To have Green bonds really take off, the market signals must better assure the Green projects’ profitability.

Sir, Siddarth Shrikanth writes:“Estimates suggest that a mere 5 to 10 per cent of green-bond proceeds have gone towards funding biodiversity conservation projects, as the vast majority flows in to energy, buildings and transport”. “Green bond issuance leaves the planet’s wildlife behind” June 22.

The explanation to that is that it is obviously easier to construct a credible scenario for the investors’ to recover their investments, something that, no matter how good Green bonds investors’ intentions are, most of them want to do.

So, if we really want “Green bonds” to take off, these must be supported with strong market signals that helps the Green projects to be profitable, bettering the chances of the bonds being repaid.

In that sense, except from perhaps except it from all taxes, I have no clue as to what could be done with “blue bond” aimed at supporting sustainable fisheries. What I do know though is that, very high carbon taxes, with all its revenues being distributed equally back to the citizens, would signify a huge boost for the biggest majority of Green bonds.

What stands in our way in that respect, are the Green-fight and the redistribution profiteers refusal to give up one cent of their desired franchise value.

Sir, I say it again and again, if we are not able to keep the climate change fight profiteers away, we won’t be able to afford the fight against climate change. Hell, we will not even afford to mitigate some of its consequences.

@PerKurowski

Yes we sure need a carbon tax, but its revenues, should be shared out equally to all

Sir, Tim Harford writes: “The exciting thing about the Green New Deal is that it has serious political momentum focused at addressing climate change.” “Why the world urgently needs a carbon tax” April 13.

No! That “Green New Deal” “vague, and [with] grand aims [to] win… support than [with] hard practicalities”, far from being exciting is scary. As Harford thinks, “climate change is far too important a challenge to entrust to oil companies” I am sure that “climate change is far too important a challenge” to entrust its spending decisions of the fight against it, to some few who might be pursuing a different objective.

As I’ve said over and over again, the more you are concerned about climate change, the more you should be concerned with keeping the climate-change-fight profiteers as far away as possible.

Harford writes: “A lump-sum subsidy can encourage the uptake of electric cars — but a carbon tax will also reward those who cycle instead of driving.” Sir, I just ask, would the rewards for cycling not become so much real, if all carbon tax revenues were shared out equally to all?

PS. Harford mentions “a carbon permit auction” as a “close sibling” to a carbon tax. Not so. A carbon permit auction is nothing but a new type of those indulgences that were sold by the Catholic Church in order to permit sinning. It is a twist of history to see that Martin Luther’s Protestant Germany is one that now most supports such indulgences.

@PerKurowski

Magical thinking is not limited to political actors from right or left, many technocrats indulge in it too.

Sir, Edward Luce referring to “brassy slogan” and “fabulism” among politicians of all sides writes: “Facebook’s algorithm rewards magical thinking” “Magical thinking crosses party lines” March 21.

Yes, solid common sense thinking and truth generates much less advertising revenues than grandiose idiocy or mindboggling fake news.

So what are we to do? There’s no easy answer. 

I would suppose that limiting some social media use to duly identified citizens, would at least reduce all the anonymous noise that is so much harder to put to shame, when it should be shamed. 

Also charging a truly minuscule fee for each web access would help limiting the polarization and redistribution profiteers from marketing their messages of hate and envy at zero marginal cost. (That fee could help fund a universal basic income).

But, magical thinking is not limited to political actors from right or left, or needing the web for its promotion.

The Basel Committee’s risk weighted bank capital requirements are pure unabridged utterly dumb magical thinking, imposed by a bunch of loony technocrats.

Their magical thinking guarantees us a weak economy, and especially severe bank crisis, resulting from especially large exposures, to what was especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

@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

True elite should fight odious polarization and not allow itself to be painted into a corner by the neo-parochialism of political correctness.

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes: “there’s research to show that elites are less likely to part with their biases than the ordinary person. This is probably because they believe themselves to be better educated and informed than the masses, which may well be true. “The elites are ignoring deglobalisation” August 15.

If we include bank regulators as part of the elite (they would hate it if we don’t), these do indeed find it very hard to part with their biases. It is sad because they’ve gotten it totally wrong.

You ask them: Why do you want banks to hold more capital against what is especially dangerous for our bank system because it is perceived or decreed as safe, than against what is perceived risky and therefore poses no threat? Their eyes glaze over and they never answer, except for when they make it as if they’ve heard a coTmplete different question.

