Popular Shows & Posts
- Reality Economics #1 & #2
- Stateless But Not Lawless
- The Power of Manners and Human Cooperation
- ABC’s of Inflation and Hyper Inflation
- Hurray for Deflation
- Boom and Bust Cycles
- Horrors of Communism and Socialism
- The Real Lincoln
- Myths of Capitalism
- Common Objections to Capitalism
- Moral Basis of Capitalism I
- Moral Basis of Capitalism II
- How Nullification Can Make America Strong
- Keynesian Economics I
- Keynesian Economics II
Archives by Month
Archives by Category
Radio Free Market Endorses
Mises Institutes Around the WorldBrazil Canada Columbia Czech Republic Ecuador Estonia Finland Germany Israel Italy Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia South Africa Sweden Switzerland United States Ukraine
In his excellent review of Robert Pondiscio’s How the Other Half Learns: Equality, Excellence, and the Battle Over School Choice Dale Russakoff seems to assume that parents should be allowed to send their children to a charter school only if that school performs better than the public school. The author, Mr. Pondiscio, had immersed himself for a year in Success Academy, a charter school in New York City whose students consistently outperformed public school students in standardized tests. Mr. Pondiscio found that it was the parents who really made the difference. Success Academy vetted parents who would work with their children and ensure that homework got done, etc. This is hardly surprising. Nevertheless, the implication seems to be that we really don’t need charter schools, because the children of such responsible parents would do just as well anywhere. But why must a charter school prove that it is superior? Why can’t parents simply be allowed to choose their children’s schools, even if the children attending alternate schools perform less well on standardized tests? Despite the fact that parents may choose a school for reasons other than high student performance on test scores–proximity to home, friends of the children attending there, better nonacademic environment, better sports opportunities, etc.–no one seems to consider the freedom and choice of parents and their children. In other words, it’s really none of society’s business where or why parents send their children to the school of their choice.
A tariff is a tax on imports that is used to satisfy a policy goal. Before the federal income tax became law in 1913, the US federal government was funded almost entirely by tariffs and excise taxes. An excise tax is a tax on a good that is produced in the US. The best example of a current excise tax is the federal tax on gasoline. The most infamous excise tax was the tax on whiskey in the early days of the republic that resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion, centered in western Pennsylvania. The tax on whiskey was so unpopular that even George Washington couldn’t enforce it. The tax was rescinded very quickly and the federal government collected zero revenue.
As a source of federal income, tariffs are a cipher compared to the federal income tax. Today tariffs are used as policy tools. There are two competing schools of economic thought, and tariffs are justified under one of these schools of thought and not the other.
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)is considered the father of macroeconomics, the school of thought under which tariffs are just another government policy tool. His most influential book was The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936 at the height of the Great Depression. Keynes called for massive government intervention into the economy, guided by his main conclusion that the world suffered from a “lack of aggregate demand” that would be cured only by government spending. The explosion of war production in the Second World War seemed to validate Keynes’ ideas. During the war the entire world went off the gold standard. All governments printed money, unbacked by gold, and all governments took direct control of their respective economies. The general consensus by the public was that if government can direct a vast expansion of war goods, it should be able to direct a vast expansion of consumer goods in peacetime. Unemployment could be eliminated as all manner of capital and consumer goods would flow from the nations’ factories just as had tanks, warplanes, and all other war goods. Furthermore, there was no need to fear deficit spending. In fact it was incumbent upon government to deficit spend whenever the economy seemed to be slowing down.
It is not hard to see why Keynes’ main thesis was seized upon by politicians and their like-minded economists. Over the years government direction of economic affairs has become so engrained in all major economies that we don’t even realize that there might be a legitimate and superior alternative. We’ll never know whether Keynes himself would have endorsed all that now is called macroeconomics, because he died shortly after the end of the war.
Macroeconomics has certain characteristics. It relies upon statistics to measure whether and to what extend interventions are needed and whether, once initiated, they are achieving government policy. This assumes that economists fully understand which lever to pull on the great economic machine, for macroeconomists view the economy as a machine. Macroeconomist have coined a name for their machine-like model: econometrics. When an economy appears to fall short of econometric expectations, it is merely a matter of adding a little monetary oil here or requiring that businesses comply with some new regulation there and, bingo!, the economy is humming along again! How do we know? Because the statistics that government attempts to move are going in the proper direction!
