I Hate Hypocrisy

Here is my letter to members of the Shoreline, WA City Council:

City of Shoreline Currents newsletter headline: “Council would like your input on proposed tree code amendments.”

Here’s my input:

According to your newsletter,  “…the City believes strongly in protecting those (private property) rights”.

 

Please act accordingly and leave decisions regarding trees on an individual’s private property to the individual owner.

 

If the City places restrictions on the property owner to “provide benefits to the entire community”, the entire community should bear the cost by compensating the property owner for the taking of his/her property rights.

 

Should you act otherwise, please instruct staff to stop writing “the City believes strongly in protecting those rights”.

 

Thank you,

Todd Ramsey

Regulation Inhibits Growth

Wherever private property exists, an entity always develops to protect that property. That is the essential ”gain from trade” provided by government.

The more thoroughly government protects that property — thereby reducing the individual’s cost of protecting his own property — the more time and resources are available to individuals to create economic growth. 

The higher the cost to individuals for the provision of the protection service, the fewer resources are available to individuals to create economic growth. 

That cost can be in the form of government spending (all spending necessitates taxes, now or in the future), to the extent that the government spending results in less productive investments than had the resources been left in private hands. 

That cost can also be in the form of regulatory restrictions on individual action. 

Much sound and fury is devoted to tax rates and spending levels. Relatively little is heard about the cost of regulation. Yet the cost of regulation is significant and may explain much of our current doldrums (and of the slow growth of the 1970s).

(Regulation related to government’s role as “Guardian of the Commons” — whereby government protects property that belongs to nobody, for example, the air — is necessary and may promote economic growth. Although this, too, depends on the cost/benefit involved in protecting the resource.)

Why Libertarian? A Moral Case.

Would any human prefer slavery to freedom?

I think not.

Libertarians want a society that recognizes this truth, and reduces freedom by the minimum amount necessary to secure our life and liberty from one another.

Personally, I would take the government’s proper role a step further in three areas.

First, to make improvement to our infrastructure in cases where the transaction costs of private ownership exceed the potential gain to a private owner, resulting in economically sound projects not being undertaken. Roads are a good example.

Second, as guardian of goods that cannot be privately owned, or where transaction costs make it prohibitive to do so. Air comes to mind. Further, there may be goods or property whose uniqueness is so valuable that private ownership in part, rather than whole, would reduce the non-monetary benefits of the property. For example, the Grand Canyon. Government has a role as the guardian of that commons.

Third, I believe (without moral foundation, and perhaps without economic foundation) that government has a role in creation of stable money.

 

Bold Predictions March 19, 2012

I’ve got a bad feeling about the economy and the stock market.

I’ve had the bad feeling since April 2011. I have been wrong up until now.

My current uptick in malaise is caused by the rapid increase in long-term interest rates at the end of last week. That reminded me that a primary cause of the low long term rates over the last year has been Fed purchase of long term treasuries in Operation Twist. From The Wall Street Journal, 2/10/12:

As part of Operation Twist, the Fed has, since October, gobbled up $50.3 billion in regular Treasurys maturing in 20 to 30 years, acquiring 91% of the gross new bond supply issued by the U.S. Treasury for the maturity range over that time, according to data compiled by Barclays Capital.

I think the Fed has been encouraging inflation, and also keeping long-term rates low, to support the housing market, to keep both banks and consumers solvent. Now, the housing market was so overbought through 2007 that even inflation and low rates can’t raise housing prices. What can happen, however, is for the price of housing to rise relative to the price of other goods. That will effectively bring the price of housing down without the pain and possible rapid reduction of the money supply that would be caused by a series of mortgage defaults and foreclosures. I believe we are already seeing the inflation manifested in gas and stock prices.

(Parenthetically, who is hurt by this? Owners of housing, many of whom are the banks and individuals who took advantage of the bubble expansion. Maybe the Fed is thinking just desserts.)

But there’s a limit to what the Fed can accomplish by buying up all of the long-term treasuries. That’s because if the markets develop an expectation of inflation, investors will demand higher rates on their long term investments. If the Fed tries to fight that rate rise, that can fuel an inflationary cycle the Fed cannot win. They would be forced at some future time to execute a Volcker arrest of inflation — which would likely cause the defaults and foreclosures they are trying to avoid.

To further the disaster scenario, now that the U.S. debt exceeds GDP, interest rate increases will be crippling for our government’s ability to finance itself.

In the 1980s we faced high inflation and looming large deficits, but we were able to grow our way out of the problems. That was in large part because the government was getting out of the way as we moved through the 1980s. We committed to lower tax rates and our Executive Branch was minimizing regulation. Now we’re in a different spot. The talk is of raising tax rates, and we currently have an Executive Branch that believes business is evil and needs lots of regulation.

