How Regulations Suffocate the Economy and Restricts Freedom

Sovereign Man’s Simon Black on the deleterious effects of soaring regulations (bold mine)

On March 16, 1936, the government of the United States published the very first edition of the Federal Register.

President Roosevelt had been taking a lot of heat over the previous year; under his New Deal program, dozens of government agencies were passing new rules, regulations, and codes at an absolutely feverish pace.

It became impossible for anyone to keep track of them—even the other agencies within the government.

So in the summer of 1935 they created a new law requiring every executive agency to publish a daily, official record of their activities.

This official record was called the Federal Register. And it would contain a complete set of every rule, regulation, code, and proposal issued by each of the executive agencies.

The first edition was published on March 16, 1936. It was sixteen pages.

Every single work day since then, without fail, the government has published the Federal Register.

Its first full year (1937) contained a total of 3,450 pages. By 1942, the Federal Register had grown to over 10,000 pages.

It passed 20,000 for the first time in 1967. More than 30,000 in 1973. And more than 40,000 the following year in 1974.

The Federal Register exploded during the 1970s, in fact, touching nearly 90,000 pages by the end of the Carter administration.

During Reagan’s time, the publication shrank to under 50,000, only to rise again under subsequent presidents.

The longest edition ever published was logged at 6,653 pages in a single day, during the administration of Bush II.

President Obama has averaged nearly 80,000 pages per year, far and away the highest of any President in US history.

This morning’s edition, in fact, is a whopping 358 pages full of new rules, regulations, and proposals.

Did you read it? Neither did I. But as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

This is absurd. Every single one of those regulations makes people less free.

They criminalize the most innocent behavior and make it impossible for the average person to know what’s legal and what’s not as if we all have some some civic duty to read and memorize 80,000 pages per year of government regulation.

4,500 criminal statutes now exist under US Code. That’s 1,500 times more than the three crimes outlined in the Constitution– piracy, treason, and counterfeiting.

(Ironically, the Federal Reserve and commercial banks commit the latter on a daily basis…)

We’ve seen this theme countless times throughout history.

Under Diocletian’s reign, the Roman Empire’s body of laws and regulations multiplied like rabbits.

He centralized all aspects of the economy, controlling wages, prices, commerce, and agricultural activity. Violations in many cases were subject to the death penalty.

And when people complained, he told them that the barbarians were at the gate, and that individual liberty needed to be sacrificed for the greater good of security.

By Diocletian’s time, Rome was already bankrupt. His regulations pushed the Empire over the edge.

It’s not much different today. Each and every one of these obscure regulations COSTS MONEY.

So it’s not surprising that as the number of pages in the Federal Register has increased, so has the US federal debt.

In order to pay for all of this bureaucracy, every citizen has become subject to an increasingly complex and punitive tax system, enforced at the point of a gun by a bankrupt government desperate to keep the party going.

Let me add graphics of…

…the US government budget (deficit spending), and the...

...US federal debt. Both charts have been sourced from the Heritage Foundation

Yet the link between regulation and debt.

Every enacted regulation needs enforcement. Enforcement entails spending. And spending requires financing. Government financing are sourced from taxes, debt and inflation. Essentially, every increase in regulation entails higher taxes, debt or inflation. Hence, “Each and every one of these obscure regulations COSTS MONEY.”

And if the tax revenues can’t keep up with the pace of regulatory profligacy, thus the recourse towards deficit spending financed by debt: as “Federal Register has increased, so has the US federal debt.”

In addition, desperate governments will dragoon its citizens via innovative and increasingly repressive tax regimes, thereby “to pay for all of this bureaucracy, every citizen has become subject to an increasingly complex and punitive tax system, enforced at the point of a gun by a bankrupt government desperate to keep the party going.”

Yet every government spending represents resources extracted from the private sector, and mostly, resources taken away from the productive agents of the economy. Hence, regulatory overload impedes economic activities, and consequently, spawns black markets.

In addition, there are costs (time, effort and resources) to comply with regulations.

Economist Robert Higgs on estimated compliance costs endured by the US economy:

According to Wayne Crews, who makes an annual estimate of the cost of compliance with federal regulations alone, “Costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.863 trillion in 2013”—which is equivalent to more than 13 percent of national income. Compliance with state and local government regulations surely adds a large amount to Crews’s estimate for federal compliance alone. No one needs to tell Americans, however, how onerous and exasperating the entire mass of government regulations and related red tape has become. Virtually every part of economic and social life now bears these heavy burdens, and any truly meaningful appraisal of the size of government today must take them into consideration along with the amounts the various governments are spending.

Even more, increasing regulations drives a chasm between the economic (productive) class and the political (parasitical) class, making the former subservient to the latter.

