Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

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.

Wednesday, 30 November 2011

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.

Saturday, 23 October 2010

Huerta de Soto delivers 2010 Hayek Lecture at LSE

This year's Hayek Lecture at LSE will be delivered by the leading Austrian School economist Jesús Huerta de Soto, professor at the King Juan Carlos University of Spain.

The Hayek Lectures are organised by The Cobden Centre.

Date: Thursday 28 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm (doors open at 6pm)
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building, London School of Economics
Speaker: Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto

This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis.

Read Daniel Hannan's mention of Huerta de Soto's on the Daily Telegraph.

You may already know that I am a proud member of the Libertarian Pulguitas Society, i.e., the group of Spanish libertarians living in London who met through the reading of Albert Esplugas's blog and who have monthly "quedadas" to conspire against the State. As already noted by my co-conspirator Random Spaniard, the members of the Libertarian Pulguitas Society will attend Huerta de Soto's lecture. Everyone is invited and we hope to convince you to join the libertarian movement.

Love and Freedom.

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Jonathan Tepper on TV3: "Spanish fiesta has ended so, if you want jobs, lower real salaries"

Jonathan Tepper, partner in the Variant Perception, is considered an expert on Spanish economy since he produced a report on the Spanish banks in August 2009: "Spain: The Hole In Europe's Balance Sheet", where he said something like "Investors are smoking crack if they believe that Spanish banks are among the strongest in Europe". Here you have it (on TV3!!):



Le he comentado a él directamente:

Lo has clavado, estoy de acuerdo con todo lo que has dicho (¡que siendo 30 minutos hablando es decir mucho!).

Sólo por buscar tres pies al gato creo que perdiste una oportunidad buenísima para gritar "End the FED!!" cuando en el minuto 38 el entrevistador se quejó de la hipocresía de los bancos. Los bancos piden prestado dinero fiat baratito al BCE sufragado por inflación y riesgo socializado entre los ciudadanos europeos y prestan al gobierno llevándose el carry trade. La única solución para eso es la separación del monopolio del dinero y de los tipos de interés del poder estatal. La socialización de las pérdidas de los amiguetes del gobierno es un ejemplo de "fallo de Gobierno" que puede ser solucionado con más y mejor Mercado.

Y segundo: estoy de acuerdo en que muchos jóvenes españoles no tienen los estudios adecuados y por tanto no producen más que un valor de €400 de salario, pero esto no es porque no haya gasto en educación, al revés, sino porque hay demasiado gasto público en educación pero es un derroche total. Con chavales estudiando hasta los 16 años cuando ni quieren ni son capaces; con un sistema educativo basado en las chorradas socialistas, progresistas, following Labour's "comprehensive school" model; pero, sobre todo, con una epidemia de TITULITIS de universitarios que se dedican a beber mientras aprueban Turismo, Psicología o Ciencias Audiovisuales cuando no hay demanda para ellos cuando salen de la universidad y terminan trabajando donde hay demandas de trabajadores (en Carrefour y en Agroman). El desastre de la educación pública es otro ejemplo de "fallo de Gobierno" que puede ser solucionado con más y mejor Mercado.

Y parafraseo al Sr. Tepper: "The Spanish fiesta has ended so, if you want jobs, lower real salaries"

Love and Freedom.

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Basta ya de estatistas rencorosos

Respuesta al comentario de CDS en la entradilla "Se pueden bajar los salarios? La City lo ha hecho" de Random Spaniard.

CDS, en mi opinión eres un soñador, cierto, y sueñas con un estado totalitario o al menos autoritario. Todas las soluciones que propones se resumen en "el Estado tiene que obligar a hacer lo que yo, Sr. CDS, quiero".

Veamos:
1. "El problema es que pagan justos por pecadores, y que el sector financiero quiere salir indemne de la crisis."

Cierto, pero incompleto: TODOS los ciudadanos quieren salir indemnes de la crisis y todos utilizan todas las armas que tienen a su disposición: industria del cine, construcción, automovilística, controladores, parados, funcionarios, todos quieren chupar del bote y no dudan en montar huelgas, amenazar con retirar su voto, participar en el mercado negro, etc.

Los trabajadores del sector financiero no son menos y utilizan su poder en beneficio propio. Como todos los demás y como tú también haces.


