Professor Summers, more than unions representing the have-jobs, we need someone, anyone, representing the have-not!

Sir, Lawrence Summers, acting more like a union lobbyist, writes that "America needs its labour unions more than ever" September 4.

He does so blithely ignoring that “The shrinking of the union movement to the point where today only 6.4 per cent of private sector workers — a decline of nearly two-thirds since the late 1970s” sort of evidences an irrelevance of the unions. Does he want to make them relevant by force?

Also, when Summers writes “Consumers also appear more likely now to have to purchase from monopolies rather than from companies engaged in fierce price competition meaning that pay checks do not go as far” that squares little with the current low inflation.

Years ago, I wrote an Op-Ed titled “We need decent and worthy un-employments”. In it I argued that politicians are giving too much relative importance, and spending too many tax dollars, on creating jobs, and that it is high time to start thinking about what to do with those who will never ever have access to what we now consider is a job.

So in that respect I am certainly not too much keen on having unions fighting for those blessed by jobs, if that hurts in any way shape or form those who would want to have jobs but cannot get jobs.

Universal basic income seems to represent one alternative of how to face the challenge of structural unemployment. Finance professors would be much more useful thinking about smart ways how to fund an UBI than getting teary eyed nostalgic about union power.

Summers also writes: “The central issue in American politics is the economic security of the middle class and their sense of opportunity for their children”

Sir, anyone who keeps mum about how current risk weighted capital requirements give banks incentives to not finance the riskier future, but only to refinance the safer past has, as I see it, no right to speak about our children’s opportunities.

@PerKurowski

If President Trump makes unfit profit on his hotels, so might those who are in the business of opposing him.

Sir, Edward Luce’s “America’s monetiser-in-chief” of February 13, could easily end up being used by all those who by email and other means, ask us to give money to them so that they fight Trump on our behalf.

Currently too many are reminded of Irving Berlin’s song “Anything You Can Do” from the “Annie Get Your Gun” musical. The days open up with a: “Some say they can fight Trump, but I can do that better, I can fight Trump, better than all”, which is then followed by an ever increasing number of voices belting out their, “No you can't. Yes, I can. No, you can't. Yes, I can. No, you can't. Yes, I can, Yes, I can!”

Luce writes: “Even where Mr Trump has the highest motives, he will fail the Caesar’s wife test”. In what world does Luce think we are living? Do not failed Caesar’s wife tests surround us everywhere? Is political profiteering really so much different from business profiteering? Surely if Trump is caught in an act of extending an overt invitation to be corrupted, I am sure that the consequences for him and for the corrupter, will be much more severe than for all those politicians who daily mingle with their dedicated lobbyist.

Sir, I am not condoning any possible Trump shenanigans, and I will protest it as much as you, or even more than you, if and when any real evidence is presented. But, meanwhile, there is a vital need for staying focused on realities and not being distracted by anti-Trump populists or anti-Trump profiteers. 

First, as a Venezuelan still living the “Chavez” era, what Luce describes when preaching for the choir, means nothing in terms of eroding the popularity of a populist. Quite often the opposite happens.

Second, there are too many infinitely more important and urgent issues at hand. Just think of all those robots that compete with us humans for jobs without being burden with payroll taxes and similar handicaps. Just think of those regulatory gnomes distorting as they see fit, with their risk weighted capital requirements, the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

Third, Trump represents a new wind in Washington, so let’s try to use it as much as we can. For instance the proposal by the Climate Leadership Council of imposing a carbon tax, which revenues would go directly to the citizens, is the best win-win possibility I have seen in many years. If that would be its price, I would gladly look the other way, if those horrendous anti America and anti economic plans of Trump Hotels to quintuple its outlets in America become reality.

PS. Hotel building needs financing, and bankers and investors, must consider the after 4 or 8 years profitability of the hotels.

PS. I have just received an email where someone indicates that after a review they have found that I have yet to donate the minimum $3 to fight Trump, and that I must hurry up. I wonder if someone keeps a list of the 10 largest anti-Trump-movement's profiteers?

@PerKurowski

Democracy goes way beyond the 1% vs. the 99% debate.

Sir, I agree in much with what Edward Luce puts forward in his “America’s democracy is fit for the 1 percent” March 31 but, the issue of undue influence in a democracy, goes much further than the simplistic 1% vs. the 99% debate.

For instance I hold the view that corporate taxes should be zero, since only citizens should be able to wield the influence of paying government bureaucrats their salaries.

And also that 1% too often seems to imply that all those in the 1%, like in the 99%, are alike which we know they aren’t. For instance you would not want to tax the wealthy in order to further benefit the oligarchy, or do you?

How do you lobby the Basel Committee?

Sir in “The US arms its financial regulators” June 28 you write “The consensus emerging from the Basel III negotiations shows that bankers have rediscovered some of their old clout”. I suppose that with bankers you re refer primarily to the too-big-to-fail group of banks, as we have seen very little coming out that could be helpful for all the other small-enough-to-fail banks.

That raises of course the very interesting question of how one gets around lobbying the Basel Committee.