In her classic novel Atlas Shrugged, the late Ayn Rand honed in such politically induced societal entropy...

Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.

Yet this is a universal phenomenon or applies to every government.

Regulating people’s lives means LESS freedom. 

Arbitrary regulations, not only "criminalize the most innocent behavior" for being ignorant of what's legal and what's not, instead they have frequently been used as instruments of repression based on political expediency and the advancement of power over the citizenry. 

Therefore, increasing enactments of arbitrary regulations signify a slippery slope path towards corruption and dictatorship.

As Roman lawyer, orator and senator Publius Tacitus wrote (Annals 117 Book III, 27) Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges (The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.)

The Hunt for Snowden US Foreign Policy Fiasco

Fatal conceit unmasked as exhibited by the US government’s hunt for the whistleblower Edward Snowden

From Austrian economist Gary North at his website: (hat tip lewrockwell.com) [bold mine]

Last week, some bonehead in the Obama administration -- the media did not bother to find out who -- decided that he would issue an order to France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal to forbid the overflight of the presidential jet the President of Bolivia.

Did he do this on his own authority? Bureaucrats do not put their careers on the line because some low-level political hack tells them to. They want orders from the top.

They got these orders.

That forced the pilot of the plane to land in Vienna. At that point, the next phase of the bonehead's plan involved the use of Austrian officials, meaning either the police or the military, to board the plane and search it to find Edward Snowden. The problem was, Edward Snowden was not on the plane.

That immediately caused a sensation around the world. Especially in Latin America, heads of state criticized the U.S. government's interference with the presidential jet of the Bolivian President. At that point, Venezuela's President finally jumped off the fence, and offered Snowden asylum. He had resisted doing this prior to the decision of the bonehead to interfere with the Bolivian jet. Not to be outdone, the President of Bolivia then offered him asylum, and then the President of Nicaragua did the same. The President of Nicaragua is Danny Ortega, the Sandinista.

So, before the bonehead made his decision, no country was willing to offer Snowden asylum. But, because the bonehead decided to risk making a fool of the United States government, Snowden now has three places he can flee to.

This is a classic political mistake. The hack had almost no understanding of the potential fallout from his decision. This particular hack never bothered to consider the fallout in Latin America from the decision of the United States to pressure its toadies in Europe to forbid the jet from flying over their air space. Next, the toadies in Europe were exposed as exactly what they are, namely, toadies of the United States, so they are much less likely to cooperate in any further interference with Snowden's travel plans. Third, the Austrian government looks even worse than the other four governments, because it sent armed officials onto the plane in a fruitless search for a man who was not there.

This makes leftists in Latin American look like courageous heroes, because they are standing up to the United States government. But they decided to do this only because of the bonehead's decision to make the United States government look bad in front of the whole world. Now they can present themselves as standing tall. But they only stood up because of the bonehead.

The bonehead should have been fired within hours. But that was not done. This indicates that the decision was made by a political advisor in the Obama administration. He is not some low-level twerp. He is somebody close to the President, which means close enough to have gotten official approval from Obama for what is now obviously a bonehead move.

The decision had to be implemented by the bureaucracy. No one is saying which one.

Once again, we see how power makes operational idiots out of smart people. They do not count the full costs of their decisions. They are protected by the system, and they make decisions throughout their careers in terms of these protections. Then, without warning, the protections collapse in the face of public reaction against the bonehead decision.

Read the rest here

UN’s FAO on World Hunger: Let them eat insects

Many nasty side effects of inflationism has not only been to reduce the quality of products and services (value deflation) as well as to promote fraud, for instance in food (rat meat, horse scandal) but has also prompted policymakers to desperately scamper for solutions based on absurd premises. 

From the BBC.com (hat tip Zero Hedge)

Eating more insects could help fight world hunger, according to a new UN report.

The report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that eating insects could help boost nutrition and reduce pollution.

It notes than over 2 billion people worldwide already supplement their diet with insects.

However it admits that "consumer disgust" remains a large barrier in many Western countries.

Wasps, beetles and other insects are currently "underutilised" as food for people and livestock, the report says. Insect farming is "one of the many ways to address food and feed security".

Remember these multilateral institutions are taxpayer funded. This means that such bureaucracies have been benefiting from wealth transfers (taxpayers to bureaucrats) which should have been redirected instead to “hunger”.

Yet in order to sustain their privileges, they recommend bizarre elixirs instead of promoting real market based reforms. Such is an example of ‘social justice’ based on central planning.

The UN and her subsidiary the FAO should set an example.  UN-FAO leaders should require all their employees to have insects as part of their daily fare.

The last time a political leader allegedly declared sarcastically “let them cake”…such led to a bloody revolution.

