BCE "infla-burbujas"

El BCE presta casi 530.000 millones a la banca europea en la segunda subasta extraordinaria de liquidez a tres años.

Libremercado.com (29/02/2012)

Pablo (Facebook friend): El día en el que los Bancos Centrales desaparezcan y los bancos que tengan que quebrar quiebren, ese día creeré en el futuro de la especie humana.

Borjabrela: Bien dicho, Pablo, orgulloso de tenerte como FB friend. A finales de 2011 el BCE inyectó otros 490 mil millones de euros en los bancos europeos, de los cuales 480 mil millones se quedaron en las cuentas que los bancos tienen en el BCE, es decir, que no fluyeron a la economía con lo cual fueron totalmente inútiles. Ahora otros 500 mil millones que servirán para lo mismo, o sea, que los bancos hagan carry trade (pido prestado al BCE a 0.5%, presto a los Estados a 4-5%) y se recuperen.

El objetivo del BCE es doble: beneficiar a los bancos para que no quiebren (y sigan zombies) y que los bancos compren deuda pública (y los gobiernos puedan seguir gastando a mansalva). Sin embargo, no hay comida gratis, esta limpieza de los bancos la estamos pagando los ciudadanos, como contribuyentes (a través del interés de la deuda pública) y como consumidores (a través de inflación).

Los gobiernos y los bancos centrales NO son buenos para la economía de los ciudadanos.

Pablo (Facebook friend): Correcto Borja. Yo lo que no entiendo es por qué hay gente que se autodenomina liberal, pero que no quiere que lo llamen radical, que sacan a Milton Friedman en todas las discusiones sobre economía para argumentar que se puede llevar a cabo una política económica liberal interviniendo el mercado con dinero fiduciario, que es el claro ejemplo de competencia desleal y por lo tanto, de falta de libertad deliberada, y defendida a ultranza por los Estados... Yo no soy economista, pero no es difícil entender que si algunos bancos tienen un hermano mayor que les "tapa los huecos" que provoca su desmesurada actuación... nunca habrá "bancos honestos", ni medición del riesgo, ni nada, que es lo mínimo que se le pide a un banco. Al menos eso pienso yo

Love and Freedom.

¿WhatsApp crea riqueza ahorrando el gasto en SMS a sus usuarios?

WhatsApp crea riqueza. Los avances tecnológicos consiguen aumentar el potencial de los usuarios de satisfacer sus motivaciones en mayor medida que reducen tal potencial de otras personas. Otra forma de comprobar si un proyecto crea riqueza es que su retorno sea mayor que su coste de capital obtenido en un mercado sin manipulación. 

Además, Hazzlitt en su "Economía en una lección" (si hubiera que recomendar un libro sería éste) demuestra que los avances technológicos crean empleo.

Love and Freedom.

The Economist defaming Ron Paul

The Economist's Lexington column of December 31st, 2011 continues the magazine's campaign of defamation against Republican Representative Ron Paul, currently a candidate for the Republican Party presidential primaries.

Week in, week out, The Economist has been supporting Mitt Romney for the Republican primaries. Every time any other Republican candidate rose in the polls, The Economist issued a tirade against them, always recommending the Republicans to choose moderate and electable Romney.

However, the latest column by Lexington on Ron Paul has tresspassed the line between criticism and defamation. Throughout the column Lexington keeps name calling Paul and his ideas as "hater", "whacky", "no-hoper", "rumpled", "obsession", "crusader", and "anti-government conspiracy theory [that] attract a lot of wingnuts". So much for The Economist's "measured" writing style.

Ron Paul is no nutty, as neocons and the Washington Post describe him, nor racist, as liberals and the New York Times want to portray him. He has stood by his ideas for decades in an unwavering fashion unknown to any other politician. His main policy is that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution", which is not a bad method to maintain the government's policies within the electorate's mandate.

It is unlikely Paul will win the Republican nomination. However, his surge in the polls is a welcomed respite for all of us who have advocated the libertarian ideas against all odds, defamation and slander, and a much-needed encouraging voice of support for the few of us libertarians who are condemned to ostracism by the main-stream media, the establishment and its beneficiaries, and the easily-misled population.

Although I am utterly outraged and disgusted at this column, I sort of expected it since The Economist has shown an increasing scornful disregard towards the libertarian theories and proposals. It may be possible that "their relentless drift to the right might just lose the Republicans the election" (Lexington dixit) but this is: 1st, no problem and no business for readers who are not registered as supporters of any American political party; and 2nd, a complete lack of understanding of what libertarianism means, as libertarianism is NOT on the right or on the left but where the Nolan Chart indicates (here).

Therefore, a big "dislike" to The Economist and courage to libertarians.

Love and Freedom.

Imprudent citizens should pay for their rescue missions

The Regional Parliament of the Basque region in Spain has passed a new Taxation Act which charges the cost of rescue missions on whomever takes part in sports in a imprudent fashion. The main Spanish political parties, PSOE and PP, voted in favour of this clause, already in place in Cantabria and Cataluña, as they indicate it will foster a "responsible citizen". The parties opposing this clause claim that the activities considered "extreme sports" were chosen arbitrarily and that the general taxation already fund these rescue missions.

I advocated this rule earlier this year when discussing the rescue missions of Spanish fishermen and mountaineers. At the time some people considered my idea outlandish, ruthless, and heartless. This is a typical response to lots of my libertarian ideas, even though some of them become mainstream later on and then none of those naysayers say anything about it.