2. "Casi nadie niega que esta crisis es un subproducto del mercado financiero que inventó productos y aprovechó servicios para inflar"

¡Más despacio, vaquero! Yo no sé con cuánta gente has hablado tú sobre esta crisis pero es exagerado (y engreído) arrogarse la representación de la opinión de "casi todo el mundo" (pues "casi nadie niega"). Esta crisis es un subproducto de muchas cosas y yo reconozco entrever sólo unas pocas. Sin embargo, una cosa es clara. Tú puedes inflar el precio de un producto todo lo que quieras que si no hay alguien con el dinero y las ganas para comprártelo te lo comes con patatas. Esto es algo que los anti-mercado no quieren entender: dado que una transacción en el libre mercado es voluntaria, la responsabilidad de una transacción "mala" la tienen todas las partes involucradas en el trato, tanto comprador como vendedor como intermediario. Así que menos "finger pointing" luego, por favor, para descargarse la responsabilidad.

Además, ¿de dónde saldría el dinero si los bancos centrales no lo imprimieran?

3. "Yo creo que habría que regular ferozmente el sector financiero y llevar a la cárcel a los que nos han metido en este atolladero."

Ea, ya lo hemos arreglado todo! Típica receta de estatista: "Habría", ¿quién es el sujeto? El gobierno, los jueces siguiendo la ley, los sindicatos, o tú? Por otro lado, "a los que nos han metido en este atolladero", a quién te refieres? Hala, Greenspan, ¡a la cárcel! Los gobiernos con su deuda y sus manipulaciones del presupuesto público para beneficiar a sus amiguitos, ¡a la cárcel! Pepe Gotera con su mercado negro, ¡a la cárcel! Pepito Pérez comprando pisos por pura especulación, porque "la vivienda nunca baja", ¡a la cárcel!


4. "Baste el ejemplo de GS en manipular cuentas de Grecia."

Si hay algún delito tipificado en Grecia sobre este particular, estoy de acuerdo que lo correcto sería aplicar la pena a los reos, eso sto es, incluídos los gobernantes que encargaron a Goldman Sachs manipular sus cuentas!!

5. "Todos los directivos de Standard & Poors, Fetch y Moodys deberían estar en la cárcel también, por vender bombas bajo AAA."

Obvio: ¡todos a la cárcel porque me han fastidiado! Qué ganas tienen los estatistas de meter a todo el resto del mundo en la cárcel, pero nunca tienen ganas de asumir responsibilidades. Las agencias de rating ponen a los productos financieros la calificación que les dé la gana, que yo sepa nadie está obligado por ley a asumir lo que digan como verdadero (de hecho, a veces discrepan entre ellas así que cuál tiene la razón?). Señores, que ya somos mayorcitos, esto es un mercado (más o menos) libre, y si aceptas la opinión de alguien eres tú decidiendo aceptarla conque no te puedes quejar luego.

6. "no me acuerdo de casi nadie del sector financiero que viera el globo y su posterior explosión, [...] pre-crisis"

Esta afirmación me confirma que tus "casi nadie" se refieren a tus coleguitas y a tu familia, porque hubo mucha gente alertando de la burbuja desde mucho tiempo atrás. Ahí tienes la escuela austríaca avisando del excesivo crédito alentando inversiones indiscriminadas. Yo mismo, por ejemplo, recibo la revista Money Week y esta gente ya avisaban de la burbuja inmobiliaria desde 2006. Además, sé que hay algunos fondos que se forraron en la crisis a base de ir a corto contra las hipotecas basura.

7. "haya absorvido" - querrás decir "haya absorbido". ¡Maldito teclado Qwerty!

8. "¿Crees que todo ese “talento” ha sido usado para algo provechoso salvo para beneficio propio?"

Efectivamente, todo mi talento lo usaré para beneficio propio y el que me pida lo contrario que se vaya a freír monas, para impartidores de moral ya tenemos a la religión. Sin embargo, resulta que la mano invisible producirá beneficios para la sociedad aunque yo sólo busque mi satisfacción personal. Ahí tienes el resultado de la libertad individual y el libre mercado que han conseguido que la riqueza mundial sea la mayor de la historia y el número de personas sufriendo sea el menor de la historia.

Además, que yo busque mi satisfacción personal no significa que sea egoísta, a lo mejor me place ser altruísta. Pero lo decido yo y sólo yo: ¿algún problema?

9. "primera medida el gobierno europeo debería ser declarar los CDS nulos, y prohibirlos."

Jajajaja, ¡buenísimas las medidas de los estatistas! Esto es clavadito a la idea genial del Presidente del Gobierno de España J.L.R. Zapatero: "mmm, vaya, la crisis me va a fastidiar en las elecciones, pues ¡declaro la crisis ilegal y quien esté en crisis pues multado y a la cárcel!" Habrá que resucitar a Charles Chaplin para que aprenda de Zapatero como se ridiculiza a un gobernante: qué Adenoid Hynkel ni que ocho cuartos, para caricatura de gobernante ya tenemos a Zapatero.

