Jefferson, debt and democracy

"Economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude"...

Now that we are once again in "times that try men's souls" (as Tom Paine put it) many are harking back to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and longing for a return to the principles of the United States Constitution. This makes it all the more important to establish exactly what Jefferson said.

Let's take a frequently-quoted passage: “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must take our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”

This is a hashed-up version of the longer and more elegant original; and even takes liberties with the language (for example, it wasn't "take our choice" but "make our election"). As so often with Jefferson quotations, there is no indication of when he said it, and to whom; and when there is, it may be wrong - this alternative mash-up says it's from "A Summary View Of The Rights Of British America" - it's not (see the 1774 text of the latter here, or here).

No: it wasn't written before the Revolution, but 40 years afterwards, with the weight of experience added to his undimmed passion for liberty, and as a result it's far more interesting.

Writing from retirement in his Monticello home, the 73-year-old is responding to historian and fellow-Virginian Samuel Kercheval, who has written a pamphlet calling for a convention to reform that State's Constitution and is seeking the support of the former 1770s representative to the Continental Congress , who in addition to later serving as President and Vice-President of the Republic has also been Governor of Virginia.

Kercheval strikes gold for posterity, if not for his immediate cause. Jefferson takes the opportunity to get down to first principles, including the "mother principle" of republicanism, which is that "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it." More than even before the Revolution, he is convinced of the need for "equal representation" in the Senate and House of Representatives, and observes that the machinery of democracy fails these yardsticks in both bodies. He also worries about the near-immunity of the Governor and the supreme justices, and the poor quality of juries chosen not by the people but by legal functionaries. He concludes the first part of his letter by saying that the system has worked well so far not because of the Constitution, but in spite of it, thanks to the fact that "our functionaries" have been "generally honest men"; and then proposes ways to subdivide powers and responsibilities so as to maximise the involvement of "every man who fights or pays."

Setting aside our modern views on slavery, suffrage for women and property qualifications for voting, it's an interesting precondition that the republican should be ready to pay his full share of the price of decisions which he has (or should have) an equal part in making. The people in whom he reposes his ultimate trust, are those who put their property and lives at stake for their liberty. Perhaps Jefferson sees us more clearly through his green spectacles than we see him.

But there is no equality between debtor and creditor, and Jefferson keenly perceives that the money system has the power to destroy freedom. We shall go from debt, to taxation, to oppression. After the bully-boy performance of Treasury Secretary Mr Henry Paulson in October 2008, expressing his "disappointment" with Congress' decision to reflect the will of the people and refuse assistance for several distressed banks, one of which had recently had him as its CEO, do we catch a flash from those Monticello lenses?

Now, at last, to the passage (paragraphing and emphases mine) in which the old revolutionary warns how the Republic can be lost:

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom.

"And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.

"If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.

"This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Now some will draw the conclusion that we have been brought to this pass, or close to it, by a system of public benefits; but it's more than that. Powerful private interests have weighed down the people individually with the burden of "private extravagance" and then offloaded their own heavy share of the costs of mismanagement onto the people collectively, while retaining for themselves personally the enormous fortunes they made open-eyed in their corrupt and destructive scheme.

This, over the same 30-odd years that saw the hollowing-out of the nation's economy by exposing it through international trade to competition for which the country was not adequately prepared, any more than the fish of the Atlantic were ready for the incursion of Pacific species to which the opening of the Panama Canal exposed them.

Had the people been informed by a knowledgeable and responsible news media; had they understood and been helped to accept the adjustments that would be demanded of them; had they been represented by delegates who knew their duty to their constituents; had their diplomatic and trade representatives managed the pace and scale of the economic transition; then they could have achieved economy and preserved their liberty, while allowing the less fortunate of the world to rise from unjust poverty. Instead, the aftermath of a profusion which continues to enrich a financial, politically-protected elite has, we must fear, condemned the people to servitude, or at least such inevitable obligations as will shackle their descendants for a generation or more, the attempt to escape which must involve tension and possibly worse between the nations.

