Quote of the Day: The IMF Gets It Wrong (again)

Christine Lagarde admits that the International Monetary Fund “got it wrong” when it chastised the British government’s austerity plans. One year ago the IMF’s chief economist Oliver Blanchard claimed the U.K. was “playing with fire” by cutting its budget.

With the benefit of hindsight, the IMF has changed its stance. The U.K. economy is set to grow 2.9% this year, the fastest among the G7 nations. Furthermore, the growth is being driven by investment spending, not consumption as the IMF had long thought necessary.

Though she stopped short of apologizing for the Fund’s poor recommendations in the past, Lagarde allude to begging for forgiveness. Rather than seeking forgiveness after the IMF makes a mistake, why doesn’t it stop giving out bad advice so that it doesn’t find itself in these embarrassing situations in the future.

This is from Professor David Howden at the Ludwig von Mises Canada.

The IMF Hearts Debt

In the implied promotion of debt by the IMF, Sovereign Man’s Simon Black caustically asks, what are these people smoking? 

You may recall the case of Harvard professors Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart who wrote the seminal work: “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly”.

The book highlighted dozens of shocking historical patterns where once powerful nations accumulated too much debt and entered into terminal decline.

Spain, for example, defaulted on its debt six times between 1500 and 1800, then another seven times in the 19th century alone.

France defaulted on its debt EIGHT times between 1500 and 1800, including on the eve of the French Revolution in 1788. And Greece has defaulted five times since 1800.

The premise of their book was very simple: debt is bad. And when nations rack up too much of it, they get into serious trouble.

This message was not terribly convenient for governments that have racked up unprecedented levels of debt. So critics found some calculation errors in their Excel formulas, and the two professors were very publicly discredited.

Afterwards, it was as if the entire idea of debt being bad simply vanished.

Not to worry, though, the IMF has now stepped up with a work of its own to fill the void.

And surprise, surprise, their new paper “[does] not identify any clear debt threshold above which medium-term growth prospects are dramatically compromised.”

Translation: Keep racking up that debt, boys and girls, it’s nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

But that’s not all. They go much further, suggesting that once a nation reaches VERY HIGH levels of debt, there is even LESS of a correlation between debt and growth.

Clearly this is the problem for Europe and the US: $17 trillion? Pish posh. The economy will really be on fire once the debt hits $20 trillion.

There’s just one minor caveat. The IMF admits that they had to invent a completely different method to arrive to their conclusions, and that “caution should be used in the interpretation of our empirical results.”

But such details are not important.

What is important is that the economic high priests have proven once and for all that there are absolutely no consequences for countries who are deeply in debt.

And rather than pontificate what these people are smoking, we should all fall in line with unquestionable belief and devotion to their supreme wisdom.

Well, who has benefited from debt?

The McKinsey & Company diagram above reveals of the distribution of the US $225 trillion capital market as of the second Quarter of 2012.

The biggest beneficiaries in terms of growth rate from 2000-2012 (red rectangles) has been the government bonds and non-securitized banking loans. A close third are corporate bonds.

Add to the above the recent dynamic where central banks accepts various bonds from banks and financial institutions as collateral in exchange for loans to buy government debt meant to push down bond yields...plus where the IMF gets their funding...we can deduce on 'whose pipes these people have been smoking on'.

IMF Declares: Philippines Insulated to the Fed's Taper-Exit

The demigod known as the IMF declares that the Philippines will be insulated from the FED’s taper and exit.

Reports the Wall Street Real Economics Blog

The Fed’s eventual exit from easy-money policies will separate the emerging market wheat from the chaff.

One country that can handle the Fed exit is the Philippines, says the International Monetary Fund.

Reason? This time is different

But Ms. van Elkan says the country’s strong current account receipts, net creditor status, steady reductions in public debt and low foreign participation in government debt markets have helped insulate the economy against more capital flight. Manila’s own Fed, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, can also release funds from its Special Deposit Account to provide a cushion to growth, she said.

Upside risks instead?

In fact, Ms. van Elkin says risks to the country’s growth are to upside.

“Absorbing the ample liquidity into productive sectors may prove challenging,” she says, after an annual review of the country’s economy.  “Part of the liquidity could finance credit that is used to fuel demand for real estate, potentially with a strong procyclical effect on the economy,” she added.

