Central Perk: 12 dec. 2015

sâmbătă, 12 decembrie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Reader, Citing Hayek, Asks Me to Reconsider My Stance Against Finland's Free Money Proposal

Posted: 12 Dec 2015 07:35 PM PST

On December 7, I strongly criticized Finland's decision to give every citizen $870 each month, tax free.

For an outline of the proposed deal, and my response, please see Bernanke's "Helicopter Drop" Hits Finland; Prime Minister and 70% of Finnish Support "Free Money"; Dauphin Canada Revisited.

Wealth Redistribution

In response to my post, reader "MH" sent two emails, the first asking question about wealth redistribution and the second citing Hayek. Here is the first email.

Hi Mish,

I was hoping you would blog on the Finnish proposal and almost emailed to ask your opinion, so thanks for the post.

Over the years I have learned an awful lot from you, and these days I defer to your judgement on most things. However, are you sure you have this right?

Isn't this a very much simplified and therefore efficient taxation/welfare system compared to anything existing today. And crucially it overcomes the increasing problem of what to do with those who can't or won't work, especially given the rise of robotics.

Libertarianism is a hard sell in the 21st century ... and I speak as a libertarian. Democratic populations will never elect a government which is OK with people damn-near starving when they simply can't find work.

I agree with the vast majority of what you write, but it seems to me that your views need to cater for an age of ubiquitous automation when human labour might become increasingly obsolete. How does Austrian economics deal with this if not via a 'basic permanent income' allied to free-market economics plus the rule of law?

Regards,
MH

On Guaranteed Wages

For starters, the idea of a guaranteed "living wage" type of proposal, in a wealth redistribution scheme of sorts is about as far away from libertarian as one can get.

So yes, I am sure I have this correct.

Before I replied, "MH" next sent a link to a Telegraph article by Jeremy Warner who writes Paying all UK citizens £155 a week may be an idea whose time has come. It was Warner who cited a Hayek reference.

And just in case you are tempted to dismiss the idea as socialist nonsense, this is what Friedrich Hayek, intellectual godfather to the Thatcher revolution, had to say about it in Law, Legislation and Liberty.

"The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born".

Amen to that.

An Idea Whose Time Should Never Come

Amen to this: Guaranteed living wages are a time whose time should never come.

In response to the second email, I replied "It will never stop where you suggest. Anyone who gets less than they do now will want more. And resentment will build that the rich get as much as the poor. The guaranteed minimum will be seen as not enough by proponents of a 'living wage. Once started, people will vote for more and more and more. Taxes will rise and the wealthy will flee. It cannot possibly work."

And to that I now wonder about immigrants. Does it apply to them to? If it does, expect to see an onslaught of immigration that is orders of magnitude greater than what's happening in Germany right now.

And what about birth rates? Does one really want to give everyone the same amount of money as Finland proposed?

I am quite sure I am missing things, and likely many things. But this is precisely the kinds of mishaps that will occur when one goes willingly and blindly against free market ideas.

No legislation of this sort in history, regardless of good intention, has ever worked out. Please don't tell me about Dauphin, Canada, as I rebutted that silliness in my first post.

Mises or Hayek?

After I responded to MH, I pinged my response to Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man blog. He responded "I agree. And by the way, Hayek was severely criticized by other Austrians for the stance he took in that particular book."

Tenebrarum referred me to Why Mises (and not Hayek)? by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

It turns out that not only did Hayek go off the deep end with guaranteed living wage nonsense, he also went off the deep end on military conscription!

Hoppe writes ...

According to Hayek, government is "necessary" to fulfill the following tasks: not merely for "law enforcement" and "defense against external enemies" but "in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, by the market." (Because at all times an infinite number of goods and services exist that the market does not provide, Hayek hands government a blank check.)

In addition, Hayek insists we recognize that it is irrelevant how big government is or if and how fast it grows. What alone is important is that government actions fulfill certain formal requirements. "It is the character rather than the volume of government activity that is important." Taxes as such and the absolute height of taxation are not a problem for Hayek. Taxes — and likewise compulsory military service — lose their character as coercive measures.

I could go on and on, citing Hayek's muddled and contradictory definitions of freedom and coercion, but that shall suffice to make my point. I am simply asking: what socialist and what green could have any difficulties with all this?

Freedom and Coercion

On forced servitude, Hayek had this to say "If the known necessity of paying a certain amount of taxes becomes the basis of all my plans, if a period of military service is a foreseeable part of my career, then I can follow a general plan of life of my own making and am as independent of the will of another person as men have learned to be in society."

Supposedly it's OK to involuntarily forced into servitude to fight wars in which you do not believe, if only it's for a "period of time".

