Should not the private marketing of $31tn sustainability investments at least get the same scrutiny as the Green New Deal?

Sir, Richard Henderson writes about a “$31tn push to … address the world’s ills — from climate change and child labor to the dearth of female executives.” “Europe leads $31tn charge into sustainable investing” June 1.

What? An amount about 40% of the world’s GDP, about 80% of Europe’s and the US’s GDP, to be invested, mostly by some few, into projects that might not have any chance to recover the investment, or that could produce a much lower than expected contribution to the solving of the problems than offered. It sounds just like an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’ Green New Deal.

The Financial Stability Board has a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) because: “The Disclosure of climate-related financial information is a prerequisite for financial firms not only to manage and price climate risks appropriately but also, if they wish, to take lending, investment or insurance underwriting decisions based on their view of transition scenarios.”

As I see it FSB needs, even more than the TCFD, a task force to consider the risks of all these help-to-the world investments; at least to make sure that the final result is not that of mostly having enriched the intermediaries.

Sir, I do not take the threat to climate change lightly but, if we are going to be able to do something important about it, we must keep an eye on the spending. Otherwise the consequences could be even worse… like if not being able to prevent global warming then not either being able to afford mitigating some of its consequences.

And before $ trillions are poured into good intention but adventurous projects, lets make sure the market signal are working at full intensity, for instance by means of a very high revenue neutral carbon tax, that is shared out equally to all citizens.

Why does the private marketing of $31tn in sustainability investments not get the same scrutiny as the Green New Deal?

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

@PerKurowski

A Universal Basic Income has much more to do with being able to say, “Yes, here I come!” than with a freedom to say, “No, I prefer to stay in bed”.

I refer to Tim Harford’s conversation with Rutger Bregman on the subject of a basic income, while bouldering. “Rutger Bregman: ‘Basic income is all about the freedom to say no’” March 20.

Sir, look at Venezuela. Believe me when I say that 40% of the poorest of my homeland received less than 15% of what they should have received the last fifteen years, had our net oil revenues just been shared out equally among all Venezuelans. And then you might beguine to understand my deep resentment with any redistribution profiteers. To bypass this kind of profiteers, in abundance all over the world, is in itself a reason more than enough to justify a Universal Basic Income.

That said, in 2012, before I was censored in Venezuela, and based on the lack of jobs I had begun visualizing in 2003, I also wrote an Op-Ed titled “We need decent and worthy unemployments”. That de facto calls out for a UBI, before it is too late and our social structures break down in favor of the many aspiring Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro of this world.

But Bregman argues: “OK, so basic income is all about the freedom to say no. That’s a privilege for the rich right now. With a basic income, you can say no to a job you don’t want to do. You can say no to a city in which you no longer want to live. You can say no to an employer who harasses you at work . . . that’s what real freedom looks like.”

And there I have to say no! That sounds to me like a spoiled brat’s view about what a basic income should mean. Such a Universal Basic Income becomes, almost by definition, financially unsustainable. I argue instead for a UBI that provides you with an assistance to get out of bed in order to reach up to whatever the spreading Gig economy has to offer you; but not so large so as to allow you to stay in bed, because that will sure make others refuse to pay for what the UBI might take.

Sir, every time I hear someone offering more than what a UBI can sustainably offer, I feel I we could be in the presence of a redistribution profiteer out to sabotage it, all in order to defend the value of his franchise.

PS. The article has that “A basic income [could be handed out] through the tax system as a negative income tax.” Not so. A tax credit that you start losing the minute you step out of bed to work, is not an unconditional Universal Basic Income.

PS. When Rutger Bregman opines “What’s the biggest injustice in the world right now? It’s pretty easy to see. It’s borders: apartheid on a global scale.” I would have asked. If there are no borders, how much in UBI do you think your homeland would accept to pay to any immigrant?

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

The Basel Committee’s instructions: Banks, ignore poverty, jobs, sustainability and inequality and just focus on credit risk

Sir, Andrew McAfee, gives us his take on the tragedy that “Lots of the traditional jobs for these people are disappearing in the rich world, and wages for remaining workers are pretty stagnant… and the middle class is being hollowed out in country after country” “Boredom and vice can be deadly in a life without work” November 6

And I hold that is in much the result of bank regulators giving an overriding importance to banks avoiding credit risk and not caring one iota about any other purpose of our banks.

And Sir, by silencing me, you fully support those absolutely inept regulators. The truth will catch up on you… on the web I have already over 2.000 letters to you on that subject and which you have ignored, because you so mono-thematically cannot accept the idea of technocrats having been so mistaken.