The IMF Philippine representative seem to suggest that the recent ruckus in the domestic financial markets have been one of the seller’s imagination.

The Philippine Phisix got slammed not once but TWICE within a span of three months.

That’s because perhaps, from the IMF perspective, foreign investors may have been spooked by some imaginary hobgoblin who stampeded out of local assets during the same period (table from the BSP).

The domestic currency, the peso,  has likewise been whipped.

The IMF seems to contradicting US Fed chair Ben Bernanke who has been terrified by the tightening conditions

I don't think the Fed can get interest rates up very much, because the economy is weak, inflation rates are low. If we were to tighten policy, the economy would tank

Should the taper hit the US economy, the IMF assumes away all economic, financial and political linkages between the US and the Philippines, such that the latter can simply ride off to the sunset because of the reliance on backward looking data. Yet such event defies what occurred in 2008.

And with companies like San Miguel Corporation already been in a debt shindig (total debt Php 424 billion or about 5% of total banking assets-universal, thrift and rural), insatiably gorging on “finance credit”  that has a “procyclical effect on the economy”, it is a wonder how sustained rise foreign interest rates and a fall in the domestic currency, as the IMF assumes, will hardly have an impact to foreign denominated loans, as well as, how a rise in domestic rates will hardly affect credit quality of peso denominated loans. 

Yet what will likely be the ramifications to the broader economy once high geared companies will be exposed to them? Such risks have been dismissed as irrelevant. And the IMF demigods says these the Philippines should continue to borrow like mad and inflate more bubbles.

The reality is that there is no free pass to systemic imbalances molded via debt financed bubbles. Once tightening occurs, the law economics will prevail and delusions will be exposed.

But sorry for ad hominem, but the IMF has been devastatingly wrong in so many times. 

The IMF revised their flawed outlook on Greece’s growth several times, as Keep Talking Greece points out: (bold mine)

The IMF’s review on its Greek program was released late last night. The 51-pages document on Greece’s fiscal adjustment program 2010-2013 is more than clear: The IMF screwed Greeks for three consecutive years. The IMF failed to realize the damage  austerity would do. The IMF failed to predict the real recession. The IMF applied wrong multipliers. The list in which the IMF officially admits its mistakes and failures in the case of Greece is long and despicable, if one takes into consideration the thousands of impoverished Greeks, the 1.3 million unemployed, the crash of the health care and the social welfare, the practical collapse of the public administration and inhuman austerity measures like taxing the verified poor. - 

How they were wrong in Jordan, from the Jordan Times (bold mine)

The estimates made by the staff of the International Monetary Fund, for example, are absolutely undependable. They have no real value, not only in the long run i.e., after several years, but also in the short run i.e., in the same year, as I shall demonstrate.

IMF delegates visited Jordan recently. They examined all figures and statistics, listened to officials at the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank and came up with a set of economic and financial predictions for the current year 2012.

They published those predictions on the IMF Internet site dated in April, i.e., after an important part of the year had passed and the trends had become clear.

Unfortunately, those predictions were way far from reality.

And how they failed to see the 2008 crisis

From the Foreign Policy.com (bold mine)

The IEO has just released its report—and it's a very tough critique of the IMF's performance and internal culture:

"The IMF’s ability to detect important vulnerabilities and risks and alert the membership was undermined by a complex interaction of factors, many of which had been flagged before but had not been fully addressed. The IMF’s ability to correctly identify the mounting risks was hindered by a high degree of groupthink, intellectual capture, a general mindset that a major financial crisis in large advanced economies was unlikely, and inadequate analytical approaches. Weak internal governance, lack of incentives to work across units and raise contrarian views, and a review process that did not “connect the dots” or ensure follow-up also played an important role, while political constraints may have also had some impact.

One key assertion is that the IMF's staff was intellectually and psychologically unprepared to challenge the regulatory authorities in the most advanced economies.

"IMF staff felt uncomfortable challenging the views of authorities in advanced economies on monetary and regulatory issues, given the authorities’ greater access to banking data and knowledge of their financial markets, and the large numbers of highly qualified economists working in their central banks. The IMF was overly influenced by (and sometimes in awe of) the authorities’ reputation and expertise; this is perhaps a case of intellectual capture.