US Informal Economy estimated to have DOUBLED to $2 Trillion since 2009

All the financial repression via bailouts, rescues, inflationism, new taxes and regulations from the US mortgage-banking crisis of 2008 have driven many of the average Americans to the informal economy.

From the CNBC:

The growing underground economy may be helping to prevent the real economy from sinking further, according to analysts.

The shadow economy is a system composed of those who can't find a full-time or regular job. Workers turn to anything that pays them under the table, with no income reported and no taxes paid — especially with an uneven job picture.

"I think the underground economy is quite big in the U.S.," said Alexandre Padilla, associate professor of economics at Metropolitan State University of Denver. "Whether it's using undocumented workers or those here legally, it's pretty large."

"You normally see underground economies in places like Brazil or in southern Europe," said Laura Gonzalez, professor of personal finance at Fordham University. "But with the job situation and the uncertainty in the economy, it's not all that surprising to have it growing here in the United States."

Estimates are that underground activity last year totaled as much as $2 trillion, according to a study by Edgar Feige, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

That's double the amount in 2009, according to a study by Friedrich Schneider, a professor at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria. The study said the shadow economy amounts to nearly 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

Whether in politics (Boston’s martial law) or in economics (informal economy) the US appears to be sliding down the path towards a banana republic.

Why?

The informal, underground or shadow economy have always been a product or outcome of the politicization of the marketplace.

Proof?

Regulations have been skyrocketing in the US. A big segment of growth comes from the post-crisis years. The number of pages of regulations from the Federal Register has ballooned almost sevenfold since 1940s. Chart from Political Calculations Blog.

Additional regulations means more taxes too.

Number of pages of Federal Tax Rules has swelled by about eight times since the 1940s, where the bulk of the recent expansion of tax rules also occurred during the years of post-US mortgage banking crisis . (Chart from Cato’s Chris Edwards)

Regulations signify as hidden taxes too. 

Estimated compliance costs is at $236 billion in 2012. This would account for 1.5% of the US GDP. By the way, $2 trillion informal economy is about 12.7% of the $15.7 trillion US GDP in 2012. 

Yet there are indirect regulatory costs too.

Overall, the total estimated regulatory costs have been at $1.752 trillion in 2011 according to Competitive Enterprise Institute.  That’s more than 10% of the US economy. Such costs must be a lot more today.

Statistics would not really capture the lost business opportunities from the burdens of additional taxes, regulations and other politics based programs because they are largely invisible or unseen by the public. For instance, I recently pointed out how state authorities shut down a child’s lemonade stand for the lack of license. So one has to be leery of any supposed analytical insights entirely focused on the shouting of statistics or on the dependence on empirical methodology.

We will have to add the burdens of tax and regulatory costs  from Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

That’s not all. There is also the enormous onus from entitlement spending. (chart from Heritage Foundation)…

…and the diminishing purchasing power of the US dollar from the printing presses of the US Federal Reserve since 1913 (chart from visual.ly), whose boom bust cycles have led to the justification of more interventions or “never let a crisis go to waste” dogma. 

So such vicious cycles of government expansion leads to a debt trap.

To cap it, increasing politicization of the marketplace means higher costs of doing business which entails more limitations or restrictions on economic opportunities and diminishing productivity and capital accumulation, which extrapolates to stagnation or a decline in living standards.

Thus when people’s survival is at stake, and where costs of doing formal business is high and increasingly a hindrance, they resort to the informal, underground or the shadow economy.

The digital age via the web has also substantially contributed to the expansion of the informal economy, where the former provides the platform to conduct businesses outside the prying eyes of the government. The emergence of the Bitcoin is a wonderful example.

The growth in the informal economy will also likely be manifested in the evolution of politics. This should translate to a growing divide or the deepening polarization between the productive class and political parasites (political class, cronies, welfare-warfare beneficiaries and the bureaucracy).

Although while informal economies represent as good sign of people’s attempt to generate productivity outside the political realm, they represent as an implied or passive revolt against politics. Alternatively, this also could mean social unrest ahead.

Updated to add: Informal economies will be smeared by the mainstream as illegal and immoral operations (such as drugs, money laundering and etc...). While there could be some, most of them aren't. This would represent as propaganda to cover up the failure of governments or to shift the burden of blame on the public rather than they owning up to their failures.

Portugal Considers Using T-Bills to Pay Public Workers and Pensioners

Crisis stricken governments have been finding ways to skirt requirements for them to scale down on their bloated bureaucracies. 

Rumors have circulated that the Portuguese government have contemplated on paying public workers and pensioners in Treasury bills.

From the Wall Street Journal,

In his televised statement, Mr. Passos Coelho said the government would try to revise its budget plan through new spending cuts rather than new tax increases. A person close to the government said it had mulled the idea of paying public employees and pensioners one month of their income in Treasury bills, forcing them, in effect, to lend the Treasury the money the court said it couldn't cut from their paychecks. A government spokeswoman denied that the idea was being considered.