Some typical tariff policy goals are helping producers (think… steel and/or automobile companies), helping labor (think… lumberjacks), or achieving a favorable balance of payments (think…China buys as much or more from the US as the US buys from China).
But there is another school of economic thought in which tariffs have no role. This school of thought is at least several hundred years old rather than a mere three quarters of a century old as is macroeconomics. This school of thought is the antithesis of macroeconomics. Its technical name is methodological individualism, but for our purposes we’ll just call it microeconomics. This school of thought emphasizes that the goal of all economic life is satisfaction of the individual, not some large group, and especially not producers. Furthermore, unlike macroeconomics, statistics play no role, since it is impossible to quantify an individual’s satisfaction. Satisfaction is subjective, not objective.
There is no single founder of methodological individualism, but Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) provided two wonderful maxims upon which microeconomics stands: the categorical imperative and the humanity formula. The former maxim states that for something to be ethically valid it must be binding always and everywhere regardless of one’s inclination. An example of a violation of the categorical imperative is the government’s claim that its central bank’s money printing powers are justified as good for the economy. If that were so, then you and I should be allowed to print money! But, alas, counterfeiting is a crime, unless committed by the government’s central bank. The humanity formula states that man is an end and can never be used as a means to an end. The most egregious violation of this maxim is slavery, where it is obvious that some men are used as means to satisfy other men’s ends. But there are many such violations all around us. For example, tariffs on foreign steel benefit some men–US steel companies and their employees–at the expense of everyone else.
The Law of Comparative Advantage
Methodological individualism exposes other macroeconomic fallacies. I’ll discuss just a few. David Ricardo (1772-1823)explained that trade is founded on the Law of Comparative Advantage; i.e., that trade expands the specialization of labor to minimize one’s opportunity costs. For example, it makes no sense for basketball star Michael Jordan to skip a few games in order to paint his living room. His opportunity cost would be very high; i.e., he would forgo the opportunity to earn vastly more money by playing basketball than by saving the cost of paying someone to paint his living room. The law of comparative advantage extends infinitely, from the individual to the family to the neighborhood, etc. to cover the entire world. Political boundaries are irrelevant.
Macroeconomics’ invention of “lack of aggregate demand” attempts to deny the validity of Say’s Law or the Law of Markets. Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832)most clearly explained that supply must precede consumption. In other words, inherent in supply is the wherewithal for consumption. Think of an Iowa farmer who gazes over his vast corn crop. The farmer sees the wherewithal for satisfying all his many needs. He will exchange his corn crop for a widely accepted medium of indirect exchange, money, in order to purchase all the necessities of life. If his crop failed, he would face dire straits. Printing money and giving it to him, as advocated by macroeconomists, merely debases the medium of exchange and causes higher prices for the rest of society, a violation of Kant’s humanity formula.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)pointed out what should be obvious to all; i.e., that state directing of resources may indeed cause certain “seen” statistic to go in the desired direction, but these same resources could have been directed to any number of more highly desired ends. These ends may be less than they would have been absent the state direction of resources. Furthermore, there may be ends that never were realized at all. In other words, if we are forced to pay more for something simply because it is “made in America”, we will have less money for satisfying other desires. Bastiat’s famous essay “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” was a devastating attack upon Mercantilist direction of the French economy.
Tariffs cannot be justified by methodological individualism. They are a political policy tool within macroeconomics. The net adverse consequences of tariffs are by those economists who think of tariffs’ logical results of over longer time frames and over the entire economy rather than the short term impact on cherry-picked statistics to favor politically connected pressure groups. It is the difference between freedom and tyranny.
From today’s Open Europe news summary:
Chancellor: No Deal Brexit would eliminate Treasury’s fiscal reserves
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, warned yesterday, “The ‘fiscal firepower’ we have built up in case of a No Deal Brexit will only be available if we leave with an orderly transition. If not, it will all be needed to plug a hole a No Deal Brexit will make in the public finances.” This comes after both Conservative Party leadership contenders, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson, promised in the last few days to use some of the £26.6bn allocated for a No Deal Brexit in the last budget for additional public spending.