In short, the IMF’s Achilles Heels is one of “pretense of knowledge”.

As the great Austrian economist F. A. Hayek noted

this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences — an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the "scientistic" attitude — an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, "is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed." I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error.

Oh by the way, if the IMF remains “overly influenced by (and sometimes in awe of) the authorities’ reputation and expertise”, then this should be a source of MORE concern.

One reason why the Philippines occurred portfolio outflows in August according to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has been due to “hesitancy to invest during the “ghost” month of August (believed to be unlucky for business)”  

You can’t make this up. Local officials experts attribute Chinese superstitions as economic analysis. Incredible.

And who were the biggest selling investors in August. 

Again the BSP

The United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore, Luxembourg and Hong Kong were the top five (5) investor countries for the month, with combined share of 76.4 percent.  The United States continued to be the main beneficiary of outflows from investments, receiving US$1.1 billion (or 77.6 percent of total).

I didn’t know that US-UK investors subscribed heavily to the Chinese tradition.

But that’s expert analysis for you.

CNBC: The Growing Risks from ASEAN’s Asset Bubbles

EVEN mainstream media appears to have caught up with my warnings. This lone nut's insights have began to spread. 

Here is the CNBC:

The risk of asset bubbles in Southeast Asia's fastest-growing emerging economies is rising, warn economists, pointing to red flags including surging domestic credit growth and rapidly rising property prices.

"We have long argued that monetary policy has been kept too loose for too long in Indonesia, but the policy authorities in the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia are in significant danger of making the same mistake. In our view, evidence of overheating is set to become more obvious," said Robert Prior-Wandesforde, head of India & Southeast Asia economics at Credit Suisse.

Prior-Wandesforde, who expects central banks in the region will start tightening monetary policy in late 2013 or 2014, says policymakers are getting a false sense of security from benign inflation levels, and ignoring the excesses being built elsewhere in their economies.

"We expect interest rates to move higher and it is at that point that history suggests we should worry about possible bubbles turning to bust," he said.

The mix of U.S. monetary policy and relatively low levels of inflation have led many ASEAN nations to adopt "inappropriately" low interest rates, according to economists.

The World Bank and the IMF has recently recommended that easy money policies be reversed.

As I noted yesterday on the IMF’s prescription:

This means that putting a brake or policy tightening would also expose on the mirage brought about by statistical growth pillared from "strong credit growth". Doing so would effectively takes away the foundations of the “defied” status from which the political class and central bankers have been piggybacking on.

In short, reversing the “easy financing conditions” would go against the political and personal interests of those involved, particularly the political class and their cronies, and therefore will most likely be rejected or dismissed or ignored.

Easy money conditions will likely be pushed to the limits until the markets expose on them.

Developing events seem to be upholding my theory. 

Thailand’s government will likely address the rising baht mostly perhaps by paring down interest rates.

This is fresh from the Bangkok Post

The MPC is under pressure from the Finance Ministry and exporters who want it to implement measures to weaken the baht. The Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) chairman Payungsak Chartsutthipol has called on the MPC to cut its policy interest rate from 2.75% by 1% to weaken the baht.

He said the central bank will use foreign exchange and capital inflow management as the main instruments to keep the baht from rising too high.

Translation: Risk of bubbles? Who cares. Blow more of them.

IMF to Asia: Put a Brake on Credit Bubbles!

Interesting developments. 

Asia has to put a brake from her asset bubble blowing policies, this has been the latest prescription by the IMF who joins the World Bank in the call to curtail asset bubbles

First the implicit advice as reported by the Bloomberg:

Asian policy makers must be ready to respond “early and decisively” to overheating risks in their economies stemming from rapid credit growth and rising asset prices, the International Monetary Fund said.

Growth is set to pick up gradually during the year and inflation is expected to stay within central banks’ comfort zones, the Washington-based lender said in a report today. Greater exchange-rate flexibility in the region would play a “useful role” in curbing overheating pressures and coping with speculative capital inflows.