Since the Portuguese government can’t print money as they operate under the ambit of the euro which is managed by the ECB and Eurosystem (central banks of the Eurozone), then they will simply “print” debt papers.

Debt papers will possibly attain traits of “moneyness” or exchangeability. Since T-bills will be used by public employees and pensioners for exchange of goods and services.

One thing leads to another. “One month” of income may become a slippery slope towards perpetuity. This means debt papers may eventually substitute the euro (Gresham’s law).

More debt leads to higher taxes which will pose as a hindrance to productive commercial enterprises.

More sovereign debt issuance can be used as collateral by the Portuguese government to secure loans from the ECB, or that debt may be monetized by the ECB. So the Portuguese government will likely be incentivized to print more debt papers.

With debt papers used as money, this amplifies inflation risks.

More debt also means Portugal will remain stuck in her debt crisis.

And if and when Portugal defaults, then public workers and pensioners and all those other sovereign debt holders will become the “greater fools” (greater fool theory).

Austrian Bureaucrat Loses $439 million of Taxpayers Money on Derivatives Gamble

This is a prime example of negative externalities (or cost of a mistake to the society) derived from centralized institutions has far more damaging effect than errors incurred by entrepreneurs or so called "market failures".

A mistaken decision from political authorities extrapolates to greater tax burden for the citizenry.

From Reuters (hat tip Zero Hedge)

Austria said it planned stricter controls over regional finances after a Salzburg civil servant gambled hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayers' money on high-risk derivatives.

Finance Minister Maria Fekter said on Tuesday she was preparing new national legislation to impose stricter conditions on how regional administrations could use money borrowed at preferential rates from the Federal Financing Agency (BFA).

Salzburg officials said last week they had sacked a finance director after determining she used doctored documents and false signatures to hide a trail of losses from deals that started more than a decade ago, causing a book loss of 340 million euros ($439 million).

The incident has sparked calls for fresh elections in Salzburg state and for regional financing rules to be reformed. Austrian states have 8.2 billion euros of debt, or 8.1 percent of the country's public debt.

"It can't go on that one keeps getting cheap money from the BFA and then starts gambling with it," Fekter told journalists, adding that the states could save 150 million euros per year by using the BFA for all their financing needs.

The above is another great example of knowledge problem. This shows that political agents are also human beings who possesses or embodies the same set of shortcomings as everyone else. Except that they command resources and privileges via mandated budges and guns.

Losses from “gambling” is actually fait accompli or a side issue. If the gamble paid off then this won’t have been in the news.

But even if we presume the noble intentions have guided the actions of bureaucrats, the real issue is why governments are given the latitude to put taxpayer resources at risk and why their losses means greater tax burdens instead of reducing them.

The irony of politics is that political errors have always been rewarded-- although the culprits does get sacked, the system remains in place--instead of being punished, all these comes at the expense of taxypayers—in terms of opportunity costs via resources and time, as well as, civil liberties.

Quote of the Day: Why Regulation Does Not Work

Regulations do not make markets safer, more efficient, or work better for consumers in anything but a superficial sense. Regulation only provides “confidence” and assurance that only leads to crisis. Regulation does not produce harmonization of markets or insurance for consumers.

Regulation simply does not work. It is designed with hopes of success, but with no mechanism to achieve this success. We hope for efficiency, but what we get is bureaucracy. We hope for effectiveness, but what we get is rules and red tape that serves neither producer nor consumer. We hope for safety, but what we eventually get is chaos.

This is from Austrian economics Professor Mark Thornton at the Mises Institute.

Professor Thornton cites as examples of the highly regulated financial industry that nurtured Bernie Madoff's Ponzi and the housing bubble. Yes, Washington had “over 12,000 bureaucrats devoted to financial regulation”. 

Professor Thornton also mentions stringent regulations on the oil industry which led to the BP Gulf oil spill and to the Enron scandal.

Professor Thornton concludes: (italics original, bold mine)

The regulator is portrayed as a public-spirited specialist. They know the public good. They know the results that are expected. They know how to bring about those results. It is as simple for them to regulate their corner of the economy as it is for Emeril Lagasse to make crab cakes or for Martha Stewart to make a simple doily.

The public is told that regulators do not cause problems; they prevent them. They police the economy. They are the watchmen that have been endowed with the wisdom, ability, and selfless devotion to the public good.

There are indeed many people who work as government regulators that are very smart and well-trained that have public spirit and the public good in their hearts. There are also plenty of cads and knuckleheads that work as regulators.