Did Jefferson see this 195 years ago? It could have been yesterday.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Electronic paper has a bright future

The Chinese are set to overtake both the Kindle and Nook (and Sony's Reader) with a new reflected-light colour e-book reader, according to this article last month.

The screen changes more slowly than radiant light screens, and has a more limited range of colours, but I've been looking for something like this for quite a while. I can see three distinct advantages of the new development:

1. It isn't radiant light. I read a lot on my laptop, and come away feeling my eyes are bruised. So much nicer to browse my Kindle with a cup of tea (Luckwar, since you don't ask).

2. If it works like monochrome e-paper, it uses much less power when offline, only enough to change the screen when you want it to. This should mean much longer use time on battery.

3. It's readable in bright sunlight.

4. See (1) again. There must be tens of millions of keen readers like me and we're in danger of macular degeneration thanks to modern but not cutting-edge technology. What with the hearing impairment suffered by the younger generation on their maxed-out audio systems, soon the deaf will be leading the blind.

What this will do for the fortunes of E Ink and LG Display (both have recovered well from October 2009 lows), and what it's now doing for China's Hanwang/Hanvon companies, I don't know; but I can't wait for an e-ink colour reader to reach Britain's shores.

I must be very nice to my wife next year, and invest in a nice, stretchy stocking for the mantelpiece.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Income inequality in China and USA, and the international battle for resources

The Gini Coefficient measures personal income inequality (the nearer to 1.0, the nearer to maximum inequality).

This January 2010 study by the Brooks World Poverty Institute (PDF) says that the coefficient in China (PRC) rose from 0.3029 in 1978 (when the post-Mao economic reforms began) to 0.4448 in 2006 (table 2, p.20). By comparison, according to Wikipedia, the UN's Gini calculation gives the USA a coefficient of (est.) 0.408 in 2007 (though the CIA reckons it to be 0.45). There are some 63 dollar billionaires in mainland China as of 2007. Perhaps this explains the > $81 million paid for an antique Chinese porcelain vase last month in a British auctioneer's salesroom.

So the Chinese are really silk-hatted entrepreneurs like us, right?

I think not.

The thing to remember is that capitalist methods are being used by the Chinese to further Communist (and nationalist, I would suggest) objectives. The upper and middle classes, both growing, are being used as well-remunerated donkeys to pull a cart filled with a billion of their fellows out of the abject poverty in which they languished at the beginning of the last century. Attempts by the successful to pull off tax avoidance stunts like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich (see Google's wheeze here) would, I suspect, end with bullets in heads. That cart has to keep rolling, at all costs.

We can get a hint of the longer-term strategy from the machinations in the market for rare earths. Smart traders are trying to second-guess what China will do with its near-monopoly; it looks as though she can't resist the power this gives her to jerk the chain, as witness yesterday's announcement of tighter export quotas. Following September's allegedly punitive suspension of shipments to Japan, the latter has no intention of being held hostage in future and is busy stockpiling reserves.

Other Western countries would be well-advised to turn their attention a little from efficiency and budget balancing to survivability. Just-in-time logistics may become just-too-late. Clausewitz's famous dictum "War is the continuation of economy by other means" must needs be turned on its head in an era when war between major nations is simply too perilous: it is the field of the economy where great States will battle in future.

Disclosure: None

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Public pensions conundrum

Mike Shedlock comments on Illinois' budget problems and the new Governor's notion of borrowing billions more to keep the ship afloat.

Unfunded pension liabilities are a major part of the problem for this and most other States. The total deficit for such schemes nationally was $3.04 trillion in mid-2008, according to this February 2010 study by Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute. Illinois has the fifth-worst (40%) underfunding in proportion to State GDP (fig. 6, page 48).

Of more concern to a long-term bear like me is where those funds, inadequate as they may be, are invested. Here's Figure 1 of that study:

If' like me, you fear that both stocks and bonds will be hit badly when the credit crunch finally matures into a lender's strike, then a radical revision of pension entitlements is on the cards.