Asian economic growth that the IMF estimates will be almost five times faster than advanced nations this year, and increasing investor appetite for risk have spurred capital inflows into the region. The Bank of Japan this month joined counterparts in the U.S. and Europe in unleashing monetary stimulus, which may fuel further currency gains in developing markets such as the Philippines, where policy makers have stepped up efforts to cool appreciation.

As a reminder all bubbles are homegrown or have domestic origins. The mainstream’s popular strawman or scapegoat, capital flows, which usually gets blamed for bubbles, may or may not add to the bubbles in progress. While many crises indeed involved capital flow dynamics, correlation is not causation.

Now the kicker:

Financial imbalances and rising asset prices, fueled by strong credit growth and easy financing conditions, are building in several Asian economies,” the IMF said. “Policy makers in the region face a delicate balancing act in the near term: guarding against the potential buildup of financial imbalances while delivering appropriate support for growth.

Translating the economic gibberish to the layman: Bubbles have become widespread "in several Asian economies", and could morph into a clear and present danger "face a delicate balancing act"!

Well readers here would be familiar with my constant admonitions on these. Now many, including multilateral institutions, appear to be recognizing on such developing risks. So I am no longer a “lone nut”.

But the IMF or the World Bank seem clueless on what appears as a good counsel of curbing bubbles. They ignore the economic and political implications of their “delicate balancing act” recommendations.

Since all the cumulative  “strong credit growth” have been a consequence of “easy financing conditions”, then “early and decisively” policy restraints would represent as financial losses on the manifold entities or borrowers (private, public, or hybrids e.g. PPPs) that contracted them with their corresponding creditor/s.  Remember all these  “strong credit growth” had been consummated based on expectations of a sustained or prolonged “easy financing conditions”. Now the IMF (and the World Bank) wants to reverse them.

This also means that if “strong credit growth” has metastasized into a systemic debt issue then policy tightening would translate into a sharp slowdown in economic growth (best case scenario), if not a recession or a crisis (worst case scenario).

Thus the “delicate balancing act” reveals that the IMF doesn’t seem to have a good grasp on such ramifications, or most possibly, refuses to candidly divulge of the true nature of their risks expressed via evasive opaque statements.

Moreover credit rating upgrades will whet the appetite for more debt which has been the case for the Philippines, aside from adding to the veneration of political ascendancy from current policies that undergirds today's manic phase

This means that putting a brake or policy tightening would also expose on the mirage brought about by statistical growth pillared from "strong credit growth". Doing so would effectively takes away the foundations of the “defied” status from which the political class and central bankers have been piggybacking on. 

In short, reversing the “easy financing conditions” would go against the political and personal interests of those involved, particularly the political class and their cronies, and therefore will most likely be rejected or dismissed or ignored. 

Easy money conditions will likely be pushed to the limits until the markets expose on them.

IMF to Central Bankers: Keep Blowing Bubbles

The IMF’s advice to central bankers is an example why we can expect central bankers to keep blowing asset bubbles. 

That’s of course until bubbles pop by their own weight, or until the stagflation menace emerges or a combo of both.

But stagflation has been absent based in the econometric papers of the IMF, that’s according to the Bloomberg:

Monetary stimulus deployed by advanced countries to spur growth is unlikely to stoke inflation as long as central banks remain free of outside influence to react to challenges, according to a study by the International Monetary Fund.

In a chapter of its World Economic Outlook released today, the Washington-based IMF said that inflation has become less responsive to swings in unemployment than in the past. Inflation expectations have also become less volatile, according to the report.

“As long as inflation expectations remain firmly anchored, fears about high inflation should not prevent monetary authorities from pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy,” IMF economists wrote in the chapter called “The dog that didn’t bark: Has inflation been muzzled or was it just sleeping?”

Considering the distinctive political-economic structure of each nations, such pursuit of bubble policies will translate to varying impacts on specific markets and economies. For instance, emerging markets are likely to be more vulnerable to price inflation.

And by simple redefinition and measurement of inflation as based on econometric models and statistics, the IMF has given the green light for central bankers do more.

This also means that the IMF has prescribed to central bankers to throw fuel on the inflation fire.

Based on mainstream’s twisted definition of inflation, such as being predicated on demand and supply “shocks”, hyperinflation ceases to exist. 