Los CDS miden el riesgo de impago de un país debido a la mala gestión de su gobierno, "pues nada, oye, declaramos los CDS ilegales y punto, así pueden hacer los gobernantes regalarle el dinero a quién les dé la gana y el acreedor que tenga miedo de que el Estado no le pague pues que se fastidie, que para eso somos los que mandamos".

10. "No estaría de más aplicar el impuesto Robin Hood y, sobretodo, hacer auditorías en todas esas islitas del gobierno de UK."

Solucionado todo, una auditoría y punto. La opinión de los gobiernos o sus representantes vale, pero la opinión de 7 millardos de personas participando en el mercado libre no es válida. Ah, no sólo no es válida sino que la vamos a gravar para que no haya tanta gente expresando su opinión mediante transacciones y tratos.

Para tu información, trabajo como auditor pero aún así creo que lo que tú eres es un atracador de personas inocentes. Pídele a Robin "Tobin" Hood que te atraque a ti y a tus correligionarios estatistas. A mí y a todos los que queremos ser libres para elegir sin meternos con los demás, ¡dejadnos en paz!

Love and freedom.

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Beginner's Guide to Liberty

I have just finished reading the short book A Beginner's Guide to Liberty published by the Adam Smith Institute.

Though I agree this short Guide to Liberty suffers from certain shortcomings, likely due to its limited lenght and all-inclusive viewpoint, I believed its fast-reading, simple style addresses an area mostly forgotten by libertarian/classical liberals advocates: beginners and general education on liberty.

I am Spanish and I see with sadness the lack of education on freedom and free-market ideas in my country, which reinforces the socialist bias of the Spaniards. That is why I volunteer to translate this booklet into Spanish for free. I have contacted the Adam Smith Institute to see whether they are happy with this offer. I'll let you know its progress.

Love and freedom.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

E-book brings revolution to the book industry

Bernabé Sánchez resume en la entrada En España se vende la mitad de libros que en Reino Unido pero al doble de precio de
su blog Random Spaniard la opinión de Albert Esplugas sobre la ausencia de Amazon en España:
En España:(1) el comercio electrónico no es muy popular; (2) correos es ineficiente; (3) el índice de lectura es muy bajo; (4) hay una imposición legal de un precio fijo.


Mi comentario a esta entrada.
En mi opinión, el equivalente del mp3 en el mundo de la comunicación escrita es el pdf: ambos son formatos para transmitir información gastando menos recursos de almacenamiento. Yo comparo la llegada del libro electrónico con el iPod: ambos son soportes portátiles de almacenamiento de información de fácil uso.

Como ya comentamos en la reunión de pulguitas liberales, la llegada del libro electrónico y el previsible aumento del préstamo (erróneamente llamado "pirateo") revolucionará la industria del libro y dará mayor número de opciones a los consumidores.

Supongo que las empresas dominantes en la industria del libro se posicionarán como han hecho las discográficas: intentar defender sus privilegios ejerciendo influencia sobre el gobierno a través de sus grupos de interés. Poco a poco, nuevos competidores aprovecharán y se beneficiarán de las nuevas técnicas de consumo de libros.

Love and freedom.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Hipocresías del sistema en España

Las crisis suelen representar excelentes ocasiones para purgar excesos y realizar reformas. Para efectuar reformas hay que denunciar antes las hipocresías.
Diez hipocresías a desmontar en 2010, Ignacio de la Torre (ElConfidencial.com, 13/10/2010)


Pese al galicismo presente en su título (i.e., "a" + infinitivo), creo que este artículo de Ignacio de la Torre es bastante bueno. Dados los límites de espacio, no menciona todas las causas de esta crisis económica, pero apunta en la dirección correcta. Según este profesor del IE Business School, estos son 10 de las hipocresías más importantes causantes de la crisis:

Primera: La defensa que efectúan los sindicatos del sistema laboral actual.
Segunda: La política agraria común (PAC).
Tercera: La política energética española.
Cuarta: La afiliación obligatoria a cámaras de comercio.
Quinta: El sistema educativo español.
Sexta: La financiación autonómica.
Séptima: El sistema bancario.
Octava: El poder público.
Novena: La democracia española.
Décima: La deuda pública española, central, autonómica y local.

El razonamiento expuesto por De la Torre para declarar estas hipocresías demuestra que el sistema imperante en España, que es muy similar al del resto del mundo) no es libre mercado y no es capitalismo puro sin intervención de los gobiernos.

Últimamente he leído artículos en medios de comunicación acusando a las escuelas de negocio de dar una educación y unos valores equivocados a sus estudiantes. Sin embargo, De la Torre es profesor de una escuela de negocio muy prestigiosa y apunta en voz alta los errores del sistema. ¿Es su forma de pensar minoritaria en las escuelas de negocio?