No libertarian on the planet would agree with that. Indeed, no one should agree. Forced conscription to fight wars is nothing but slavery.

Hayek went off the deep end in more ways than one. Is it any wonder that it's Hayek and not Mises who gets any mention?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Back in the Saddle, Just in the Nick of Time

Posted: 12 Dec 2015 11:18 AM PST

For those looking for a bit of humor this weekend, here's an article for the "just in the nick of time" bucket.

Back in the Saddle

Bloomberg reports writes Ally Returns to Mortgage Business Two Years After Total Exit.

Ally, whose defunct GMAC Mortgage unit was one of the biggest lenders of subprime mortgages in the run-up to the 2008 housing bust, will inch back into direct home loan originations next year, the bank's Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Brown said this week at a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. financial conference in New York.

"Don't think of this as Ally going down the road of the old GMAC," Brown said, referring to the home lending unit that brought Ally to the brink of collapse.

The bank has no plans to securitize its originations, and it won't keep any servicing rights or build out a servicing operation, Ally spokeswoman Gina Proia said in an e-mail.

Ally isn't expected to start offering risky products the way GMAC did, according to Jeff Davis at Mercer Capital. "But they've got to do something, because they won't make a decent return if the business is limited to making car loans," he said.

Timeline of Ally's Actions

Housing wire presents an interesting timeline of Ally's actions in Ally Financial Getting Back Into Mortgage Business.

GMAC's ResCap was once of the nation's top subprime lenders, but eventually GMAC and ResCap began dragging down Ally's business, with ResCap eventually falling into bankruptcy.
In 2012, Ally announced that it was going to shutter its mortgage business after the conclusion of ResCap's bankruptcy proceedings.
In May 2012, Ally executives said they planned to sell off $1.3 billion in mortgage servicing rights owned by Ally Bank as part of the wind down. "You can live in your car if you don't pay your mortgage," then-Ally CEO Michael Carpenter said in 2012. "I don't mean to be cute, but the fact is people make their car payment before they pay their mortgage."
In 2013, Ally agreed to contribute $1.95 billion in cash to the ResCap estate, as well as the first $150 million of the insurance recoveries expected in connection with additional mortgage-related losses.
As of June 30, 2013, Ally ceased new mortgage loan originations, the company said at the time. The company also sold off the last of its mortgage servicing rights in the second quarter of 2013.
"Ally closed the chapter on its legacy mortgage issues, sold substantially all of its international operations, reduced its higher cost unsecured debt and achieved financial holding company status," Carpenter said in Feb. 2014. "Today, Ally has a pristine balance sheet and is focused on its strengths with its leading domestic automotive services and direct banking franchises."

Just in the Nick of Time

Just in the nick of time, with housing prices recovered and the global economy slowing, and therefore risk is the highest in years, Ally hopped back in the saddle.

Don't worry, they won't securitize the loans, and they won't service them either. Instead they will hold all of the default risk themselves just as home prices have slowed if not stalled.

That people walk away from mortgages but not car loans is no longer a concern. From here on out, home prices will only go up.

By the way, people will walk away from car loans if they lose their job.

Need to Do Something

"But they've got to do something, because they won't make a decent return if the business is limited to making car loans," said Jeff Davis at Mercer Capital.

Ah yes, let's take on more risk now, just as home prices have recovered, the Fed is hiking, numerous warning signals on the global economy abound, and losses on subprime autos are poised to mount.

Fate

Ally's timing for the next downturn could not possibly be better.

I pinged the above articles to Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man blog under the email title "Just in the Nick of Time" and he pinged me back with "The fates have a strange sense of humor".

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Damn Cool Pics

This Cat And Mouse Have A Relationship That Will Surprise You

Posted: 09 Nov 2015 05:59 PM PST

Cats and mice are supposed to be eternal enemies, but that doesn't seem to be the case between these two friends.

Seth's Blog : When things go wrong

When things go wrong

A protocol for moving forward:

0. Double check the work to make sure that there are no other problems within it.

1. Alert the relevant parties

2. Take responsibility for what went wrong. This doesn't mean that you intentionally did it wrong, or that doing it right was part of your job description. It means that you know something went wrong, you're unhappy about it, and you accept responsibility for letting it get by you and you accept responsibility for making sure it won't happen again.

3. Apologize. Not because it's your fault, but because the incident cost other people time or money or upset them, and you're sorry that they have to deal with that.

4. Come up with a plan to ameliorate the impact of the problem. If you can't come up with a plan, say so and ask for suggestions.

5. Come up with a plan to avoid the problem in the future.

6. Gather feedback.

7. Thank everyone for their patience and goodwill.

Either that, or you could hide, dissemble, blame, shuffle along, scowl, depersonalize and then move on.