Not long ago, one of your famous columnist replied to one of my letters with the following:

“IT IS NOT TRUE that risk-weighting is the only reason for the crisis… To argue that it is implies, as I have told you, that allowing banks to make certain loans compels them to do so. But there is no such coercion: if the risks are high, they should not, in their own interest, make the loans. Nor is it the case that risk-weighting prevented banks from lending to small enterprises. The reason that they did not (and do not) do so is that it IS ACTUALLY risky to do so, relative to the perceived return.”

You see, evidently your columnist does not understand that if you can leverage your risk adjusted return much more when lending to the safe, and thereby obtain a much higher relative risk adjusted return on equity when lending to the safe, you will simply not lend to the risky, like to the SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Or let's put it this way. Two borrowers with exactly the same risk profile. To one the bank is allowed to lend leveraging 12 to 1, to the other 30 to 1. Who do you think the bank is going to lend to the most and the cheapest?

Or let's put it this way. Two borrowers with different risk profiles, but offering the same risk and cost adjusted margins. To one the bank is allowed to lend leveraging 12 to 1, to the other 30 to 1. Who do you think the bank is going to lend to the most and the cheapest?

Sir, do you want me to arrange a Finance 101 for your columnists and reporters?

PS. I was thinking a lot of that boredom and vice that McAfee refers to when I wrote "We need worthy and decent unemployments" 

@PerKurowski ©

How should the UN’s SDGs interact with the enormous demographic challenges now discussed by IMF and World Bank?

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “a combination of new technological opportunities and new approaches to a deal opens up fresh opportunities… to curb risks of catastrophic climate change” “The upside of addressing climate change” October 28. Let us pray that is so.

But both the World Bank and the IMF, when now in October 2015, they discuss the huge demographic challenges the world face, they also report on a sort of low-tech tool that will seemingly also be helpful addressing climate change, namely lower fertility.

IMF, in its Staff Discussion Note of October 2015, “The Fiscal Consequences of Shrinking Populations” writes: “Declining fertility and increasing longevity will lead to a slower-growing, older world population... This, in turn, contributes to a more sustainable pattern of development and reduced pressures on the environment.”

And the World Bank, in its advance of the “Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016: Development Goals in an Era of Demographic Change” mentions: “Demographic trends and related policies will have implications for the global environment and for the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies. Family planning and reproductive health policies may help mitigate the negative effects of climate change by reducing population growth, especially in pre- and early-dividend countries. Education is not only likely to lower fertility, it can also have a major impact on the effectiveness of measures aimed at tackling the negative effects of climate change…”

And the UN’s SDGs does include, as Target 3.7, to “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs”

Otherwise the SDGs, except for some minor references, in target 11.2 to the need of improved public transport for older persons, and in 11.7 to providing access to green and public spaces for older persons, seems to completely ignore the demographic challenges IMF and World Bank reports on.

It will be very interesting to see how the SDGs and demography will complement each other and or compete for scarce resources.

@PerKurowski ©

Berlin, are there no more urgent sustainability needs to serve in Europe than having Volkswagen recall 8.5m diesel cars?

Sir, Jeevan Vasagar and Chris Bryant report “Berlin forces VW into mandatory recall of up to 8.5m diesel cars across Europe” October 16. Why on earth would Berlin do a dumb thing like that?

What will that cost? Are there no more urgent needs to serve in Europe than recalling diesel cars?

Is it because the hurt inept emissions controllers who were cheated now want revenge? A lover’s spat?

How does the world benefit from forcing VW into mandatory recall of up to 8.5m diesel cars across Europe?

What will that cost? Is Europe really so buoyant that it can pay for an 8.5m diesel cars recall across Europe?

Is recalling these cars the most effective way to cut emissions that pollute, and to help the earth’s sustainability?

How much useful research could not be funded with what is to be wasted on the recall of 8.5m diesel cars?

Frankly if you want to punish Volkswagen without punishing other don’t recall cars give the diesel car owners, or other, some Volkswagen shares instead.

Sir, as a reminder, here is a previous letter on that.

@PerKurowski ©

Do the financial rights of creditors come before the sustainability vultures' rights of Mother Earth?

Sir, Tim Smedley writes “The UK has a legal obligation to meet 15 percent of its energy demand from renewable resources by 2020” “Sustainable jobs surge fades as wind farms face”, July 17.

What does that mean? Can you bank on it? If duly servicing UK public debt requires subsidies to wind farms to be cut and as a consequence you will not be able to meet targets… could there be a renegotiation? Could sustainable energy vultures hold out… and force a cut in all other energy supplies?