Interestingly too the IMF hardly see current policies as having “compromised” central bank independence.

Again from the same article:

The BOJ’s new policy “is something that we hope will lift inflation durably into positive territory, which would help the economy,” said Jorg Decressin, deputy director of the IMF’s research department. “We see in no way the operational independence of the BOJ compromised at all.”

This is a rather absurd claim. When central banks buy government debt, they effectively encroach into the realm of fiscal policies. 

Instead of voters determining the dimensions of fiscal policies via taxation, central bank financing of fiscal deficits motivates government profligacy that enhance systemic fragility through higher debts and the risks of price inflation (stagflation) or even hyperinflation.

As fund manager and professor John Hussman notes at HussmanFunds.com in 2010:

Historically, and across the world, the primary driver of inflation has always been expansion in unproductive government spending (think of Germany paying striking workers in the early 1920s, or the massive increase in Federal spending in the 1960s that resulted in large deficits and eventually inflation in the 1970s). But unproductive fiscal policies are long-run inflationary regardless of how they are financed, because they distort the tradeoff between growing government liabilities and scarce goods and services.

For instance, Japan’s government will increasingly become dependent on the Bank of Japan via Kuroda’s “shock and awe” Abenomics policies. This makes Japan vulnerable to a debt or a currency crisis.

And recent interventions on the fiscal space by central banks of developed economies essentially reveals of the closely intertwined relationship between governments and central banks. (charts above from Zero Hedge)

This only validates the hypothesis of the Austrian school of economics that the fundamental role played by the central banks has been to support the government (welfare-warfare state) and the cartelized crony banks, which essentially means that central bank independence is a myth.

As refresher let me quote anew the great dean of Austrian economics explained: (bold mine) [The Case against the Fed page 57]

The Central Bank has always had two major roles: (1) to help finance the government's deficit; and (2) to cartelize the private commercial banks in the country, so as to help remove the two great market limits on their expansion of credit, on their propensity to counterfeit: a possible loss of confidence leading to bank runs; and the loss of reserves should any one bank expand its own credit. For cartels on the market, even if they are to each firm's advantage, are very difficult to sustain unless government enforces the cartel. In the area of fractional-reserve banking, the Central Bank can assist cartelization by removing or alleviating these two basic free-market limits on banks' inflationary expansion credit

Yet here is the IMF’s prescription for more bubble blowing, from the same article:

“The dog did not bark because the combination of anchored expectations and credible central banks has made inflation move much more slowly than caricatures from the 1970s might suggest - - inflation has been muzzled,” the IMF staff wrote. “And, provided central banks remain free to respond appropriately, the dog is likely to remain so.”

As I explained before, inflationism represents a political process employed by governments to meet political goals. Inflationism, which is an integral part of financial repression, signify the means (monetary) to an end (usually fiscal objectives). And when governments become entirely dependent on money printing from central banks, hyperinflations occur.

Just because money printing today has not posed as substantial risks to price inflation, this doesn’t mean such risks won’t ever occur.

And that the current low inflation environment basically implies "free lunch" for central banks.

Price controls, market manipulations (via central bank), the Fed’s Interest rate on reserves (IOR) and even productivity issues have also contributed significantly to subdue price inflation over interim.

And again since monetary inflation represents a process, such take time to unfold via different stages, which is why price inflation tend to occur with suddenness to become a significant threat.

IMF’s reckless advocacy of bubble policies will have nasty consequences for the world.

The IMF experts or bureaucrats, who are paid tax free and are tax consumers, hardly realize such blight will affect them too. 

The existence of the IMF depends on quotas or contributions from members which come from taxes. Such applies to other multilateral agencies such as the UN, OECD ADB or etc, which is why these institutions almost always campaign for more state interventions.

Yet should a crisis of a global dimension emerge, and where a chain of defaults by governments on their liabilities (such may include developed economies, BRICs, Asia and elsewhere), their privileges, if not their existence, will likewise be jeopardized, as governments retrench or have their respective budgets severely slashed or faced with real "austerity". 

Let me venture a guess, such scenarios haven’t been captured by the IMF's econometric models. 

When the late Margaret Thatcher warned that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]", this applies to multilateral institutions too.