Love and freedom.

Tuesday, 12 January 2010

Escolar can't understand what Wikipedia means

Statist Ignacio Escolar: "[Wikipedia] shows a great truth: that, against what capitalism has always claimed, it's not true that people act for money only."

En español abajo.

First: I would like to be introduced to Mr Capitalism because I can't find his books anywhere. Those who think of themselves as infallible usually use very generic ideas, so they can't be counter-argumented for the simple reason that one doesn't know what they mean: what is "capitalism"?

Writing fool comments such as the one above is free of charge, but solves nothing. If Escolar wanted average intelligent people to take him seriously, he should have said: "Wikipedia shows that what Mr Whoever proposes in their book X (date: Y) is wrong". Otherwise reading Escolar's comments are a waste of time.

Second: Free-marketeers don't claim that people act only for money, but for their own interests whatever they are. People (rather, individuals) act in the pursuit of satisfaying a specific motivation, may this be buying a car or being able to go to sleep fast. Poor, jelous people such as Ignacio Escolar either think that everyone is like them or don't want to understand (due to their own interests).

Wikipedia shows exactly what statists can't grasp, i.e., the free market, a set of voluntary actions, exchanges and arrangements not centrally planned are the most efficient source of knowledge and welfare.

Love and freedom.

++++++

Dice Ignacio Escolar: "[Wikipedia] Demuestra una gran verdad: que, pese a lo que siempre ha dicho el capitalismo, no es cierto que la gente sólo se mueva por dinero."

Primero: Me gustaría que Ignacio Escolar me presentara a Don Capitalismo o a los herederos de su propiedad intelectual porque yo no encuentro sus libros por ningún lado. Aquellos que pretender ser más infalibles que el Papa suelen usar ideas tan genéricas que es imposible corregirles por la sencilla razón de que no se sabe a qué se refieren: qué quiere decir Escolar con "el capitalismo"?.
Decir tonterías de este calibre sobre ideas genéricas sale realmente gratis pero no soluciona nada. Si Ignacio Escolar quiere que las personas medianamente inteligentes le tomemos en serio, debería decir "pese a lo que dijo Hayek (ponga Vd. el nombre) en su libro X (fecha: Y), Wikipedia demuestra que se equivoca". Mientras tanto, leer lo que escriba es perder el tiempo.

Segundo: Que yo sepa los free-marketeers no han dicho que la gente se mueva sólo por dinero, sino por sus propios intereses ya sean pecuniarios, filantrópicos o como quiera el individuo en cuestión. La gente (mejor dicho, el individuo) se mueve por satisfacer una motivación ya sea comprarse un coche o poder irse a la cama y dormir de un tirón. Lo que sucede es que los pobres y los envidiosos como Ignacio Escolar o bien creen que son todos de su condición (como el ladrón) o bien no les interesa entender (debido a sus propios intereses pecuniarios o espurios...).

Lo que demuestra Wikipedia es que Escolar y sus camaradas estatistas no entienden lo que es Wikipedia.

Love and freedom.

Monday, 28 December 2009

Crítica a Avatar

Comentario editado al post "Avatar y la Libertad" del blog La Libertad y la Ley. Please find the English version of this article below.

No me considero un analfabeto funcional (¿es necesario no parar de insultar para escribir un blog?) pero creo que Avatar es una película abiertamente contraria al liberalismo, es decir, James Cameron ha conseguido lo que se proponía. Precisamente quería debatir esta película en la próxima quedada liberal hispano-londinense.

Avatar es claramente anti-desarrollista. Muestra que los buenos son los seres antropomorfos azules y los humanos que se posicionan en contra del desarrollismo.

La tribu no es una comuna en absoluto, muy al contrario es un claro ejemplo de absolutismo ilustrado donde sólo la familia jefe tiene el poder, toma decisiones y se declaran únicos conocedores de la verdad. Es decir, Papá Estado encarnado en los gobernantes es el depositario de la soberanía y el hombre no puede pensar por sí mismo sino aceptar lo que la sacerdotisa de turno ordene como si fuesen decisiones de la Madre Naturaleza.

Además, no estoy de acuerdo en que los que nacen en cierto lugar son los propietarios únicos de tal lugar: eso es nacionalismo, que está bastante alejado de la idea liberal.

Me considero liberal, por tanto estoy en contra del uso de la fuerza para iniciar una agresión, pero esta película intenta asociar la libre empresa al imperialismo y a la violencia. Los liberales no podemos caer en la trampa, debemos indicar que la mayoría de las agresiones están dirigidas o controladas por los gobiernos y los estatistas, aunque muchas veces la ejecución esté a cargo de una empresa privada.