Open Europe’s Henry Newman told BBC Radio London yesterday, “The Chancellor has kept a fiscal headroom… in the event of No Deal, but it will be up to the next Chancellor to decide how they balance the books. In a No Deal scenario, it will always be open to the Government to fund emergency spending through borrowing.”
It seems that governments everywhere just cannot rid themselves of the fallacy that increased government spending is the panacea to all political problems. Rather than increase spending in the case of a No Deal Brexit, the UK should slash government spending, scrap counterproductive regulations on business, and adopt unilateral free trade. In other words, GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY. Then British business can adopt quickly to the new economic reality. The cost of living will fall, benefiting every British citizen. Such a policy would send a powerful and hopeful message to EU skeptics in the rest of Europe and hasten the EU’s demise. The EU is nothing more than a backdoor method to turn all of Europe into a socialist command economy.
The Necessary and Inevitable Recession to Come
by Patrick Barron
Perhaps the most destructive premise of modern, mainstream economics is that a central bank-induced monetary/credit expansion can cause an economy to grow without adverse consequences. Let’s be perfectly clear from the start…this policy has been tried by many central banks many times and all such attempts have led to economic disaster. The latest victims are the poor citizens of Venezuela, a once prosperous nation. Furthermore, we Austrian economists have sound economic science to explain why it must be so, despite the fervently held wishes of mainstream economists, politicians, and the public at large.
Born of Depression Era Keynesian economic theory which elevated “aggregate demand” as the driving force of an economy, central banks have constructed a fallacious model of how an economy works. Repeated failures of this model have served only to embolden them to double down and double down again and again, driving interest rates in some countries below zero in order to force the world to conform to their religiously-held theory. The simplest explanation of this theory is that counterfeiting money will cause people to spend and it is a dearth of spending that holds back prosperity. If people won’t spend enough themselves, then it is incumbent upon government to do it for them by paying people the equivalence of digging holes in the ground and filling them back up. No, I am not making this up. Keynes himself said it! (Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 “The General Theory..”)
The theory of lack of aggregate demand fails to recognize two essential facets of how an economy really works. The first is that production MUST precede consumption. In other words, we cannot consume what we have not first produced, and one’s production constitutes one’s demand either through direct or indirect exchange. This is the essence of Say’s Law, which Keynes unsuccessfully attempted to refute in developing his theory of an economy driven not by production but by aggregate demand. The second is that the structure of production is determined by time preference. Sounds complicated, doesn’t it? Well, it is simplicity itself. The structure of production is merely all the intermediate steps that constitute production. There are fewer steps taking less overall time in an economy with a high time preference, meaning that people wish to spend most of their production borne income in the short term. Likewise there are more steps taking more overall time in an economy with a low time preference, meaning that people wish to save more of their current income in order to have more in the future.
A simple example is that one must plant seeds in order to grow vegetables for current consumption. (Please keep in mind that what I describe is applicable for all types and levels of production.)The steps in this process are the saving of seed from previous crops, the tilling of the soil, the planting of the seeds, the watering and perhaps fertilizing of the seeds, the spraying or covering of the young plants from the predations of birds, insects, and bacteria. You get the idea. The “structure” is the steps and the amount of production that is involved in each step. In a high time preference economy in which people wish to consume almost all of their crop production, saving more seed is a waste of resources. Likewise, producing more fertilizer than is necessary for the size of the crop is also a waste of resources. Time preference is the underlying guide. However, if people are more future oriented, they will save more from current production in order to plant more crops; they will clear and till more land with the extra seeds; they will buy more fertilizer, etc. The increase in crop yields spurs a new level of production in the preservation of excess production for future consumption. The refraining from current consumption–i.e., savings–is what funds this increase in the new level of production. The preservation process takes more time, but in the end there is more to consume in the future, especially in cases of future crop failure. Think of the children’s story of the ant and the grasshopper.
Keynes thought that an economy could bypass the savings process and substitute an increase in the medium of exchange for real savings. The obvious flaw in this argument is that counterfeit money is not a substitute for saving real, fungible production. Counterfeit money is simply a watered down medium of exchange. Think of the old adage of watering down the soup when uninvited guests show up for dinner. The cook can serve more bowls of soup, but the nutritional value per bowl is less.
