Authoritarian governments are winning

From Brad Setser's blog.

I've said before now that 2003 was the year the UK and USA blew it, with reckless credit expansion.

Inflation, deflation, the world economy and freedom

This article by Matthew Beller on the Mises website tries to show how the US government can't "print its way out" of the present crisis.

The Federal Reserve controls the "monetary base" of physical currency and bank deposits, which represent only 15% of the money supply; the rest is bank lending. Currently, the banks are in a fright, so they are reducing credit, on which the economy depends. But if the Federal Reserve increases the monetary base, the banks' ability to multiply their deposits could lead to hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar altogether. Hence the attempts to maintain confidence in the banking system instead, even if that means expensive financial support.

This isn't enough for the monetarists. They say the lending in the recent boom went on consumer spending, which encouraged producers to make too much of the wrong stuff and so the economy developed in the wrong way. The econo-Puritans say we should accept deflation because, although temporarily painful, it will rebalance the economy for a more sustainable long-term future.

However, nobody likes nasty medicine, so a political question is whether democracies will allow politicians to take timely corrective action. Past history suggests that we'll only vote for the treatment when we're half-dead, and even then, we'll curse the doctor afterwards.

My feeling is that this tendency to delay means that underneath the business cycle is a fatal linear trend, moving wealth and power to less democratic countries. When the world economy recovers, it may be on very different terms: for although (e.g.) China may suffer a setback as the Western consumer reduces spending, Chinese industrial capacity has been growing over recent years - not only the factories and tools, but equally importantly the skills base. At the upturn, the East will be well-placed to cater for reviving demand, while the West struggles to supply appropriately-skilled labour, and tries to buy back some of the industrial materials it had previously exported. And as the East industrialises, it will generate locally a greater proportion of world demand.

I cannot see how we can avoid becoming poorer, on average, than we have been in past decades, even if an elite in our society grows richer and more powerful (a phenomenon associated with more impoverished economies). We cannot rely on high-end production: China will address its quality issues, as Japan did in the 1950s. Nor can we be complacent about intellectual property rights, in a world where might makes right.

But China itself has deep problems - an growing and ageing population; an increasingly unbalanced demographic structure, thanks to attempts to limit family size; pollution; water shortgages; declining quality of farm land. The Chinese leadership faces a long-term challenge in dealing with unsatisfiable domestic expectations, which will tend to make it intransigent in its relations with foreign powers. The East-West contest may become characterized by desperation on both sides.

And so democracy in the West will come under pressure. In difficult times, people are thrown back on a network of social relationships and mutual expectations, but sudden, unreal access of wealth has tempted us to put our faith in the amassing of cash, and/or government intervention, to the detriment of agreed internal social control and support systems. When the system enters its failure phase, which Fischer ("The Great Wave") thinks may be starting, the social threads begin to snap: inflation, crime, family breakdown, war. The reification of the ties that bind us together tempts our government to maintain the social order through externalised means of surveillance and enforcement. Ultimately, the mismanagement of national budgets is a freedom issue.

Whose country?

"Citizenship in this nation is is not a spectator sport," says Karl Denninger, as he tries to get more people to sign his petition to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being made vast burdens of the State.

I hope that is true for the USA, and I wish it were true here. Are we deluding ourselves when we talk of "our" Government?

Handy-dandy, which is which?

The two countries here each went to the polls to ascertain the will of the people.

The result in one case was declared unsatisfactory by the ruling party and an order given that the issue be readdressed within three months.

The result in the other case was declared unsatisfactory by the ruling party and an order given that the issue be readdressed within four months.

Robert Mugabe has yet to declare his candidacy for the Presidency of the European Parliament.

Shut down the EU Parliament

Just looked up a bit about my Parliamentary MP, whom I never see or hear. It set me thinking.

Who is your Euro MP? Exactly. And compared to EU MPs' pay, exes, fiddles and nepotism, Westminster MPs are poor relations and almost Simon-pure.