Those are growth-stifling microeconomic polices that restrict our ability to grow our way out of the problem.

So were looking at high deficits that we’ll have to repay from essentially our current level of income.

We could try to hyperinflate our way out of the problem. In my opinion, our central bankers are too smart and too conscientious to resort to hyperinflation.

We could default on our debt. That would reverberate around the world and cause catastrophe. It would hasten the commencement of China becoming the World’s dominant economic power.

We can kick the can down the road. If Obama is re-elected (and I believe he will be), I believe that’s the choice we’ll make. But the day of reckoning will come, and in my opinion we’ll have a problem of such proportions on our hands that a candidate like Rand Paul will be elected on a platform of a return to belief in private property and free markets.

Back to business. I think the stock market is a bad place to be right now because of the likelihood of rising interest rates and bad microeconomic policies. I believe that we’re ripe for a crisis tumble. The precipitating cause of the tumble could be anything, but the most likely cause is a revisit of the European debt crisis.

When the crisis was “solved” a few months ago, there was no fix of the underlying problems in Europe. Europe has the bad microeconomic policies of the social welfare state (job market inflexibility and overburdening government spending are the main culprits), which will make it difficult to achieve the growth necessary to repay the debts of the PIIGS, etc. We’ll see a time soon when investors will be asked to take a haircut on European debt. The crisis will be bigger because the debts will be bigger, and that could be the trigger for the U.S. stock market tumble.

I’m thinking below 10,000, and probably below 9000. But I will be ready to buy at that level.

Europe may choose to tax its savers (read inflate its way out of the debt) rather than enforce bond reductions. But Germany will oppose inflation. That battle will be fought between German banks and ordinary Germans.

Sociologists Discover Tom, Julia, and Gordon in Old Sicily

Property rights and the economic origins of the Sicilian mafia

Posted by Cardiff Garcia on Mar 12 16:13.

Fascinating abstract of a new paper by Paolo Buonanno, Ruben Durante, Giovanni Prarolo, and Paolo Vanin:

This research attempts to explain the large differences in the early diffusion of the mafia across different areas of Sicily. We advance the hypothesis that, after the demise of Sicilian feudalism, the lack of publicly provided property-right protection from widespread banditry favored the development of a florid market for private protection and the emergence of a cartel of protection providers: the mafia. This would especially be the case in those areas (prevalently concentrated in the Western part of the island) characterized by the production and commercialization of sulphur and citrus fruits, Sicily’s most valuable export goods whose international demand was soaring at the time.

Christmas Eve

Tomorrow is my annual buddy trip to Las Vegas.

I love the feeling of anticipation before this trip. It’s the only time in my adult life that I have the feeling I had on Christmas Eve when I was a child.

Winnie the Pooh said there’s a moment right before the actual eating of the honey that is better than the eating of the honey. I know just what he means.

To Clarify on Buffett

Warren Buffett is a hero of mine — for his ability to stay clear of emotional swings in the stock market, to evaluate stocks rationally, independent of the mania or panic mere mortals are feeling at any given moment. He bought stocks in the middle 1970s and 2008-9, when others were selling, but avoided buying in the late 1990s, when others were buying.

I love two quotes of his to illustrate: “Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful”, and, “In the short run the stock market is a voting machine, in the long run a weighing machine.”

I do not admire his political philosophy. I don’t believe he has fully considered the consequences of the tax positions he advocates. I believe he overweights his personal (considerably atypical) experience with income and taxes. I further believe he feels guilty that he was born into a circumstance that perfectly suits and rewards his aptitiudes, and that guilt is manifested in calls for higher taxes on the rich.

I further do not admire the hypocrisy of calling for higher taxes on the “rich” while simultaneously pursuing tactics to minimize his own taxes, let alone voluntarily paying more taxes if he doesn’t believe he is paying his “fair share”.

Buffett Supports Taxes – For Others

In 2011, billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway announced it would repurchase some of its own shares when the shares fell below 110% of book value — in other words, when Buffett felt the shares have become too cheap.

In the past, Buffett has ranted against other CEOs whose companies repurchased their own stock, calling it an inefficient use of capital. In those cases, Buffett called for the CEOs to increase dividends and allow shareholders to decide for themselves whether they wanted to repurchase stock.

Why the change of heart?

Should Berkshire Hathaway pay dividends, Warren Buffett would have to pay lots of taxes on those dividends. And I think Warren Buffett, like the rest of us, wants to avoid paying more taxes than he is required to.

That’s fine, Warren. But please stop asking for higher rates on the rest of us. Most of us a) need the income from the dividends, and b) have no say on whether dividends are paid.