But monetary/credit expansion does more than just reduce the value of each monetary unit. Because the counterfeit money appears no different than existing money, entrepreneurs are fooled into believing that something real has been set aside and that people have chosen a lower time preference. With a lower interest rate level their plans for expansion appear to be achievable. Canning and/or freeze-drying facilities, for example, are constructed over a longer period of time in anticipation of an increase in sales of vegetables that may be consumed much later. Eventually the entrepreneurs realize that no such longer-term demand really exists. They have wasted time and capital, neither of which may be recovered. The workers who left jobs in businesses that served the higher time preference economy for higher paying jobs in the vegetable preservation plants must find new work. This takes time, and the ranks of the unemployed grow until the economy has once again achieved a structure of production more in tune with the people’s higher time preference. Businesses lose money; the owners may even go bankrupt. Stock prices collapse. Banks may fail. Such a transition is called the recession. It is inevitable and unavoidable.
Yet it is highly likely–in fact it is almost a certainty–that central banks will fight the latest economic slowdown with the same old money printing and lowering of the interest rate. This was the conclusion drawn by Thorsten Polleit in his latest essay, published on Mises Wire: The Fed Has No Choice But to Return to Ultra-Low Interest Rates. The Keynesians at the Fed are baffled that the world won’t conform to their religiously held theory of aggregate demand. Their theory is a straightjacket from which they cannot escape intellectually. Unfortunately we all will pay the price.
I am speechless about the inanity of the Fed’s policy of actually desiring to destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. This mind boggling view of the world is based on the fallacious Keynesian theory of aggregate demand that emerged during the world wide depression of the 1930’s. It is nothing more than claiming that counterfeiting money and showering it on politically connected groups will spur economy prosperity. Has anyone at the Fed looked at Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or (the poster child of all government money printing) Germany’s Weimar Republic that so destroyed German civil society that the people turned to Hitler in desperation?
Re: The Federal Reserve is Flying Blind on Inflation by Andy Kessler
What the WSJ and every mainstream economist in the nation refers to as “inflation” is merely an increase in prices. The only true inflation is inflation of the money supply. The Fed has absolute control over the monetary base; i.e., cash–wherever held, such as banks, or our wallets and cookie jars–plus bank reserve balance, which can be converted to cash. In our fractional reserve banking system the money supply is influenced more by bank lending, which creates money out of thin air. The Fed has much less control over this part of the money supply. At present, the banking system is awash in excess reserves; therefore, the banks, theoretically, could increase the money supply by vast amounts and the Fed could do very little about it. We Austrian school economists regard fractional banking as fraudulent and should be made illegal. Banking should be divided into two parts, deposit banking–with one hundred percent reserve backing–and loan banking, much like today’s merchant banking. In such as system, assuming that the Fed either was not allowed to manipulate reserves or the Fed was scrapped and the nation returned to a gold standard, there would be no inflation and no credit/business cycle. We would have sound money and sound banking. There would be no need for the Fed, the FDIC, or any banking regulation. Banking would be subject to normal commercial law.
Counterfeiting Money Is a Crime, Whether by the Fed or A Private Individual
by Patrick Barron
A few years ago, shortly after the 2008 subprime lending disaster, the Fed sent a public relations team around the country to conduct supposedly “educational sessions” about how the Fed works and the wonderful things it does. The public was invited, and there was a question and answer session at the end of the presentation. One such session was held in Des Moines, Iowa. At the time I was teaching a course in Austrian economics at the University of Iowa, so I lusted at the prospect of hearing complete nonsense and having a shot at asking a question. I was not disappointed.
The educational part of the session lasted about an hour, and it became clear to me that the panel of four knew almost nothing about monetary theory. They may even have been hired especially for this grand tour, because all were relatively young, well scrubbed, and very personable–let’s face it, not your typical Fed monetary policy wonks or bank examiners! The panelists discussed only one of the Fed’s two remits–its remit to promote the economic advancement of the nation. Its other remit is to safeguard the monetary system. However, the panelists did touched upon the Fed’s control of interest rates and ensuring that money continued to flow to housing and other high profile areas of the economy.
