is something with which I could agree, but only under two conditions.

First that all the taxes and subsidies in the energy sector need to be absolutely transparent so that there is no hanky-panky going on.

And second, so that this do not just enrich many of the war against climate-change profiteers, all those tax revenues should be distributed equally to all citizens by means of a variable universal basic income. The beauty of it all is that doing so, would equally help, somewhat, to keep the many redistribution profiteers at bay.

PS

Per Kurowski

A Universal Basic Income, a Societal Dividend, needs always to be slightly small, so as never risk being too large.

Sir Ralph Atkins and Gemma Tetlow report that “Swiss vote against basic income provision” “Welfare systems” June 6.

I support Universal Basic Income, for me it is a Societal Dividend, but I would have voted NO in the referendum. 2.500 Swiss Francs, about US$3.500 monthly, about 50 percent of the Swiss GDP per capita is way too large for a “Basic”. In Switzerland, something like $1.000, perhaps expressed as a percentage of GDP or of average or median salaries, would be a much more reasonable level at which to start this social experiment.

And of course the idea of those working not getting the UBI plays directly into the hands of those arguing that UBI could cause people to work less.

So what is a Societal Dividend or a Citizen's Dividend of that kind proposed by Thomas Paine? Here is my personal take on it.

It is a basic amount transferred to anyone independent of having been able to capitalize on society’s strengths and accumulated assets, like having been able to get a good job.

It could be seen as an effort to grease the real economy by combating the natural concentrations of wealth.

It could be seen as a substitute for many those redistribution efforts that because of their complexity, is bound to attract the profiteers.

It is a well-funded transfer, no funny money, from citizens to citizens, or from natural resources inherited by an Act of God, but not depending on government favors. It could therefore be seen as an effort by citizens to become more independent of that populism and demagoguery that often lies behind all societal redistribution.

Also the way it is funded, can help to align the incentives for other societal causes, for instance if with carbon taxes, with the efforts for a better environment.

But a Societal Dividend should never ever be so large so as to risk de-capitalizing the Society or induce generalized lazyness.

@PerKurowski ©

PS. In other words the Swiss UBI referendum was set up to fail... probably by some anxious redistribution profiteers L

“With a basic income, the numbers just do not add up” Do not add up for whom, for the redistribution profiteers?

Sir, John Kay writes: “With a basic income, the numbers just do not add up” June 1, and the first question that pops into my mind is, does not add up for whom?

For instance if in my country Venezuela, all net oil revenues were shared out using a “variable” Universal Basic Income scheme, it would definitely not add up to Maduro and friends, but it would sure add up a lot to most other citizens, especially to those poor who have only received a very small fraction of what should have been their per capita share of those revenues.

If we go the Universal Basic Income route, then we can also better separate the redistribution function from all government functions, bringing heightened transparency, and which clearly would add up to a chance for better governments.

I favor paying that Universal Basic Income to all citizens, with no question asked, as a Societal Dividend. It should be a citizen-to-citizen affair so that there is no need to thank any bureaucrat or politician for special favors.

And a UBI could signify a decent and worthy partial solution to that future structural life term unemployment of millions that we can already begin to detect.

How much should the amount be? Let each country explore what it can, and lets take it from there. There are better times and there are worse times; and you sure do not want to de-capitalize that society paying you dividends, much less put it in debt in order for those now to collect income from the future generations.

And let us not forget that the Universal Basic Income is in much re-injected into the real economy, which could help it to grow and generate jobs.  

And you could fund Universal Basic Income from different sources in ways that help to solve problems… like with carbon taxes, so as to align the incentives of the fight against climate change with the fight against inequality.

Kay ends writing: “Social welfare systems everywhere make use of both types of information — contingent and income-related — to balance cost and effectiveness. That is why they are, inevitably, complex” The truth is they are much more complex than need be, precisely because that’s the business of the redistribution profiteers.

@PerKurowski ©

Universal Basic Income is a Societal Dividend, paid mostly by reducing the margins of the redistribution profiteers

Sir, John Thornhill and Ralph Atkins discuss the Universal Basic Income proposals flying around. “Money for nothing”, May 27

If anyone should stand up for ideas like the Universal Basic Income, that would be the poor of Venezuela. Out of an incredible oil boom, the 21st Century Socialism gave them less than 15 percent of what should have been their fair equal per capita share of those revenues. The rest was mostly swindled away by redistribution profiteers, wasted away by incapable government besserwissers or captured by “better-positioned” citizens.

For a Venezuelan to read about “Labor leaders… wary of introducing UBI, fearing it might only be used by rightwing politicians to shred the existing welfare state. By setting the rate too low and withdrawing other welfare benefits, it could end up hurting the very people it was designed to help most”, is sadly laughable.

And “the superficially preposterous idea of handing out an unconditional basic income of a year to every citizen, regardless of work, wealth or their social contribution”, a participation in the society, is not much more preposterous than a citizen inheriting some shares of a corporation that gives him the right to a dividend.

Also if we could only separate the redistribution from other government activities it would be so much easier to know what is happening, and therefore be better able to resist the calls of populist demagogues.

But the Universal Basic Income, to really fulfill its purpose needs to be the result of a citizens-to-citizens societal agreement, a Societal Dividend, or a Citizen's Dividend of that sort proposed by Thomas Paine; and not just a handout by governments and politicians that citizens need to be grateful for. On the contrary one of its major benefits it that it reduces the forced citizen submissiveness to those who dole out "the favors". Again, just look at the Venezuelans, suffering all type of humiliations, even being taunted and insulted, and not much happens.

And Universal Basic Income plans, if funded by carbon and petrol taxes would help to align the incentives for the fight against climate change with that of the fight against inequality.

And Universal Basic Income could be the first step in order to create decent and worthy conditions for that structural unemployment that seems to be growing. 

And let us be frank, if the Universal Basic Income is not offered voluntarily, and inequality grows, there will be many less voluntary and much harder options flying around for redistribution.

Universal Basic Income, is not “Money for nothing”, it might very well be money for better chances of the societal peace, which is required to achieve more and better development.

Universal Basic Income is not about assigning governments more power. On the contrary it is about wrestling redistribution powers from their hands.

@PerKurowski ©

Mexico needs carbon and petrol tax, which revenues are all redistributed by a Universal Basic Income mechanism.

Mexico needs to align incentives on pollution

Sir, Jude Webber writes about the horrible pollution caused by the excessive number of cars in Mexico City (“Corruption and car fumes clog up the capital”, Notebook, May 26) and proposes that eliminating corruption in emission testing could be an important part of solving this. Fat chance! As a Venezuelan, I know that this is not a viable route.

Ms Webber writes: “Mexicans are snapping up cars as fast as the world’s seventh largest producer can churn them out . . . Domestic consumption is the engine of economic growth so there is no official incentive to dissuade people from buying Mexican-built cars and associated products such as petrol.”

That’s really not the case. You must build up the right political and economic incentives to correct for it. If Mexico imposed carbon tax, petrol tax and a strong traffic toll system, and made sure all the revenues from it were immediately returned to the economy by means of a universal basic income, you would face a different reality. Then you would have aligned the incentives for pollution control and the fight against climate change with the fight against inequality, and that makes for a very powerful alliance.

Standing in the way, besides initial protests from car owners, would be the redistribution profiteers who would miss a chance to make political and economic capital. Just as in Venezuela.

Published in FT