The problem with government regulation is that you cannot fine-tune the regulations: nor can you perfect the regulatory work force in such a way to make regulation work in anything but a superficial way. The truth is that regulation instills confidence in the public so that they let down their guard and makes them less cautious while at the same time distorting the competitive nature of firms in the marketplace.

After every economic crisis there are calls for new regulations, more funding, and more controls. Economic wisdom dictates that we be ready to contest those calls when the next crisis of the interventionist state occurs.

Dealing with Spain’s Labor Rigidities

The Wall Street Journal editorial has some interesting insights, particularly facts (marked by bullets) and micro based recommendations in resolving Spain’s rigid labor markets.

[bold emphasis mne]

• After Cyprus, Spain ties with Malta for the most public holidays (14) in Europe. The Spanish Workers' Statute also guarantees 22 days of paid vacation annually, 15 days to get married and two to four days when anyone in an employee's family has a wedding, birth, hospitalization or death.

Mr. Rajoy has tried, with only moderate success, to tweak the public-holiday schedule and discourage "bridge" weeks—when, say, the Assumption of Mary falls on Wednesday and your entire staff takes off Thursday and Friday too. But if Mr. Rajoy wants a reform that would also be popular, why not ditch the statute's clause that bars employees from trading vacation time for extra pay? If Spaniards could earn greater rewards for taking fewer holidays, they might eventually want to scrap state-mandated vacations.

• Sick employees can get most or all of their wages for 18 consecutive months if they have a doctor's note. An employer could opt to fire chronically ill employees—and pay up to 24 months of guaranteed severance. That's excessive. Then again, the mandatory national insurance to cover sick wages, severance pay, health care and so forth takes 39.9% from the gross average Spanish wage.

Mr. Rajoy has trimmed unemployment benefits and pledged to reduce compulsory "social contributions" by one percentage point next year and another in 2014. He could do much better by letting Spaniards opt out of some entitlements entirely, such as paternity pay or child-care coverage. Spain would be a far better place to work and hire if its laborers and businesses could choose how to spend more of what they earn.

• Spain's 52% youth unemployment remains the subject of countless government training programs and tax exemptions for businesses hiring those under age 30. The programs don't work but they are expensive.

A free alternative: Repeal the Workers' Statute clauses that forbid most trainees and apprentices from earning less than 60% of the wages of full employees and from working more than 85% of a regular shift. It's harder to hire young people if you know you'll get much less work out of them for not much less pay.

Mr. Rajoy could also expand the one-year period during which businesses may dismiss new employees without severance. This only applies to firms with fewer than 50 workers, which helps explain why 99% of Spanish companies have no more than 49 employees of any age.

• Once a Spanish business reaches 50 employees, its workers must also elect five workplace reps to bargain on wages and conditions. These delegates must each receive at least 15 paid hours off monthly for their duties, and the quotas rise as companies grow. By the time a business hires its 751st staffer, it must have at least 21 workplace reps, each getting a minimum of 40 paid hours off per month.

Eliminating these costly sops and letting workers negotiate individually would no doubt provoke a declaration of war from labor bosses. So what? Fewer than 16% of Spaniards today opt to unionize, and far fewer than that join in already-frequent union demonstrations.

Read the rest here

From the above, one can see that the predicament of Spain’s competitiveness has scarcely been about the adverse effects of a “strong” currency, but because of the compounded negative side-effects of suffocating regulations, the barnacles of bureaucracy and the unwieldy welfare state.

India’s Economic Growth Slows, Choked by Politics

From Bloomberg

India’s economy expanded at the weakest pace in at least eight years last quarter, hurt by a slowdown in investment that has undermined the rupee and set back Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s development agenda.

Gross domestic product rose 5.3 percent in the three months ended March from a year earlier, compared with 6.1 percent in the previous quarter, the Central Statistical Office said in a statement in New Delhi today. The median of 31 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey was for a 6.1 percent gain. GDP climbed 6.5 percent in the year to March, the office said.

Singh faces a struggle to bolster expansion as Europe’s debt crisis dims the global outlook and elevated inflation and a record trade deficit limit room for more interest-rate cuts to boost spending at home. Discord within the ruling coalition and claims of graft have impeded his push to open up the economy, deterring investment and sending the rupee to its lowest level.

Well, India’s economic deceleration poses as another factor that contributes to the current environment marked by accentuated uncertainty.

The chart above from tradingeconomics.com does not include the today’s data.

Left of center analyst Satyajit Das at the Minyanville.com has a pretty good account of India’s lingering economic woes, and a list of obstacles towards attaining a developed economy status. (bold emphasis mine)

In recent years, India has consistently run a public sector deficit of 9-10% of GDP (if state debt and off-balance-sheet items are included). The problem of large budget deficits is compounded by poorly targeted subsidies for fertilizer, food, and petroleum, which amount to as much as 9% of GDP. Currently the official deficit is just over 3% of GDP, but trending higher and the highest in the G-20.