Finally, at the end of the presentation, those with questions were asked to form a queue and advance one at a time to a microphone. I was last in a line of about a dozen. Here’s my recollection of what followed:
Me: You say that you (the Fed) have the power to increase the money supply. Is that right?
Me: And you have indeed increased the money supply. Is that right?
Me: And the money that you create was generated out of thin air. It wasn’t there before, but it’s there now. Is that right?
Fed (Getting nervous): Yes.
Me: And you say that creating this money out of thin air is beneficial to the economy. Is that right?
Fed (Now nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof): Yes.
Me: Then why do you prosecute counterfeiters?
(The audience, after a few seconds’ delay,: Yeah, why DO you prosecute counterfeiters?)
Fed: This meeting is closed.
My point is that there is no difference in the economic consequences to society between the Fed creating money out of thin air and a counterfeiter doing the same thing. The difference is solely legal and one of scale. Private counterfeiters are punished, and rightly so, whereas the Fed is lauded for its actions.
Counterfeiters are punished because printing money is the same thing as stealing. A counterfeiter does not print money only to stuff it under his mattress in order to feel wealthy. He knows that he needs to pass his fake money on to someone else in exchange for some valuable good or service. In this recent Mises Wire article Professor Frank Shostak refers to such action as getting something for nothing. Richard Cantillon observed that the first receivers of the new money benefit at the expense of all subsequent receivers–the Cantillon Effect. In a recent Mises Wire article Dr. Carmen Elena Dorobat explained that the Cantillon Effect can extend internationally. Therefore, nations accepting dollars for payment in the later stages of fiat money expansion suffer a transfer of wealth to the early receivers of the new dollars, mostly the banks and their customers in the US.
Some may respond that, “Yes, it is true that the government abrogates to itself and itself alone the power to print money out of thin air, but it abrogates many powers to itself and itself alone. The power to print money out of thin air is just one of them.” Let’s take two examples–the power to wage war and the power to force some to fund welfare for the benefit of others . The difference is one of ethics vs. consequences.
No civilized government allows its citizens on their own volition to kill foreigners. Yet in times of war government will order its citizens to kill foreigners and actually reward them–usually with honors rather than money–for doing so. Likewise no civilized government allows its citizens to decide for themselves that the wealthier members of society must pay the less fortunate. In other words you or I cannot approach a wealthy person and force him, at the point of a gun, to hand money over to some who are less wealthy. Society would collapse into a Hobbesian anarchy of a war of all against all.
Ethics vs. Consequences
Yet most of us accept, even if reluctantly, that government can force us to go to war and force us to pay taxes to fund welfare programs. The key is that government does not claim that the consequences are different; i.e., if Americans kill foreigners, the consequences are the same whether as a private citizens or as a soldier–foreigners die. Likewise, if as a private citizen I play Robin Hood and take from the rich and give to the poor, the consequences are the same if the government does it via taxes. But in the case of money printing out of thin air, the government claims that only good results accrue from its actions yet bad results accrue from private actions. Have you ever heard a government official claim that, yes, money printing does indeed cause misallocation of resources and, yes, it does indeed cause a net loss to society, but its actions are necessary in order to benefit…fill-in-the-blank? Of course not. One only hears how wonderful the Fed is that it has created money out of thin air in order to prime the economic pump, so to speak, or some such nonsense. The private counterfeiter steals from others for his own or his cohorts’ benefit, but the Fed claims that it’s absolutely similar actions have only good results for everyone in society.
Hiding the Truth with Statistics
The Fed tries to mask the wealth destructive effects of its money printing by focusing on the benefits accrued to some targeted economic sectors, such as housing. Statistics will show that the targeted beneficiary did in fact gain from monetary expansion. But the Fed ignores the cost to the rest of the economy, which is widespread and nearly impossible to measure. This is commonly referred to as concentration of benefit and dispersion of cost. One can quantify the former but not the latter. In reality no net wealth was created. In fact wealth was destroyed. Money printing disrupts the structure of production and causes malinvestment that must eventually be liquidated and never recovered. In other words, the losers on aggregate lose more than the winners gain.