IMF Supports Capital Controls

The IMF reveals their true color.

From Bloomberg, 

The International Monetary Fund endorsed nations’ use of capital controls in certain circumstances, making official a shift, which has been in the works for three years, that will guide the fund’s advice.

In a reversal of its historic support for unrestricted flows of money across borders, the Washington-based IMF said controls can be useful when countries have little room for economic policies such as lowering interest rates or when surging capital inflows threaten financial stability. Still, it said the measures should be targeted, temporary and not discriminate between residents and non-residents.

“Capital flows can have important benefits for individual countries across the fund membership and the global economy,” IMF staff wrote in a report discussed by the board on Nov. 16 and published today. They “also carry risks, however, as they can be volatile and large relative to the size of domestic markets.”

Countries from Brazil to the Philippines have sought in recent years to manage inflows of capital that put upward pressure on their currencies and threatened to create asset bubbles. The new guidelines will enable the fund to provide consistent advice, though rules prevent it from imposing views about managing capital flows on its 188 member nations.

Capital (currency) controls treat the symptoms and not the disease.

The real disease has been the unhinged central banking-paper money system that perpetuates the worldwide bubble cycles. Such unstable system distorts the pricing structure that destabilizes economic balance, promotes high risk taking and encourages reckless yield chasing dynamics, and worst, redistributes wealth to the political elites and their cronies, whom are the first recipients of easy money bubble policies (the latter incidentally operates with an implied guarantee or moral hazard, they are usually beneficiaries of bailouts)

Eventually they all end up in a bubble bust.

Countries with banking crisis exploded coincidentally after the Nixon Shock or the closing of the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard

Previously I warned that the penchant for greater interventionism in response to the recent crisis has sown the seeds of capital controls which risk the headway towards protectionism. 

Capital controls are part of the grand scheme of financial repression policies designed by bankrupt governments to expropriate private sector resources.

Aside from capital controls, other measures include, raising taxes, inflationism, negative interest rates, price controls and various regulatory proscriptions

Capital controls has short term impact and spawns black markets as the price spread between official and unofficial rates widens.

Yet capital controls or exchange rate controls will hardly prevent the inflation of bubbles borne out of internal or domestic policies. The Philippines, which has been cited by the article, should be a good example. Loose monetary policies have been in the process of puffing a property and stock market bubble which has been misconstrued by the mainstream as economic “growth” story.

As Austrian economist Dr. Frank Shostak warned

The idea that capital controls and fixing the external value of a currency can strengthen economic fundamentals is flawed. While capital controls may help boost economic activity in terms of GDP, they cannot lift the real net worth of the economy. On the contrary, capital controls will only add to distortions caused by the monetary pumping and the artificial lowering of interest rates, thereby making the inevitable economic bust much more severe.

Into the Eyes of the Gorgon: IMF’s Endorsement of the Philippines

The mainstream implies that accolades made by the IMF on the Philippines must be read as bullish for the stock market.

I’d say that the Philippine stock market and the IMF’s approval are two different issues.

Well with the IMF pushing for SMS Taxes[1] as well as Sin Taxes[2], the only thing bullish here is for politicians, who will have more political control over the populace, but not necessarily more money.

As I pointed out earlier[3], Sin Taxes in the United Kingdom have not only failed to achieve the desired tax revenues and the supposed morality to be attained from such a regulation. Instead sin taxes spawned a bootleg industry, increased health risks of alcohol patrons who decided to go underground, and importantly increased corruption, as well as risks of violence.

Sin taxes are equivalent to prohibition laws focused on human vices like drugs, cigarettes gambling, prostitution and etc… that seems noble sounding humanitarian based, but have been hardly in touch economic reality.

As exiting US Congressman Ron Paul said in one of the greatest speech ever[4],

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative.

Importantly a common mistake has been to misinterpret taxes rates as a constant or linear function of revenues. An important economic axiom to realize is that “when you tax something, you get less of it.”

And such economic law applies to the effects of raising taxes on gold sales that has only prompted for the skyrocketing of smuggling activities[5] from the output of small scale gold mining or the informal gold economy in the Philippines. In fact, some lawmakers have appealed for the repeal of these taxes[6].