Hollywood y la Mafia del Cine Español están plagados de socialistas entre los que las pelis maniqueas que usan sensiblerías en contra del liberalismo ganan el aplauso fácil.

Love and freedom.

---------

I think Avatar is a film openly positioned against liberalism, i.e., James Cameron has obtained what he intended. I would like to have a debate about this film at the next hispanic-londoner libertarian meeting.

Avatar is clearly against the use of natural resources to fund the development of mankind. It portrays the blue antropomorphic beings (the Na'vi) and the humans who defend their culture as the good characters.

The tribe is not a commune at all; on the contrary it is a clear instance of enlightened absolutism where the chief family is the only holder of power, take decisions on their own and claim to be the only ones who know the truth. In other words, Dad State embodied by the governments are the holders of sovereignity and men cannot think by themselves but follow the priestess' commands as if they came from Mother Nature.

I am libertarian, so I am against the use of violence to initiate an agression, i.e., in cases that are not self-defence. (I would admit one exception to this rule that I shall explain some day.) But Avatar intends to asociate the free-market to imperialism and violence. Libertarians should not fall into this trap; we should highlight that most violent agressions are led or controlled by the governments and the statist people, though many times such agressions are executed by a private company.

In addition, I diagree with the idea that people who are born in a given place are their only owners: that is nationalism, that is pretty far away from the liberal/libertarian idea.

Hollywood and the Spanish Cinema Mafia are full of socialists who quickly praise manichean films that use mawkish ideas and sentimental plots against liberalism.

Love and freedom.

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

From "Denationalisation of Money" by Hayek

Mi propuesta concreta consiste en que los países se comprometan mediante un tratado formal a no obstaculizar en manera alguna el libre comercio dentro de sus territorios de las monedas de cada país (incluidas las monedas de oro) o el libre ejercicio, por instituciones legalmente establecidas en cualquiera de los países firmantes del tratado, de la actividad bancaria sin trabas.

F. Hayek, Denationalisation of Money (1976)


A strong discussion is being held in the world on how to tackle the current financial, economical and credit crisis and on how to prevent the crisis from ocurring again in the future. Everyone is speaking, some are listening, most are waiting for others to come up with the solution, but only a very few are actually giving original, potentially appropriate ideas. Well, that is what usually happens in any debate.

However, no matter how one can argue for a better answer or how inappropriate the executed propositions are, only the empowered parties are able to put their ideas into practice within the scope of their power. Thus governments are able to take their (almost always) wrong decisions and waste taxpayers' wealth; companies' and banks' directors are able to take their (often) wrong decisions and waste shareholders' wealth; property or capital owners are able to take their (frequently) wrong decisions and waste their own wealth; workers are able to take wrong decisions and waste their own efforts.

Free market makes directors, shareholders, workers and property or capital owners accountable of their own decisions. However, governments and governors are not subjected to the free market but have enough power to avoid any accountability (even before the taxpayer). One of the main signs of this lack of accountability for governments is inflation or depreciation of the currency.

Hayek claims in his "Denationalisation of Money" that History is in a great part a series of inflations caused by the authority and the governments. I concur.

Love and freedom.

Thursday, 30 July 2009

Huerta de Soto explica la crisis en 30 minutos (y II)

La recesión económica es el comienzo de la recuperación, porque es cuando se ponen de manifiesto los errores cometidos en la etapa previa. Se caracteriza por un realineamiento, un cambio en los precios relativos y en general una bajada de ellos, sobre todo en los bienes de capital en los que se han cometido más errores.

J. Huerta de Soto, Entrevista para la Universidad Francisco Marroquín de Guatemala


Les regalo la segunda parte de la entrevista concedida por el catedrático de economía Jesús Huerta de Soto de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos de España a la Universidad Francisco Marroquín de Guatemala. Visiten mi artículo original para poder ver ambas partes.

Love and freedom.

Friday, 22 May 2009

The Terminator Turns into a Spendinator

Cato Institute fellow Danny Mitchell said, California is the "France of America". Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has turned from Terminator into Spendinator.

Obama's America and Gordon's UK are following California's unsustainable spending path and they will all pay the consequences later (I mean, the taxpayers will pay the consequences later). Increasing government spending means extracting wealth from the market economy either by taxation or by borrowing which will have to be paid in the future by taxation again.