Let's remember what I wrote back in April 18th, 2011:

Should there actually be one, the "contract of the taxpayer with the State" should not include a clause like the following one: "The State shall make every effort to save the life of those citizens who put themselves in danger for private interests."

Such contract should include the following [clause]: "Any citizens who put themselves in danger (eg., mountain climbing, working in Lybia) should cover the costs of their rescue if not on a mission ordered by the State".

This latter clause simply follows one of the basic rules that should govern human societies: "benefits and risks must be borne by the same person or entity". Otherwise we are socialising the risks (everyone pays for rescue missions of private adventures) whilst privatising the benefits (the adventurer doesn't share the profits with the taxpayers). This basic rule would induce everyone to perform a correct benefit/risk assessment and would prevent countless opportunities for injustice.

Love and Freedom.

En castellano:

En caso de que realmente sea necesario que exista, el "contrato del contribuyente con el Estado" no debería incluir una cláusula del tipo: "El Estado debe hacer todo lo posible para salvar la vida de los ciudadanos que se ponen en peligro por intereses privados"
Tal contrato deberá incluir lo siguiente: "Aquellos ciudadanos que se pongan en peligro [por ejemplo, montañismo, trabajando en Libia...] deberán cubrir los costos de su rescate si no era una misión ordenada por el Estado".

Esta última cláusula simplemente expone una de las reglas básicas que deben regir las sociedades humanas: "Los beneficios y los riesgos relacionados deben ser recibidos por la misma persona o entidad". De lo contrario estamos socializando los riesgos [todo el mundo paga las misiones de rescate de las aventuras privadas], mientras que privatizamos los beneficios [el aventurero no comparte los beneficios con los contribuyentes]. Esta norma básica induciría a todos a realizar una correcta evaluación de la relación beneficio/riesgo y evitaría un sinfín de oportunidades para la injusticia.

Amor y Libertad.

Eguiguren confirma la mezquindad de Zapatero

Cuando el ominoso ex-presidente Zapatero dijo después del atentado de la T4 que había ordenado "suspender las negociaciones" con la ETA, alguien muy cercano me indicó lo sinvergüenza que era por no haber ordenado la ruptura de las negociaciones ni siquiera después de un atentado mortal. Era otro ejemplo más de su inmundicia moral. Y siguió siendo un mentiroso cuando negaba que las negociaciones para vender Navarra a la ETA continuaban.

El ruín Eguiguren lo confirma ahora en El País, el mismo periódico que insultaba a los que alertaban de que las negociaciones habían continuado y el Gobierno mentía. Los defensores del PSOE y de El País deberían ahora dar explicaciones: escuché decir el 13 de marzo de 2004 que los españoles merecen un gobierno que no les mienta. Disgusting.

Love and Freedom.

Ruego al Rey que abdique

Nunca me había pronunciado sobre el Rey aunque sí tenía una opinión sobre él. Sin embargo, si me preguntan ahora sí que diría algo parecido a Federico Jiménez Losantos: si me llamara el Rey, le diría: "Su Majestad, los españoles le agradecemos los servicios prestados y le tendrán siempre en sus corazones por haber traído la Constitución; pero, por el bien de España, yo le ruego que abdique en el Príncipe."

Love and Freedom.

HBOS case

A bit more info on HBOS case. I lived in the UK through the summer of 2008 and I was outraged by this case because I was a taxpayer in Britain and I knew we would end up shouldering the burden (as it happened).

On the wake of the subprime mortgages HBOS was going under given the illiquidity inherent to the banking . Meanwhile, Lloyds (the most boring bank in the UK) was doing ok as it hadn’t gone into fancy financial toxic stuff.

But HBOS was Scottish, the UK PM Gordon Brown is Scottish and the Labour Party obtained lots of votes from Scotland. The government would be harmed by the demise of HBOS (as it had been with Northern Rock) and, as governments always do, they acted in their own interests: Gordon Brown pushed Lloyds’ CEO to acquire HBOS for political reasons, not for economical reasons.

Lloyds’ active shareholders didn’t want Lloyds to acquire HBOS: they kept appearing in the press. The independents in the press indicated that it was a very bad deal. It was apparent to everyone! HBOS’ own shareholders hadn’t taken up the rights issue in July 2008. It didn’t matter: Gordon Brown personally brokered the deal with Lloyds TSB. An official said: “It is not the role of a Prime Minister to tell a City institution what to do”.[that official was right, but the PM Brown intervened anyway].

The Lloyds TSB board have stated that merchant banks Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were amongst the advisers recommending the takeover. [mmm wasn’t Morgan Stanley the underwriter that had been caught out? Banks have a too cosy relation with and too much influence on the governments. This will always happen: IMHO the solution is to curtail governments’ power.]

UK government assurance to save the banks and dispensation with respect to competition law and “don’t worry, public money is no one’s and the government will give it away” convinced just enough Lloyds shareholders to approve the takeover.

Result of the government’s strategy:

In late 2008 UK government loaned heaps of cash to Lloyds and ended up nationalising not only HBOS but the whole of Lloyds. [hey taxpayers’ money is free, isn’t it!]

From FT 2010: The dramatic scale of losses suffered by Lloyds Banking Group through the acquisition of HBOS was laid bare on Friday when the part-nationalised UK lender’s full-year results revealed it had made £30bn of provisions over the past two years on loans inherited from the deal.

Well done, Gordon. Thanks so much.