Rampant smuggling has not been limited to gold but has broad based.

According to an Inquirer report[7], smuggling activities in the incumbent administration has exploded to a $39.2 billion industry, or an average of $19.6 billion per year or for the two years of President Aquino’s tenure. This is far from the average of $3.1 and $3.8 billion for the Estrada and the Arroyo administration respectively. As a side note, mainstream economists may deny it but this seems to be one of the real factors contributing to the economic vitality. 

Political agents and the apologists of the state would like make us believe that edicts, ordinances and regulations can supplant the law of economics. Guess who will be wrong?

Or is it that President Aquino realizes that the informal economy has been real force behind the growth in the domestic economy for him to promote populist regulations that drives economic activities underground? So could he be hitting two birds with one stone?

Another more important point is that the diversion of productive resources to redistributive unproductive or politically directed activities will eventually lead to more debt and more inflation whose outcome will be worse than the cumulative effects of individual’s vices. Think Greece.

SMS taxes regardless of the form, on the other hand, will raise the cost of texting at the expense of consumers. Given that the mobile phone market will reach nearly 100% in terms penetration level[8], this implies that kernel of text users are likely to be from the middle to the lower income levels. 

So IMF’s Christine Lagarde in essence discriminates the poor by taxing them in favor of the political class.

Should I be bullish with the IMF’s endorsement? Ms Lagarde’s acclaim seems tantamount to the risk of catching the eyes of the mythical gorgon: victims turn to stone.

---

[1] Manila Bulletin IMF chief says SMS tax could help Philippines November 16, 2012

[2] GMANetwork.com Sin tax bill a transparent way to raise revenues — IMF’s Lagarde November 16, 2012

[3] See The Unintended Effects of Alcohol “Sin” Taxes: UK Edition November 26, 2012

[4] See Video: Ron Paul's Farewell Speech to Congress November 15, 2012

[5] See Philippine Informal Gold Mining Industry Booms August 24, 2012

[6] Inquirer.net Stop gold tax, BIR urged November 12, 2012

[7] Rigoberto Tiglao Smuggling at its worst under Aquino Inquirer.net November 14, 2012

[8] GMANetwork PHL mobile penetration to hit 100 percent in 2012, telco claims July 17, 2012

IMF’s Christine Lagarde Inflationist Delusions

From the Deutsche Borse Group: (bold added)

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde praised monetary stimulus efforts of the world's major central banks Thursday, but said non-monetary authorities in Europe, the United States and elsewhere need to build on those steps to improve growth in a slowing world economy.

Lagarde, at a press conference ahead of the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank, said she "expects courageous, cooperative action" at the meetings.

She also aimed criticism at China, whose top economic policymakers declined to attend the meetings because of territorial disputes with host Japan. China needs to be more of a global partner and increase demand for foreign products, not just concentrate on exporting its own products, she said, after pointedly noting its officials' absence.

Lagarde vowed the IMF "will spare no time and effort" to help Greece, but said the objective is to ultimately free that country from dependence on outside assistance.

Noting that the IMF has downgraded its projections of global growth, Lagarde said, "we are not expecting a very strong recovery." Indeed, she called high unemployment rates in advanced countries "terrifying and unacceptable."

The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have all adopted additional easing measures, and she praised their moves, but said that by themselves those actions are "not sufficient." 

The "momentum" imparted by monetary easing "should be seized as an opportunity," she said.

Ms, Lagarde’s “momentum” remarks essentially echoes former President Obama’s chief of staff and current Mayor of Chicago Emanuel Rahm’s infamous sly quote on establishing political controls over society…

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

And emerging market central banks have fawningly embraced Ms. Lagarde’s recommendations.

This from Reuters:

Emerging market central banks have clearly taken to heart the recent IMF warning that there is “an alarmingly high risk”  of a deeper global growth slump.

Two central banks have cut interest rates in the past 24 hours: Brazil  extended its year-long policy easing campaign with a quarter point cut to bring interest rates to a record low 7.25 percent and the Bank of Korea (BoK) also delivered a 25 basis point cut to 2.75 percent.  All eyes now are on Singapore which is expected to ease monetary policy on Friday while Turkey could do so next week and a Polish rate cut is looking a foregone conclusion for November.