It would be really interesting if FT explains how this kind of legal obligation would rank with respect to other legal obligations.

More than the public borrowing rate trapped at zero, it is the banks that are trapped into public lending

Sir, I refer to the “Austerity is hurting. But is it working?” debate, April 27.

The Yes camp, represented by Chris Giles advances by far the strongest argument by just stating the fact that with respect to “finances to fight crises or wars. Advanced economies had leeway in 2008; they do not now”.

The No camp, represented by Robin Harding, echoing Martin Wolf, refers again to the boost that fiscal policy could give the economy “when interest rates are trapped at zero”. Again no consideration is given to the fact that the infallible sovereign rate is “trapped” at zero in much by capital requirements for banks that are extremely biased in favor of public borrowings. And again no consideration is given to the fact that the “risky”, like the small and medium businesses and entrepreneurs, therefore need to pay banks exaggerated risk premiums in order to provide the banks with the same return on their equity; that is if they even can get the banks to take notice of them.

If the No camp would try to figure out what would happen if for instance bank were required to hold 8 percent on all assets, including sovereigns, then perhaps they would understand that more than the public interest rate trapped at zero, it is the banks that are trapped into public lending.

And if you do not think there is something wrong with that, you've got to be communists.

Bank regulators, allow America to be the Home of the Brave

Sir, Jeffrey Sachs in “The US has already lost the battle over government” August 16, writes “ Mr. Ryan’s budget is nothing short of heartless in the face of the dire crisis facing America’s poor”. 

Hold it there Professor Sachs! I get too nervous about the poor, when someone recurs to arguing considerations based on the heart in order to service their needs. What was much worse for them than any heartlessness was the senselessness of bank regulators, that which caused the current crisis. 

By allowing banks to hold minimal capital when lending or investing in what was officially perceived as not-risky, regulators effectively discriminated against those perceived as “risky”, like small businesses and entrepreneurs, and doomed the banks to useless and obese exposures to what was or is still officially perceived as not risky. 

If there is anything that Republicans and Democrats should offer, as Americans, that is to wipe away the regulatory discrimination against what is perceived as risky and allow the US to fully be “the Home of the Brave” again… and that by the way would also do Europe a lot of good. 

And, if your bank regulator absolutely must mess around with market signals, so that they feel they have earned their salary, then why do you not ask them to base their capital requirements for banks on job creation and environmental sustainability ratings instead? That way they would at least serve a purpose.

If you thing “sustainability” is important, propose something that impacts it sustainably.

Sir, if you really cared so much about “Sustainability” in finance, as you want for the world to see you do, then you would be arguing for capital requirements for banks based on sustainability ratings, instead of the useless credit ratings that distort and leads our bank off into productive nowhere.

But some excessive virtues might not be a too bad vice for the world economy.

Sir yes, yes and yes I would absolutely agree with Martin Wolf that Germany must increase its demand, if only he could be able to hint at exactly what the Germans could be demanding more of in order to achieve a sustainable growth, “Excessive virtue can be a vice for the world economy”.

Perhaps, taking advantage of their currently quite green mindset, we could convince them to make a helicopter drop of resources on some green projects… that virtue, even though sounding a bit excessive, would perhaps not be a vice for the world economy.

Why do you have to sound so envious of Germany?

Sir you might be absolutely right but with yours “Europe will not save its way to growth” March 16, you come out, for the umpteenth time in some few weeks sounding just envious of Germany. Though Germany might indeed have benefited more than its fair share from the conditions previous to this crisis there is no way you could blame German frugality for causing it.

If instead you spent some time trying to point out a seemingly viable way to sustainable economic recovery I am most certain that most Germans, or all of those non Germans that lay their hands on Germany’s savings, will gladly help out to take us there. But, just in case let me remind you that sustainable recovery does not seem to have a great chance in a world where China buys even more cars than the US.

Mr Geithner, and the rest of you regulators… you are so wrong.

Sir Timothy Geithner writes that “Stability depends on more capital” September 4, and he is so wrong. Stability depends almost exclusively on getting the right sustainable growth since with the wrong kind of growth you would need 100 per cent of capital and even then you probably only your real stability until you find yourself ten feet under the ground.

The hard truth Geithner needs to understand, and come to terms with, is that even if the credit rating agencies had been absolutely right in their ratings, the end results for the economy would be wrong; because subsidizing risk adverseness and taxing risk-taking, that is something that only a society that has had enough and wants to lie down and die does... and we can’t expect the whole world to be baby-boomers... can we?