The Cantillon Effect and resultant temporary boom are apparent when the counterfeiter acts locally. He buys big, flashy cars and lives large until merchants realize that they have accepted phony money. They are the losers. Even if the counterfeiter’s money is not detected but continues to pass from hand to hand the same as other legal tender, the structure of production will be permanently disrupted and capital will be consumed. Just remember Professor Shotak’s lesson that, since counterfeiters get something for nothing, wealth will be consumed.
The pernicious effect of the local counterfeiter pales in comparison with the Fed. A local counterfeiter may be able to pass several thousand dollars or even a million dollars of phony money, but in the nineteen years from January 2000 to January 2019 the Fed has increased the monetary base,–bank reserves plus cash in circulation, over which the Fed has absolute control–from $0.591 trillion to $3.323 trillion. That’s an increase of almost three trillion dollars! Yet the Fed tours the country touting its wonders to mostly fawning audiences…except perhaps in Des Moines, Iowa.
When Britons voted on June 23, 2016 on whether or not to leave the EU there was no discussion of a “hard or soft Brexit”. These terms were invented after Brexit passed by a surprisingly large margin and the mostly anti-Brexit Tory Party government, especially its leadership, decided that it needed to negotiate the terms of leaving. Brexit supporters regard such terms as betraying the 2016 Brexit referendum itself. These 17.4 million Britons undoubtedly believed that Brexit would mean exactly that: Britain would no longer be governed by any EU laws, regulations, etc. Nevertheless, all that the world has heard since that day in June 2016 is a debate over the terms of leaving, with any so-called terms being labeled as a “soft Brexit” and leaving without any agreement as a “hard Brexit”.
In a “hard Brexit” Britain just leaves and all EU regulations, etc. are null and void. Pretty clear cut. A “soft Brexit” can mean almost anything that is not a “hard Brexit”; i.e., Britain would agree to continue some or all of the manufacturing regulations, tariffs, and intergovernmental agreements, such as ceding jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, that apply to EU countries. The list is almost endless and the time frame very nebulous, a perfect playground for those who wish to have a BRINO; i.e., Brexit In Name Only.
Parliament Must Act
It came as a surprise to this American, and probably many Britons as well, but experts in British constitutional law claim that only Parliament can actually take Britain out of the EU and only Parliament can decide under what terms, if any, it will do so. Of course, one of the terms of separation could be that there are no terms of separation–thus, a “hard Brexit”–and this paper will address the implications of such a development on Britain from four viewpoints: the likely effect on British imports, the likely effect on British exports, the likely effect on the City of London (the name refers not to a geographical/legal entity but to the financial firms that are headquartered there), and the likely effect on border control.
The Effect on British Imports
The current government has been exploring the possibility of dropping all import tariffs to zero except on “sensitive industries”. This would be very good for consumers, because the EU imposes tariffs on almost all imports from nations not in the EU itself. Most notably in its attempt to insulate inefficient European farms from worldwide competition, the EU imposes onerous tariffs on non-EU agricultural products via the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Eliminating these and many other tariffs would significantly lower the cost of living for the British people. The success of Brexit may depend entirely on whether Britain does in fact eliminate tariffs on most goods. It is a golden opportunity. The EU itself is very export oriented, so it is unlikely that it would impose any restrictions on member countries selling goods to Britain. So far so good!
The Effect on British Exports
Exports are another matter entirely. No longer in the tariff free customs union, it is assumed that the EU would impose tariffs on British products as it does on any other non-EU country, raising their cost to EU buyers, which one must assume would result in fewer British sales. The real harm would not fall on British exporters but on Britain’s EU customers, who now are forcibly prohibited from buying British goods at the previously advantageous price. On the other hand since it no longer must meet onerous EU manufacturing regulations, British industry might enjoy lower manufacturing costs which would enable it to sell more to non-EU countries. Although it might take time for Britain to develop new markets for its goods, some countries, led by the U.S. itself, have stated that they are ready to sign free trade agreements with Britain as soon as it leaves the EU.