Disclosure: None

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Doubts growing over UK economy

CMA Datavision reports concerns by the market in credit default swaps about the UK's ability to service its debts, as the following shows:

Britain's largest bookmaker Ladbrokes now rates 2011 as the second most likely year for a General Election:

The Odd Couple coalition of the Liberal Democrats (thought by many to be to the left of the British Labour Party until the latter reconnects with its old-style socialist roots) with a superficially touchy-feely new Conservative Party, may not be able to handle the strain of living together.

Already we have seen riots (to some extent sympathetically covered by the news media) about the raising of tuition fees for students, and the Coalition has been embarrassed by the publication of critical private remarks by Liberal MPs about their Conservative colleagues.

The present British Government is the first non-wartime coalition since 1922. If it cannot hold its crew together in these choppy seas, it will not be able to steer through the economic storm to come - and then our troubles will begin in earnest.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

How America can climb out of the hole: the first step is seeing the light

Bruce Bartlett in the Fiscal Times (htp: Michael Panzner) submits a first-class, balanced essay on how the mess can be straightened out.

The key first step, he says, is to introduce honest financial reporting on the basis that corporations have to use, i.e. accrual accounting, for this will reveal the future economic effects of policy decisions made today. Doing so will help policymakers to make sensible adjustments and the public to accept them.

And it's not all bad news: for example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama into law on 23 March 2010, is projected to save $15 trillion over the next 75 years. Raising the State Retirement Age and modifying other social benefits could bring the budget back into balance, long-term.

It won't be painless. If America starts to retrench now, the estimated cost is 2.4% of GDP. But delay merely magnifies the problem - a decade of further obfuscation and inaction raises the bar to 3.7% of GDP.

It is most fortunate that the US Government is required by law to produce a financial report of the kind that makes Mr Bartlett's comments possible. This law was signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, one thing at least for which future generations must thank him.

Over the last few years, I have found it far easier to get useful information about the economy of the USA than about that of the UK where I live. Here, the truth seems harder to establish and dissent increasingly crushed. For although there is guff-talk about our being citizens, essentially we are merely subjects whenever it pleases our masters. Absent overruling by the courts of the European Union (itself a highly undemocratic organisation), our civil rights and liberties could be abolished at a stroke by the Privy Council, the legacy of the Anglo-Saxon kings' witan, or committee of high-born advisers (and potential rivals for the throne).

Long live the American Constitution: for all your well-founded instinctive distrust of power and authority, and for all the powerful businesses that lobby against any change that might slow their own accumulation of wealth at the expense of the citizens, Uncle Sam is still a people's government - so long as the people take an interest.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Long term care, insurance & "Death Panels": fact and fiction

US insurers MetLife (MET) and John Hancock (HPI) are backing out of the long care insurance market, according to an article by Anna K. Pfaehler in Economic Policy Journal today. The former will stop selling new policies at the end of this week, and the latter is asking for a 40% hike in premiums.

Partly this is because insurers' investments have performed poorly in recent years, thanks to the artificially low interest rates to which governments on both sides the Atlantic are now haplessly committed.

But also it will have something to do with the volume of claims, and how long modern medical science can keep the sufferer alive. The Family Caregiver Alliance says that 63% of claimants are over 65 but the rest (37%) are younger. The average stay in a nursing home is 2.44 years, says Long Term Care Link; but over half of inmates are 85 or older, a demographic that is expected to "increase dramatically" in the next 20 years.

I seem to remember an interview with Whoopi Goldberg in which she joked that children are keen for you to pass on "so that they can git yer stuff", but inheritance is certainly an issue, as well as the increasing burden on the State of the elderly poor. Here in the UK, ever since the Community Care Act of 1990, there's been a battle between local authorities who were thereby charged with the duty of providing care, and sufferers and relatives who don't want to pay for it directly.

There is a moral hazard in this financial pressure, and one wonders whether it's a factor in the British Government's seeming reluctance to punish those who "help" relatives to make a quicker end. I think we should resist the temptation and if you possess a Kindle, please read my e-story, "Dignity"!

P.S. Looks as though President Obama is already going down the road towards officially-sponsored euthanasia.

Rolf Norfolk

Disclosure: author of "Dignity"

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.