What do you think will happen when "ever-closer union" (that definition of a black hole) is achieved? A boom in ermine and coronets, silk swags and bunting, grand sandstone palaces, plum strudel at Demel's, superb black coffee, and secret police.

Somewhere even now, a new Jaroslav Hasek is inventing a new Schweik.

UPDATE

Here's how to find your MEPs. Does anyone you know, remember voting for them?

Democracy - a cut flower

I think we are not a democracy, but a competing selection of complex oligarchies with a mechanism for periodic bloodless overthrow.

I put the above comment about the British system on the ever-elegant Angels in Marble. Is it too cynical?

What does democracy mean here? What should it be like?

Is democracy the best system, or should we turn to authoritarianism, which seems to be working for the Russians and Chinese, as an increasing number of opinion-formers seem to be suggesting?

Is that happening anyway? Are the people watching the bottom rung of the ladder of power rise out of reach?

The return of the gods

I perceive a theme in public opinion these days, regarding democracy. Taki has a piece in the Spectator this week, saying that even in ancient Greece it was empire and aristocracy. Highly intelligent professionals like Don Boudreaux boast of their refusal to vote. It seems that people think the system will continue to run more or less for our benefit, even if we take no part in it; just as your local shop will always be there, even though you very rarely patronise it.

Yes, rule us as you wish, as long as our kettles and TVs work, as long as there is petrol for our cars and the trains run on time. What we want is broth for our bellies, now, like Esau.

We may have to re-learn our lessons the hard way, as Kipling warned... and Cavafy:

Without consideration, without pity, without shame
they have built big and high walls around me.

And now I sit here despairing.
I think of nothing else: this fate gnaws at my mind;

for I had many things to do outside.
Ah, why didn’t I observe them when they were building the walls?

But I never heard the noise or the sound of the builders.
Imperceptibly they shut me out of the world.

Nationalism and internationalism

"James Higham" joins his voice to those who detect a revival of the nationalist spirit.

I don't think nationalism will be confined to losers in the game, or rejected by those who claim to love all mankind. Once there was Bukharin/Stalin's "Socialism in one country"; soon it'll be "China first". I can't blame the latter - they have worked so hard for what they've got, and won't understand why we think we can whinge it all back from them.

Speaking as the man in the street, my perception is that we have had a long period in which global businesses and a carpetbagging international managerial class developed and made fortunes. The liberal economists say this system is great for all of us, and should stay that way; perhaps so, if we had honest money and sound national budgets, so the correction mechanisms could steer the course of international trade more steadily.

But thanks to criminal negligence, incompetence and greed by those who could have maintained the integrity of the economic system, I think the aspirant working class and lower middle class in the developed world are paying heavily, and will pay more heavily. As they give up on their aspirations, we shall see a ballooning underclass, increasing the drag on national economic performance; but the situation may prove impossible to change for electoral reasons in a sort-of-democracy. The gap between rich and poor in our countries has widened, but will widen further: "Devil take the hindmost."

At the same time, on both sides of the Atlantic, people suspect a sell-out by the political class, which is intertwined (professionally and often maritally, or extra-maritally) with the business, media and public relations people. I have often said that I think we are seeing the reconstruction of the aristocracy in Europe. Many Americans also fear that their society is moving away from its historic and constitutional foundations.

The implications for democracy, social cohesion and international relations are worrying.

Another 42 stars?

"Deepcaster" continues to hint at the operations of "The Cartel". His theory is outlined in this post of August 11, 2006. In a nutshell, there's a plot (a) to dissolve the US and make a new entity by combining it with Canada and Mexico, and (b) ruin the dollar in order to replace it with the "Amero", presumably to recommence the thieving by inflation. So it's like what some think the EU project is about.