In March 2012, India brought out a budget forecasting an official fiscal deficit of 5.9%, well above its previous fiscal deficit target of 4.6%. India’s strong rate of recent growth (an average rate of 14% between 2004-2005 and 2009-2010) made large deficits, in the order of 10% of GDP, relatively sustainable. Slowing growth will increasingly constrain India’s ability to manage large deficits.

As its debt is denominated in rupees and sold domestically, India faces no immediate financing difficulty. Instead, the government’s heavy borrowing requirements crowds out private business.

However, exports are slowing as a result of weakness in India’s trading partners. Higher imports, mainly non-discretionary purchases of commodities and oil, have increased. India imports around 75% of its crude oil from overseas.

India’s weak external position has manifested itself in the volatility of the rupee, which was one of the worst performers among Asian currencies in 2011. Indian businesses, which have unhedged foreign currency borrowings, have incurred significant losses as the value of their debt rises as the rupee falls. Many Indian companies face large debt maturities in the coming year.

India has around US$250-300 billion in currency reserves. Foreign debts that must be repaid in the current year represent about 40-45% of this amount which highlights the increasing weakness in India’s external position.

Further, India is plagued by inadequate infrastructure especially in critical sectors like power, transport, and utilities. While its workforce is young and growing, there is a shortage of skills which has led to large increases in salaries for skilled workers.

The above account shows how India has been TOO reliant on the government.

Since government spending is ALWAYS politically determined, where decisions are usually made according to the needs of the moment or on what is presently popular or on what will accrue to votes for politicians (public choice theory), then the obvious result has been wastage, inefficiency and corruption.

Such dynamic has been the same even in the US, the erstwhile bastion of the market economy where dependence on government spending can be equated to crony capitalism.

Also infrastructure problems represent symptoms of too much politicization, viz., regulations and bureaucracy.

Now for the fun part. Adds Mr. Das… (bold highlights mine)

Corruption and Political Atrophy

Another major problem is large-scale, deep-seated and endemic corruption, highlighted by scandals surrounding the issue of telecommunication licenses and the sale of coal assets.

Used to accessing power and influencing politicians, businesses have advanced their interest in securing rich natural resources, especially land and minerals, and ensured a favorable regulatory framework restricting competition, especially from foreign companies.

India’s economic challenges are compounded by internal and external security concerns. For 2012, Indian defense spending is forecast to be $41 billion, around 1.9% of GDP or the ninth highest in the world. Financing this spending diverts resources away from other parts of the economy.

Political paralysis is another impediment to economic development. Successive governments have failed to undertake meaningful reforms. Complex coalition governments are a barrier to decisive action. The current government failed to implement its own plans to allow limited entry of foreign retailers. The government also failed to get a key anti-corruption bill through parliament.

Changes in land and property laws have not been made. Problems in acquiring land, for instance, are a factor in 70% of delayed infrastructure projects. The land acquisition process falls under a 19th century law and amendments proposed three years ago remain unlegislated.

Tax law reforms, including introduction of a direct sales tax correcting cumbersome differences in individual states, have not been completed. Changes to mining and mineral development regulations to allow proper, environmentally controlled exploitation of India’s mineral wealth have not been made.

Other crucial areas that remain unaddressed include rationalizing unwieldy and economically distorted subsidies; implementing economic pricing of utilities; promoting foreign investment in key sectors; reforming agriculture, especially the wasteful and inefficient logistics system for transporting produce to market. Reform of labor markets and privatization of key sectors has not progressed.

To sum it up, the basic reason why India’s economic advances has stalled has been due to the lack of economic freedom: particularly, too much government spending (crowding out effect), too much regulations (evidenced by stringent labor regulations, corruption), political concessions (subsidies, price controls), protectionism (restriction of foreign investments, and restrictions on agricultural and mining investments) and problems concerning property rights (land and property laws)

Indians have been used to the “License Raj” mentality or a business or commercial environment strangulated by elaborate licenses, regulations, and stultifying red tape, where vested interest groups fervently compete to acquire political power to generate economic clout at the expense of society.

India’s structural problems has important parallels with the Philippine political economy.

Nonetheless people’s opinions signify as the most important force in determining political trends that ultimately affects the state of the economy.

Another quote of wisdom from the great Ludwig von Mises

Many who are aware of the undesirable consequences of capital consumption are prone to believe that popular government is incompatible with sound financial policies. They fail to realize that not democracy as such is to be indicted, but the doctrines which aim at substituting the Santa Claus conception of government for the night watchman conception derided by Lassalle. What determines the course of a nation's economic policies is always the economic ideas held by public opinion. No government, whether democratic or dictatorial, can free itself from the sway of the generally accepted ideology.