South Africa, Hungary, Colombia, China and Turkey have eased policy in recent months while India has cut bank reserve ratios to spur lending.

The BoK’s explanation for its move shows how alarmed policymakers are becoming by the gloom  all around them. Its decision did not surprise markets but its (extremely dovish) post-meeting rhetoric did.  The bank said both exports and domestic demand were “lacklustre”.  (A change from July when it admitted exports were flagging but said domestic demand was resilient) But consumption has clearly failed to pick up after July’s surprise rate cut — retail sales disappointed even during September’s festival season.  BoK clearly expects things to get worse: it noted that ” a cut now is better than later to help the economy”.

Ms. Lagarde’s comments, which gives emphasis on the short term at greater costs of the future, can be summed up into two types of casuistry: 

The delusion of central planning: 

From the great Ludwig von Mises (Omnipotent Government),

It is a delusion to believe that planning and free enterprise can be reconciled. No compromise is possible between the two methods. Where the various enterprises are free to decide what to produce and how, there is capitalism. Where, on the other hand, the government authorities do the directing, there is socialist planning. Then the various firms are no longer capitalist enterprises; they are subordinate state organs bound to obey orders. The former en­trepreneur becomes a shop manager like the Betriebsführer in Nazi Germany.

As well as the delusions of the elixir of inflationism or perhaps a stealth scheme being employed by the cabal of central bankers to demolish what remains of laissez faire capitalism 

From the deity or icon of inflationism, Lord John Maynard Keynes (PBS.org) [bold added]

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Inflationists are either aware of the evils their policies create but nevertheless insidiously impose them for covert political reasons, or have been too blinded by their possession of power.

IMF Economist Resigns, Cites Conflict of Interests, Says: “Ashamed to Have Had Any Association with the Fund at all”

Brewing trouble at the IMF.

A renegade IMF economist recently resigned out of alleged conflict of interests. The Wall Street Journal Blog reports,

A senior International Monetary Fund economist is resigning from the Fund, writing a scathing letter to the board blaming management for suppressing staff warnings about the financial crisis and a pro-European bias that he says has exacerbated the euro-zone debt crisis.

“The failure of the fund to issue [warnings] is a failing of the first order, even if such warnings may not have been heeded,” Peter Doyle said in a letter dated June 18 and copied to senior management.

Doyle is formerly a division chief in the IMF’s European Department responsible for non-crisis countries. He currently acts as an adviser to the Fund but is expected to officially leave in the fall.

“The consequences include suffering [and risk of worse to come] for many including Greece, that the second global reserve currency is on the brink, and that the Fund for the past two years has been playing catch-up and reactive roles in the last-ditch efforts to save it,” he said in the letter.

Mr. Doyle’s shift in positions at the fund–from division chief to adviser–occurred around the same time that a new European Department chief was appointed. A senior official at the IMF said the new chief restructured the department, replacing many of its staff from outside the department earlier.

“After twenty years of service, I am ashamed to have had any association with the Fund at all,” he said in the letter. Mr. Doyle wasn’t immediately available for further comment.

IMF is funded by taxpayers from different member nations thus, like all other multilateral agencies, the IMF is a political institution subject to the advancement of the political interests of major contributors (represented through the quota-voting system).

Such distribution of power can already be seen from the appointment of executive directors. From the IMF,

Five Executive Directors are appointed by the member countries holding the five largest quotas (currently the United States, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom), and 19 are elected by the remaining member countries. Under reforms currently being finalized, all 24 Directors will be elected by the member countries, starting in 2012.

As a political institution, one really cannot expect the IMF to become apolitical and dispense their role in an objective manner, no matter the stated mission or job goals.

This also demonstrates of the web of complicity of the global cartelized tripartite political institutions of the welfare-warfare state, the privileged banking class and central banks whose interests has been promoted or upheld through all the political multilateral agencies.

And the uneven political representations in the IMF adds to the many reasons why bailouts or the redistribution of resources from poor nations (like Philippines) to the crisis stricken rich bankers and political class (whom fall under the umbrella of political interests of the major IMF fund contributors) has not only been financially unviable but immoral.