Of course the regulators need to increase the current capital requirements for banks, but only for those operations where they decreased them so dramatically, like for instance allowing a 62.5 to 1 leverage when lending to anyone able enough to hustle up an AAA.

Mr Geithner please give us one single reason for why the regulators should specially favour banks lending to clients rated AAA. To me that is a pure senseless discrimination that will not lead us anywhere except over the next subprime cliff.

It is not a question of stimulus against public investments.

Sir Joseph Stiglitz pleads “Do not squander America’s stimulus on tax cuts” January 16 preferring the investment in infrastructure. The issue is wrongly phrased, it is not a question of either or.

If stimulus one needs to make certain that these go to those who provide the most effective demand creation in sustainable sectors; if infrastructure these have to create employment in the short term and serve as support for long term sustainable growth.

But, whatever alternative is chosen, there is a need to follow sound implementation principles. For instance, in infrastructure projects and in order to guarantee ownership, these should be proposed by the States municipalities or even private corporations; for transparency these should be approved by a public committee after a brief evaluation of the projects on what they offer in terms of jobs and sustainable growth; and, finally, for accountability, the projects should only receive the funds in strict pre-specified terms and conditions, cash on delivery.

Let us also think about the world we want to emerge from this crisis.

Sir your “Spending wisely to escape recession” November 7 though quite correct on its own merits unfortunately ignores that our real challenge is not just to recover from the current crisis but to make certain that the world that emerges from it is sustainable, something its previous route was not.

For instance, in any emerging world we all know there would be little room for energy consuming climate changing vehicles and so what are we going to do about that? Therefore, should we help car producers to keep up their current production, or should we invest the money more wisely in getting them to do some serious environmental and energy friendly retooling?

Reviving the economy just to see oil go over 200 dollars per barrel does really not seem the smartest thing to do, for anyone, including the oil extractors.

But first make real sure reserves are worth something, when needed.

Sir George Soros, October 29, writes that “America must lead a rescue of emerging economies” and of course he is right. Who else could? Who else would?

Having said though when Soros then writes about the possible assistance the IMF might give a country like Brazil in terms of “$15bn, a pittance when compared with Brazil’s own foreign currency reserves of more that $200bn” he reminds us that the rescue efforts also includes making sure those $200bn are to be worth the same $200bn when Brazil might need to use them, and that by itself will require immense efforts, primarily, by the American taxpayer.

In God… and in the American taxpayer we trust!

When in a panic, think, for a millisecond at least!

Jeffrey Sachs tells us: 1.- Extend swap lines to all main emerging markets. 2.- Have IMF extend low-conditionality loans to all countries that request it. 3.- Discourage big banks from withdrawing credit lines from overseas operations. 4.- China, Japan, and North Korea should undertake a coordinated macroeconomic expansion. 5.- Middle East needs to recycle all their cash. 6.- US and Europe should expand exports credits for low and middle income countries. 7.- US and Europe should follow an expansionary fiscal policy. According to Sachs "At the least it would put a floor on the global contraction that is rapidly gaining strenght. "The best recipe for avoiding a global recession", October 28.

Even if we would accept Sachs very optimistic view on the fiscal outlook as true, we should ask whether this is wasting aspirins or throwing real medicine at the problems? Compare Mr Sachs´ advice with what Michael Skapinker, on the same page tells us that Wal-Mart is doing to enforce ´sustainability, demanding "rigorous environmental and social standards", "An ethics lesson from an unlikely quarter".

The big question becomes then, should we now pull out all the stops in order to regain equilibrium on what might be a path to unsustainability or should we use this crucially decisive moment to provide the incentives to explore other perhaps more sustainable routes? In the panic it is still wise to take a brief time-out and think about what door to use. In fact our world at large is not only looking for an escape door for a financial crisis, it is looking for a door that can lead it to a better place. But, of course, neither do we have all the time to make up our mind… it is burning out there.

But foremost we need a new direction for our growth

Sir Martin Wolf writes that “Sustaining growth is the 21st century’s big challenge” June 11 but as the article is set in the perspective of the environmental and energy limitations that the world now faces and that Jeffrey Sachs has written a book on a better title would have been “Re-direction growth so as to make it sustainable is the 21st century’s big challenge”.

Now how do you do that? First of all by measuring growth in terms that makes more sense. That a dollar used to buy the family’s third car in a developed country should count as much as the dollar used to pay for the vaccine for a child in Africa does somehow not seem to give us the right compass bearing we need.