As Milton Friedman said today's style of democratic government is not a government of the majority, but a government of sufficient coalitions of special interest minorities:
La mayoría gobierna. Pero es un tipo bastante especial de mayoría. Está formada por una coalición de minorías con intereses especiales diferentes. El método para conseguir la elección para el Congreso consiste en reunir grupos de, digamos, el dos o el tres por ciento de los electores, cada uno de los cuales está muy interesado en un tema especial que difícilmente preocupa al resto de los votantes. Cada grupo estará dispuesto a votar a un candidato si éste promete apoyar este punto, sin considerar lo que haga respecto a otros temas. Si juntamos un número suficiente de estos grupos, alcanzaremos una mayoría de un 51 por ciento. Este es el tipo de mayoría que dirige el país.


Love and freedom.

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Huerta de Soto explica la crisis en 30 minutos

Esta crisis financiera de 2008 ha demostrado que la economía intervenida no funciona. Hay que dejar paso al mercado libre.

J. Huerta de Soto, Entrevista para la Universidad Francisco Marroquín de Guatemala


El catedrático de economía Jesús Huerta de Soto de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos de España explica la crisis financiera y económica en una entrevista concedida a la Universidad Francisco Marroquín de Guatemala. Disfrútenla y aprendan.

Love and freedom.



Update 29/07/2009.

Les regalo la segunda parte de la entrevista concedida por el catedrático de economía Jesús Huerta de Soto de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos de España a la Universidad Francisco Marroquín de Guatemala.

Friday, 8 May 2009

City A.M.'s editor is aware of Huerta's free banking view

I want to share with you the continuation of my correspondence with Allister Heath, editor of London morning paper City A.M., on free banking. The first issues of this correspondence can be read here and here.


From: Borjabrela
To: Allister Heath
Date: 6 May 2009 01:57
Subject: Re: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"

Dear Allister,

Thanks for replying to my email. I did not expect you were going to have even a minute for this humble reader. Much appreciated.

In Spain free-marketeers are fortunately gathering together around associations such as the Austrian-school Juan de Mariana Institute (http://www.juandemariana.org/en/) to promote the ideas of freedom, individual rights and the free market. (Note: I am member of no association yet).

Spanish free-marketeers like to consider Professor Huerta de Soto's economic cycle theory as the best explanation of the perspective on money, banking, and the law of the Austrian school (beating that one by R. Garrison) and definitely the best explanation of the economic issues. It seems that some people at the Mises Institute agree.

Please find Professor Huerta's main work at:
http://www.mises.org/store/Money-Bank-Credit-and-Economic-Cycles-P290.aspx

I am very interested in learning your opinion on Professor Huerta's theory. I believe it very accurate and I think it should be promoted.

Many Thanks and Regards


From: Allister Heath
To: Borjabrela
Date: 6 May 2009 16:11
Subject: Re: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"

The key is whether you support fractional reserve banking but backed by a commodity standard; or whether you want to get rid of fractional reserve banking entirely, as Huerta wants to do. Of the two approaches, I prefer the Garrison-Larry White-George Selgin view.
Best wishes
Allister

xxxxxxxxx

I have just read that Juan Ramon Rallo (member of Juan de Mariana Institute) has published a Entrevista con Albert Esplugas sobre la banca libre (Interview with Albert Esplugas on free banking, only available in Spanish) in his blog, where he argues against (precisely) the view of Larry White and George Selgin.

Huerta-Rallo v Garrison-White-Selgin: that is a very exciting debate!

Love and freedom.

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Back to the Future Recession


From: John Mauldin [mailto:wave@frontlinethoughts.com]
Sent: 25 April 2009 06:01
To: Borjabrela
Subject: Back to the Future Recession - John Mauldin's Weekly E-Letter (Excerpts)

MV=PQ. This is an important equation, right up there with E=MC2. M (money or the supply of money) times V (velocity -- which is how fast the money goes through the system -- if you have seven kids it goes faster than if you have one) is equal to P (the price of money in terms of inflation or deflation) times Q (roughly standing for the Quantity of production, or GDP).

So what happens is, if we increase the supply of money and velocity stays the same, and if GDP does not grow, that means we'll have inflation, because this equation always balances. But if you reduce velocity (which is happening today) and if you don't increase the supply of money, you are going to see deflation.


We are in the middle of a Great Experiment, the one truly great experiment of this time; so the economists are fascinated. We have Keynes versus von Mises versus Irving Fisher versus Friedman, and they all have theories about what you should do after depressions and what works.

Let's get back to our discussion of the Great Experiment. Von Mises said there is nothing you can do about a deleveraging cycle, you basically just let it all go to hell and then pick up the pieces. The hair-shirt economists, I call the Austrians: just let it drop, take your medicine, take your 15-20% unemployment, and just deal with it, because you'll be able to come back faster from the lower base. By the way, to von Mises, the velocity of money was a meaningless concept. Gold was where you should have had your money to begin with.