The Effect on the City of London
The City of London is a massive global hub. Its banking and insurance companies are dominant in the EU and likely to remain so for reasons of depth of market knowledge and a high reputation for honesty and fair dealing. Although some companies have moved some operations to Frankfurt, it is unclear if these moves are significant in number and may be simply part of normal market flux. The same fears about the fate of the City were raised when Britain secured an opt-out from the 1992 Maastricht Treaty which formally created the euro. Unless the EU imposes some special tax or regulation prohibiting EU members from utilizing London firms, it is unlikely that the City will be much affected by a “hard Brexit”.
The Effect on Controlling borders
Uncontrolled illegal Immigration into the EU became a key issue for passing the Brexit referendum. There had been much concern for decades over loss of British sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and the economic cost of belonging to a closed customs union with high tariffs and onerous regulations, but the movement to leave came to a head over border controls or lack thereof. One of the four pillars of the EU is freedom of movement of people within the EU. (The other three were freedom of movement for goods, services, and capital.) Illegal immigration came to a head following the crisis of refugees from the Arab world. Once inside the EU, these refugees could migrate anywhere within the bloc, including Britain, raising the cost of providing social services and disrupting settled life. Britain was not the only EU country that opposed this unforeseen migration. In fact immigration control may yet break apart the EU, as the elite in Brussels insist that every EU country not only accept a dictated number of refugees but also that every country then allow refugees to migrate freely within the EU. A “hard Brexit” would remove the requirement that Britain accept more refugees than it believes it can assimilate. Uncontrolled border crossings would end as modest checkpoints are reinstated.
A separate border issue pertains to the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland over goods. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and there has been much concern over continuing the free flow of goods into and out of the Republic of Ireland. This seems to be much ado about little. Most probably goods to and from the Republic of Ireland would be subject to random checks with very little hindrance on trade. The EU has lobbied for an “Irish backstop”, whereby Northern Ireland would remain in the EU for some period of time. Naturally this has incensed loyal British subjects, especially in Northern Ireland, and has almost no chance of being part of a “soft Brexit” deal.
A Positive Conclusion
In conclusion the effect of a “hard Brexit” on Britain itself should be overwhelmingly positive, especially if Britain does in fact remove all tariffs and conclude free trade pacts with the rest of the world fairly quickly. Naturally my advice to Britain is to unilaterally remove all tariffs on all goods, including “sensitive industries”. Free trade deals then become irrelevant. Britain could lead the way in showing the world the benefits of unilateral free trade, just as it did in the nineteenth century with the abolition of the Corn Laws. Perhaps this outcome is what the EU fears the most, because it would call into question the benefit of belonging to a closed customs union and would spell the end of the EU itself.
Re: Don’t Fight the Robots, Tax Them, by Eduardo Porter
I suppose we should be pleased that Mr. Porter is a Luddite-lite; i.e., he doesn’t want to smash new machinery out of existence but use the tax code to accomplish the same thing. Mr. Porter seems most concerned that government will lose payroll tax revenue, should machines replace workers. (I’ll leave it for another day to remind everyone that workers will not be completely eliminated. Rather they will be re-employed making…wait for it…robots!) Mr. Porter claims that avoiding a payroll tax is the same as getting a tax subsidy, and that’s where the interesting bit of twisted logic appears. According to Mr. Porter’s logic, the bigger the payroll tax the bigger the supposed subsidy for robots. Therefore, logic requires that every increase in the payroll tax be accompanied by an increase in the robot tax. Nice little circular argument, isn’t it, for ever greater taxes on both people and robots. Unfortunately, should government adopt Mr. Porter’s tax regime, society will find that it gets neither workers nor robots.
Re: How America Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Deficits and Debt by Neil Irwin
Reading Mr. Irwin’s Doctor Strangelove-esque article about whether or not deficits really matter, I was struck by this sentence, which was a paragraph in itself in the middle of his article:
“Then came the global financial crisis.”
Mr. Irwin treats the 2008/9 crisis as if it were an asteroid–completely random, unexpected, unpredictable, and beyond human volition. It was none of this. The global financial crisis was caused in large part by fiat money credit expansion, the very role of which Mr. Irwin’s article attempts to investigate. Interest rates were suppressed in the early 2000’s and continue to this day. The bitter fruits of this practice are inevitable.