Bottom line: the direction of economic growth will run along the prevailing ideology held by the citizenry. The greater the dependence on governments, the lesser the dynamism of the economy and vice versa.

Economic freedom ultimately determines the society's prosperity.

How Bureaucracy Tarnishes Forensic Science

TV series like the CSI romanticizes the effectiveness of forensic science in solving criminal cases.

In reality, as the following Washington Post article reports, this has not been the case (bold emphasis mine)

Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.

Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.

In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.

As a result, hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects….

A review of the task force documents, as well as Post interviews, found that the Justice Department struggled to balance its roles as a law enforcer defending convictions, a minister of justice protecting the innocent, and a patron and practitioner of forensic science.

By excluding defense lawyers from the process and leaving it to prosecutors to decide case by case what to disclose, authorities waded into a legal and ethical morass that left some prisoners locked away for years longer than necessary. By adopting a secret process that limited accountability, documents show, the task force left the scope and nature of scientific problems unreported, obscuring issues from further study and permitting similar breakdowns.

That’s because the incentives guiding the actions of bureaucrats have innately been centered on politically based parameters (such as rules, regulations, codes and degrees) than from the discipline of profit and losses.

The above case fits exactly the predicaments of bureaucratic management as described by the great Ludwig von Mises in Bureaucracy p.49 (bold emphasis added)

There are, of course, in every country's public administration manifest shortcomings which strike the eye of every observer. People are sometimes shocked by the degree of maladministration. But if one tries to go to their roots, one often learns that they are not simply the result of culpable negligence or lack of competence. They sometimes turn out to be the result of special political and institutional conditions or of an attempt to come to an arrangement with a problem for which a more satisfactory solution could not be found.

Where there has been less incentive to become solutions to the problem (think “limited accountability”), bureaucratic shortcomings, operating mostly on legal technicalities (note “struggling to balance…”), are magnified.

The unfortunate realization from the above report is that two wrongs don't solve the problem of criminal justice, where criminals run scot free while the accused innocent remain incarcerated. Or differently put, injustice has been amplified by the bureaucratic or government failure.

Has the US Federal Reserve been Transparent?

The short and direct answer is NO.

The US Federal Reserve has even opted to defy their self-imposed policy.

Reports the Wall Street Journal

The Federal Reserve has pledged to be more transparent, but it is only willing to go so far.

The central bank normally releases comprehensive transcripts of its policy-making meetings five years after the sessions. But when news organizations requested transcripts of the meetings around the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed released redacted documents that revealed only pleasantries from the sessions and no substantive discussions.

In early March, the central bank published on its website 513 of about 7,000 pages of transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings from 2007 through 2010, according to a March 7 letter from FOMC Secretary William English that also was posted online.

The heavily redacted transcripts reflect who attended the meetings, reveal comments at the start and finish of the sessions, and transcribe some banter in between, but no talk about economics or policy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is quoted calling the meetings to order, introducing staff presentations, honoring departing colleagues and adjourning the sessions for lunch.

The Fed isn't required under law to release details of its policy deliberations, but decided in 1993 to begin releasing nearly full transcripts of FOMC meetings after a five-year lag. That was in response to pressure from Congress on the central bank to be more open about its deliberations. Few major central banks release transcripts of their policy meetings.

When government engages in the picking of winners and losers or of the political or unilateral redistribution of scarce resources, contending interest groups who vie for these resources—and who don’t become the anointed—would always question the selection process. Thus, government choices would always be subjected to political controversies and conflicts that spawn social stress.

In addition, political agents do not want to be held accountable for the risks or unintended consequences from the decisions they make, or of the policies they impose. So opacity would be their default behavior.

SM Oliva formerly of the Mises Institute captures the essence of the innate non-transparency of governments.

“Transparency” is a buzzword associated with all sorts of good-government movements. But it’s something of a libertarian Trojan horse. No government can ever be transparent, for that would rob of it of its very substance. All monopoly government is predicated on the ability to actively mislead and misdirect the majority — the public — away from the truth, whether it’s political truth, economic truth, or personal truth. Even government attempts at transparency are themselves usually little more than misdirection by another name. One can be transparent in such a way as to satisfy most inquisitors while revealing nothing that compromises the basic pillars of the state.

Bottom line: Centralized political structures are inherently non-transparent.

And buzzwords of “transparency” or “independence” account for as political doublespeak or part of the communications campaign to sanitize reality.