Then there is Friedman, who produced his great work that says inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. He had his studies to prove it. But when he did his studies, in the 30 years that he analyzed, the velocity of money was remarkably stable. So of course, inflation had a 1-to-1 correlation with money supply.

Fisher says, "The velocity of money is important." For Fisher, debt deflation controlled all other economic variables. It was the driving economic force. You're going to have to rationalize all your debts. There's nothing you can do about it; but what you do is, do as much as you can to provide a soft landing for the people who lose their jobs. Do whatever you can to get them along and to keep the system working, but you are still going to have to go through a credit reorganization. We are going to find out in 5-6 years who was right. That is the experiment we are living through. My bet's on Fisher, just for the record.

So how did we get it so wrong? How did we get here? Let's go back to first principles: Ideas have consequences. And bad ideas tend to have bad consequences. We've taught two generations of financial managers theories that were patently absurd. Rob Arnott is going to be here later with us for the panel discussion. Rob recalls standing in front of 200 academics, professors in schools that teach economics. He asked them, "How many of you believe in the efficient market hypothesis?" Something like two or three raised their hands. "How many of you teach it?" All of them raised their hands.

The future is going to look different, yet we think we can model it. The models are bullshit. (That's a technical economics term that requires advanced degrees to use.) They just are. Now you can take some comfort from them, and you have to try and figure stuff out, and you look for correlations. That's what I do, and we all do that. I confess I use models every day.



Good letter from John Mauldin.

I disagree with the bashing of the efficient markets hypothesis. In my opinion the Market (which is the grouping of all people who can enter into voluntary transactions) is the largest group of human beings that can be formed and achieves optimal efficiency in the LONG RUN. The issue is to try and model the short future with the efficient markets hypothesis because the behavioural markets hypothesis (carrot and stick markets) may work in the SHORT RUN.

MV = PQ formula seems correct. The solution to the current economical problems is accountability as usual. No one wants to be responsible for the wrong amount of M and lots of hypocresy exists around the increase of P (the largest theft in History). So let private suppliers of money which pay for their own mistakes supplying money (excessive credit or random price movements) and you will most likely get a stable P and an appropriate M.

Love and freedom.

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

The Bernanke Reflation

Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal 03/03/2008
(summarised by Borjabrela)

The Bernanke Reflation

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the Fed will do whatever it takes to stop the credit squeeze from becoming a recession. That's about as close as a central banker will get to saying he's thrown price stability to the wind. If inflation rises -as it now surely will- the Fed will worry about that after the econocmy is safely past the credit crunch.
Call it the Bernanke reflation, though it's more precise to call it the Fed's second inflation gamble of the decade. The first was Alan Greenspan's roll of the dice from 2003-2005, keeping interest rates too low for far too long in the aftermath of the dot-com bust. That spurred the first boom in commodity prices, as well as the subsidy for debt that led to the housing bubble and the credit mania whose collapse we are now dealing with. Mr. Bernanke was a Fed Governor during much of that time, and he seems to have learned his lessons all too well. He's now going all-in for round two.
Meanwhile, even the Phillips Curve is making a comeback. That's the notion -discredited in the 1970s- that there is a trade-off between inflation and economic growth. In its new version, argued by Fed Governor Frederic Mishkin, the Phillips Curve doesn't exist in the long term but does in the short term. Thus the Fed can afford to open the monetary flood gates now because the slower economy could lead to lower prices later this year. Then when the economy recovers, the Fed can afford to tighten money again.
The Americans aren't fooled by this, and they know their dollars buy less with each passing month. This explains their rising economic anxiety -and anger- better than trade or job losses do. Inflation is the great thief of the middle class.


Love and freedom.

Monday, 27 April 2009

City AM editor's reply to my letter

Allister Heath, editor of London morning paper City A.M., replied to the letter I emailed him on 26 March 2009 regarding the denationalisation of money.

From: allister.heath@cityam.com
To: Borjabrela
Date: 3 April 2009 19:22
Subject: RE: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"

I am very familiar with Hayek’s IEA book. However, I much prefer the monetary alternative outlined in (for example) http://www.umsl.edu/~whitelh/tmi.html
The best explanation of the modern Austrian credit cycle theory is probably contained in http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/tam.htm
What I was trying to do was see whether SDRs could be turned into an alternative, sounder regime as a first step towards reform.
Thanks for reading City A.M.

Best wishes
Allister

I am very pleased with his reply. I have already ordered Roger Garrison's "Time and Money. The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure" via Amazon.

Love and freedom.