The direct consequence of those risk weighted bank capital requirements is plain awful. It only guarantees, especially large exposures, to what’s perceived as especially safe, against especially little capital, dooming our bank systems to especially severe crises. 

Forrohar asks: What is the next big thing the global elite is missing?

My answer would be it is missing out way too much on how polarization and redistribution profiteering, among other empowered by low cost and far reaching social media, is creating odious social divisions that will tear it to pieces.

What could de elite do? To begin with, find ways to restrict those peddling opinions for money (donations). Whenever something exploitable in terms of polarization happens, my inbox is swamped by donation requests to allow the favored anti-devil-champion of turn to enter into battle and save us.

Recently Lawrence Summers in “I discovered the rest of America on my summer holiday” described America’s small communities’ parochialism with “The conversations we overheard hewed close to local matters.”

In the discussion of the article on the web I commented “Political correctness, that which only allows focusing on small-predefined sections of an issue, rather than allowing considering its wider context, is a living example of a neo-parochialism you find in universities and big cosmopolitan cities”

Sir, a true elite does not allow itself to be painted into a corner by political correctness.

Red and blue, or, red or blue

@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

Let’s make sure that environmental, social and governance investing does not just signify ESG profiteering, or access to indulgences for paying worse sins.

Sir, John Authers writes: “On the side of the devil, ESG offers a rebranding for an unpopular industry, an excuse for data providers to crunch a lot of data and then charge for it” “Pressure for ESG presents fund management chiefs with a moral dilemma” May 31.

That is right on the dot. In all these political correct issues, what is by far the most present is the profit motive for those preaching it... morality is much absent

In terms of defending the environment, I would much rather prefer a huge revenue neutral carbon tax, meaning all its revenues paid out in equal shares to all its citizens, than having the climate change fight profiteers gaming the fight and taking their cut. It is sufficiently difficult and expensive as is.

And in terms of “social” it is much better to use all potential profits to help fund a Universal Basic Income than to help fund the social fighters.

But what really upsets me is that good governance is on the list of good socially conscious investments. Much better, much clearer, would be to make sure bad governance is never ever financed.

Let me be absolutely clear. I would much rather prefer a Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein being socially sanctioned, never ever more invited to a party in New York, for helping to finance a human rights violating regime like Venezuela’s Maduro’s, than allowing him to be able to purchase indulgencies to pay for his sins, by (profitably) financing some other “good” guys.

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

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

https://unsustainabledebtsustainability.blogspot.com/2017/06/goldman-sachs-financing-of-venezuelas.html

@PerKurowski

Will the many “General Data Protection Regulation” profiteers help or stand in the way of a better future for our grandchildren?

Sir, Richard Waters writes that “Europe’s new online privacy regime is a gravy train for lawyers and consultants, and it has kept IT departments and compliance officers working late for months [and] it is likely to take an onslaught…from privacy activists” “Brussels forces online reckoning by setting high bar on privacy” May 25.

That raises a question: Will that mean a better future for my grandchildren, or will it just extract value from what has been developed, making what’s to be developed more distant and expensive?

Waters also writes: “One Silicon Valley figure argues: if users were able to capitalise the future value of personal data like this that they will throw off over a lifetime, it would turn out to be one of their most valuable assets”. I have argued a similat the thing with letters sent to FT… but I have also indicated the possibility that all the web and social media added monetary value, could be used to fund a Universal Basic Income, a sort of Human Heritage Dividend.

Personally, scared of some “Big Brother Is Watching You” joint ventures between data gatherers and goverments coming into fruition, I prefer allowing development to run its full course to see where it takes us. 

Sir, I just do not feel sure enough about taking development limiting decisions on behalf of my grandchildren. Do you? 

https://teawithft.blogspot.se/2015/09/ad-blockers-do-not-allow-any.html

PS. If social media is to be fined, then have all the fines help to fund Universal Basic Income schemes. What we absolutely do not need, is to have social media (ambulance) chasers, redistribution profiteers, like a European Commission, or similar, capturing these.

@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

Whatever support Trump loses on his own, extreme opposition and anti-Trump profiteers only guarantee he gets it back

Sir, Patty Waldmeir writes: “In the Midwest American heartland… the silent white majority appears to be keener on Trump than ever…The other side may be turning out in their hundreds of thousands, clad in cat-eared Pussy Hats to fight the new world order, but the Trump side can’t believe its luck. And it is scoring more converts all the time.” “Good news for Trump from his supporters in the heartlands” February 21.