Except I don't think the EU or its North American equivalent are driven by sinister motives; just venal ones. Concentrating wealth and power makes very juicy opportunities, provided you can simplify the command structure. All that consulting the common people and getting their agreement is so tedious.

America grows. She acquired 29 states in the nineteenth century and five in the twentieth. Where next? Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories; Mexico has 31 states and one federal district; Greenland is owned by Denmark but has been granted home rule. But Canadians, Mexicans and Greenlanders may have their own views about assimilation.

Democracy is inconvenient, by design. I think the thirteen stripes on "Old Glory" remain there, not just as a historical quirk, but to remind the Federal Government that it's very important to say "please" and "thank you". Even in the first go at making the nation, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey chose to delay the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, until certain issues had been resolved to their satisfaction.

Here's to the awkward squad.

The Grand Union Flag of 1775, flown by John Paul Jones

The bigger they are, the harder they fall

Michael Panzner refers us to a Financial Times article on the (overdue) dwindling confidence among our youngster trading community. The piece includes this paragraph:

Unlike past housing crises, the banking sector is far less well equipped to cope with the fallout because of the wave of banking consolidation in the last decade. [...] This means the pain has become concentrated among a small handful of institutions, all of whom play a crucial role in keeping all markets liquid.

I recently quoted this Contrary Investor article, which includes a graph of the ballooning exposure of American banks to credit default swaps (CDS), under which arrangement everybody insures everybody else. The risk is 99%+ concentrated into only SIX banks.

Who benefits from such concentrations? I commented on Panzner's site:

Concentration of finance into an ever-smaller number of giant banks is inherently dangerous. You reduce the risks of small hazards, but you increase the potential damage from a Black Swan / fat tail event. Systemic safety is in diversity, dispersion and disconnection.

There is increasingly a conflict of interest between those who benefit from concentrations of power and wealth (think of the bonuses and cushy jobs), and the general populace. Wasn't the US Constitution itself specifically designed to prevent such concentrations?

In my view, the sub-prime contagion is not only spreading to other sectors of the economy, but beginning to call into question how big government, high finance and monstrous companies impact on the fundamental values of our (systematic and real in the USA, ramshackle and sham here in the UK) democracies.

It seems to me that small-scale democracy-cum-economy is not only an historical reaction to the centralist authoritarianism of George III (who meant well, I am sure), but a kind of imitation of Nature, which has endured the most massive disruptions (a planet encased in ice, or burning from a massive meteor strike) because of my alliterative trio of survival traits: diversity, dispersion and disconnection.

"Give me Liberty or give me debt"

Bernard von Nothaus, issuer of the "Liberty Dollar" is sounding feisty. Such people are most inconvenient for the smooth running of public affairs; it's awkward cusses like him who were the grassroots of the American Revolution (though of course, the Founding Fathers faced a far more grisly legal retribution if they failed).

There is a serious point: is America prepared to refresh its commitment to the principles of the Constitution, which Ron Paul champions; or is it "the old order changeth, yielding place to new"? In which case, when was that decided, and by whom, and with what right?

It's a burning issue for us in the UK, too: here, a thousand years of organic (and often bloody) constitutional development is to be hurriedly reshaped by lawyers and bureaucrats working for the Executive, in the name of vaguely-phrased hurray-words ("justice, rights and democracy" - the last is particularly ironic, since I don't remember voting for this ramshackle assault). Has it become the people's representatives v. the people? Perhaps our "new" Labour government has ignore its Methodist roots and relaxed the laws on drinking, gambling and sexual activity so that we will be distracted from taking an interest in more serious matters.

On a lighter note, it's fun to see that, legal currency or not, such Liberty Dollars as are still out of FBI custody are currently a good investment. Maybe better than the Fed's IOUs, if you believe the bullion-hoarders.

Jacob Shallus might have thought so. The $30 he earned for engrossing the Constitution was the equivalent of 5 weeks' worth of a Philadelphia printer's wages in 1786. What does $30 get you today?