Thursday, 16 April 2009

Accounting standards under attack

Standard-setters should defuse the argument by making clear that their job is not to regulate banks but to force them to reveal information. The banks, their capital-adequacy regulators and politicians seem to dream of a single, grown-up version of the truth, which enhances financial stability. Investors and accountants, however, think all valuations are subjective, doubt managers’ motives and judge that market prices are the least-bad option. They are right. A bank’s solvency is a matter of judgment for its regulators and for investors, not whatever a piece of paper signed by its auditors says it is. Accounts can inform that decision, but not make it.

The Economist.com, Messenger, shot (16/04/2009)


The Economist on April 16th 2009 has a piece (Messenger, shot) on banks and accounting standards in favour of the accounting standard-setters' independence and alerts that accounting rules are under attack by politicians and banks.

The centre of the problem is the 'mark-to-market' technique of pricing the fair value of the financial elements: assets and liabilities, income and expenses and the resulting equities.

Banks and other companies have been benefiting from this 'mark-to-market' pricing technique while the global economy was on the upbeat side of the credit cycle, since cheap credit allowed eager buyers and happy sellers inflate the asset price bubble while keeping the liabilities' side easy to service and re-fund if necessary. Thus banks and many other companies have been able to post ever-increasing profits in the past years since the dot-com crash in 2002.

Alas, what goes around comes around and bankers now face the problem of having to report big losses when that very same 'mark-to-market' pricing technique forces them to price down their assets uncovering many ill-fated investments and inefficiencies in many revenue models.

Now bankers and their purchased friends the politicians are whining that this 'mark-to-market' valuing of their assets is not fair because "market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts." Well, indeed they are right, but they never complained when the market prices overstated profits and asset prices when they largely reflected the temporary cheap access to credit of markets!!

The Economist advises: "To get the system working again, losses must be recognised and dealt with. Standard-setters should defuse the argument by making clear that their job is not to regulate banks but to force them to reveal information. Banks’ regulators have to take responsibility. The FASB and IASB can help regulators to create whatever balance-sheet they want. But in doing so they must not compromise their duty to investors." I fully agree with this advice.

+++

As an auditor and trainee accountant, I learnt that the main objective of the financial reporting is the provision of true and fair information about the status and performance of the company. And central to this is the valuing of the financial elements at a fair value, defined by the International Accounting Standards Board as the value of an asset or liability in an arm's length transaction between unrelated willing and knowledgeable parties.

There is an interesting debate around the 'mark-to-market' pricing technique as a fair value method to be used for financial reporting. I will comment it in future posts, but in the end it comes down to the two school of thoughts on markets: the efficient markets hypothesis and the behavioural markets hypothesis.

This is one of the reasons why I sign with my typical:

Love and freedom.

Thursday, 26 March 2009

Letter to City AM's Editor

From: Borjabrela
To: allister.heath@cityam.com
Date: 26 March 2009 13:33
Subject: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"

Dear Allister,

I have the pleasure to follow your letter every weekday morning in City A.M.: I learn very much from it so many thanks.

Today's Editor's Letter gave a good solution for the avoidance of the periodical credit bubbles and crunches. Your solution openly addresses the main cause of these credit cycles, i.e., the current money supply structure with fractional reserves and state-controlled currency.

In the current money supply structure national governments or central banks (i.e. the State) have official control of the currencies, which subjects the currency supply and value to the government's whims. At the same time, the fractional reserves give any non-central bank the power to effectively create money with little control of the State. This structure results in a situation of unaccountability: the non-central banks blame the central bank for its decisions, and the central banks blame the non-central banks for their lack of responsibility. As a Spanish saying goes, neither one nor the other and the house is left dirty. At the end the ones who lose are the citizens who always have to pay to clean up the mess with unemployment, inflation and currency depreciation (an outright robbery by the government).

Your solution is creating a super-currency, controlled by no single nation (you suggest the Bank of International Settlements), whose value fluctuated depending on the underlying price of the basket of commodities to which they would be pegged. "A proper store of value, not a fiat currency".

In my opinion, your solution goes in the right direction as it attempts to stripe the governments of power over money; however, it isn't the best solution. I have also read many other suggestions and recommendations, but no one seems to remember that the optimal solution was already proposed by Friedrich Hayek in "Denationalisation of Money" (1976): free market of currencies and financial operations, whereby anyone (even the government!) can set up their own currency and financial operations and compete in equal conditions for the favour of the Market.

As the Market is the most efficient way to distribute resources, it is time to make the Market the only controller of money, which is its main resource. This way the Market will be accountable for its mistakes regarding credit as it already does for almost anything other type of mistakes. This way the States will have it more difficult to spoil the economy again.

It is high time someone remembers Hayek, who gave the best explanation of the economic and financial cycles.

Love and freedom.