Absolutely! The opposition can weaken or dilute Trump’s support, especially when he himself does so much to help, but instead, the extreme runaway Trump opposition, and the anti-Trump profiteers showing off their credentials, only help to stiffen and compact his support.

PS. http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-it-opposition-that-weakens-or.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

FT, are you aligned with the interests of redistribution profiteers and besserwissers, or with citizens’?

Sir you refer to that “Next month, Switzerland will hold a referendum on whether to introduce an Unconditional Basic Income”, and then you opine “this measure seems premature today [though] it is worth running data-driven pilot projects to test the concept’s future viability. More effective tax regimes and smarter forms of wealth redistribution will be needed to ease our social strains.” “Bring on the robots but reboot our societies too” May 7.

I come from Venezuela, where the poor, from that so lauded 21st Century Socialism, have not received more than about 15 percent of what should have been their individual share of the fabulous oil revenues over the last 15 years, tops. So please don’t tell me an unconditional universal basic income, in this case funded by oil revenues, “seems premature”… it is way overdue.

And Sir, why do we really need to test the hypothesis that people know better what to do with their own resources than what the governments with other’s resources? Is that to find ways to help profiteers and besserwissers to keep control over the redistribution?

As I have written to you I support a worldwide gas/carbon tax which revenues should be paid out by means of a universal basic income, in order to align the incentives in the fight against climate change and against inequality.

And I also support a social pro-equality tax, which revenues should be paid out entirely by means of a universal basic income, from citizens to citizens, so as to avoid all the dangerous populist and demagoguery intermediaries.

Sir, if we can separate all the redistribution from governments’ normal functions, then we will also be able to make these perform better for us. For instance, we might suddenly realize that all tax evasion and tax avoidance put together could be less than government waste.

PS. And bring on the robots to bank regulations. These at least have smaller egos that stand in their way of admitting and learning from their mistakes. The robots would, long ago, have eliminated the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which only dangerously distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, for absolutely no good reason at all. 

@PerKurowski ©

What a government spends is a lousy proxy for what the citizens receive; it ignores redistribution costs and profits

Sir, Tim Harford writes that the idea of a universal basic income “appeals to three types of people: those who are comfortable with a dramatic increase in the size of the state, those who are willing to see needy people lose large sums relative to the status quo, and those who can’t add up.” “Could an income for all provide the ultimate safety net?’ April 30.

And while doing so he uses figures for UK’s social security spending of £217bn, and on health and education spending of £240bn. 

Over the last 15 years the poor in Venezuela have most surely received less than 15 percent of what they would have received, had only the oil revenues been shared out equally among all citizens as a universal basic income. In such a case, supporting a net oil revenue funded universal basic income could be done by someone like me, someone who wants the state to become much smaller, who wants poor people to obtain more, and who can add quite well.

The basic mistake the undercover economist makes in this case, is that he equates all social support received by the needed with what is spent on them. That ignores the redistribution cost and profits. A universal basic income, that would put aside in different account much of the redistribution, would help bring more transparency to what the real cost of real government’s functions are. In these Panama Paper days, when so much concern is expressed on the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance, there is little mentioning of the possibility that pure tax revenue waste could add up to much more.

Many wealthy non-leftists do harbor serious concerns about the growing income inequality, not only because of a sense of justice, but also because they know it could come back to haunt them. And so for them, a universal basic income distribution of a pro-equality tax, and which would not have to cost more than 2 percent in administration fees, might seem as a quite reasonable way to go.

Also many of us concerned with climate change but who also do feel quite uncomfortable with all the climate change profiteers who surround most initiatives, could find a huge gas/carbon tax paid out by means of a universal basic income scheme much better. For a starter it would beautifully align the fights against climate change and inequality.

And please, whenever I mention “redistribution profiteers’, I do not only refer to those who get cold cash and favors, but also to those so much worse, those populist and demagogues who take out their share in political power.

By the way here is a question for the Undercover Economist: Would our economies be better or worse had the QEs been redistributed in equal shares to the citizens?

PS. The problem with governments is not they are monopolies. It is they are operated and exploited by too many monopolists.

@PerKurowski ©