Risk weighted bank capital requirements are anathema to neoliberalism

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes “we have spent decades of living in the old reality — the post-Bretton Woods, neoliberal one.” "Markets are adjusting to a turbulent world" August 19.

There are many definitions of neoliberal policies out there but they always include a large role for the hands of the free market and the reduction in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy.

In 1988, for the banking sector, one of the most important economic agents, credit risk capital requirements were introduced by means of the Basel Accord. It gave incentives that distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. For instance lower risk weights for the sovereign (0%) and for residential mortgages (35%) signifies subsidizing the sovereign and the safer present, by taxing the access to credit for the riskier future, like to entrepreneurs (100%). So I do not know what neoliberalism Ms. Foroohar refers to.

Ms. Foroohar, speculating on the possible “impact of an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders victory in the US primaries?” mentions a 13D Global Strategy and Research note that holds that such event would “fit perfectly into the cycle from wealth accumulation to wealth distribution”, something that Foroohar also believes “will be the biggest economic shift of our lifetimes.”

Sir, at the very moment income, through the purchase of assets, is transformed into accumulated wealth; there cannot be any significant redistribution of it, which means having to sell many of those same assets, without any significant destruction of wealth. If you’re scared of a deep recession, as we all should indeed be, then the last think you’d want to do is to deepen it with a wealth redistribution cycle.

So we cannot redistribute? Yes, we can, but that’s best done getting hold of the income before it is converted into assets, and then, preferably, sharing it out equally to all, by means of an unconditional universal basic income.

@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 ©