Quote of the Day: Justifying the Bureaucracy’s Existence

The task of government in this enlightened time does not extend to actually dealing with problems. Solving problems might put bureaucrats out of work. No, the task of government is to make it look as though problems have been solved, while continuing to keep the maximum number of consultants and bureaucrats employed dealing with them

From Bob Emmers, Orange County Register (Liberty Quotes)

Quote of the Day: Why Government is Not Private Business

From Professor Arnold Kling,

In business it is actually really hard to get people to do what you want. In fact, understanding that fact is exactly what sets CEOs apart from policy wonks. Policy wonks think that you write a law and that solves a problem. They think that you promulgate regulations and people do not figure out how to game those regulations.

Someone with business experience would never announce a mortgage loan modification program and expect it to be implemented in a matter of weeks (remember, a mortgage is a legal document that is somewhat antiquated with procedures that differ by state and local jurisdiction; remember that, prior to 2008, mortgage servicers had very few staff with any experience at all in loan modification; remember that when you introduce entirely new parameters into a highly computerized business process, somebody has to determine which systems are impacted, gather requirements, redesign databases, develop logic to protect against data input errors, develop a test plan,...). Someone with business experience would not enact a program that fines companies for failing to use a fuel that does not yet exist. Someone with business experience, I dare say, would understand that chaotic organization has consequences.

The fundamental difference between private business and government is the use of force.

To survive or to thrive, businesses must persuade consumers that their products or services offered are worth the use, the consumption or the ownership, in order for consumers to conduct voluntarily exchanges. Failing to do so means that these private sector providers would lose out to the competitors.

On the other hand government, operating as mandated or legislated monopoly, forces people to comply with their edicts or regulations under the threat of penalty (incarceration, fines and etc.) for non-compliance.

In other words, for businesses, the distribution of power to allocate resources is ultimately decided by the consumers, whom are guided by price signals and where the consumer represents as the proverbial 'king'. Whereas for government, it is the politicians and bureaucrats who decides, whom act based on political priorities rather than by price signals.

Social power, thus, is distinguished between market forces relative to political forces.

Yet there are many other significant differences.

So comparisons of “government run as business” is not only patently misguided but a popular fallacy which needs to be straightened out.

Quote of the Day: Real Economic Power

From Robert Lawson and Richard Alm, (hat tip Professor Arnold Kling)

In 2010, a tiny cabal of 535 individuals — just 0.00017% of the population — spent $3.5 trillion, or about 23% of the $14.5 trillion U.S. economy. That leaves 77% for the other 99.99983% of us.

The group is the U.S. Congress — whose members have enormous powers to tax and spend. And they've used them to grab economic power well beyond anything found in the private sector.

If we look at the richest 535 private citizens, measured by the Forbes 400 list combined with estimates for the nation's next 135 wealthiest people, we estimate these rich people probably have about $166 billion in spendable income each year.

Internal Revenue Service data from the 535 highest tax returns give a somewhat lower figure of $135 billion.

Thus, the members of Congress wield 20 to 25 times more economic power than the same number of richest private citizens in the country.

In a heavily politicized economy, inequality mostly springs from actions of political agents whose escalating interventionism bloats the bureaucracy and the pockets of political stewards by compelling economic agents, not only to comply and finance their desires (at the expense of the consumers) but to also lobby for privileges. The result is a vicious cycle of feeding the leviathan to unsustainable levels.

Quote of the Day: The Myth of the Beneficial Bureaucracy

From Professor Michael Rozeff (bold emphasis mine)

As a rule, the regulatory agencies all produce abominable regulations, and it doesn't matter who is heading them. They are all bureaucratic. They all create an impossible administrative law apparatus that lacks justice. They all are out of control of their creators, the Congress. There is no such thing as a beneficial regulatory agency. They are a fourth branch of government that combines legislative, executive, and judicial functions, and that's worse than even the ordinary government, if such a thing is possible.

There is no one to "take a good look" at regulators and their regulations on an ongoing basis. Congressmen certainly can't do it and don't do it unless there is such a big squawk that they have to.

It's a near certainty that a close look at any agency will uncover all sorts of cozy and corrupt relations with those whom they regulate. It will uncover cushy and protected jobs. There is probably a library of books written by ex-bureaucrats that provide gory details of the agency blunders and poor organizations.

It is pointless to "look into" these bureaucracies. They need to be completely eliminated but if that is too radical, then I always have the other radical suggestion, which is that all those Americans who want to be regulated by these agencies volunteer to be so controlled; and those of us who do not want to be run by these agencies gain our freedom to live our lives free from their regulations.

To add to this stirring quote, the above reminds me of the frequent investigations conducted by the local congress/senate mostly on corruption charges or on controversial issues that draws much of the public’s attention.

Yet these public sessions are held hardly because of the pronounced intent of “in aid of legislation" to cleanse or reform an innately and incorrigibly corrupt system but for the opportunity to grandstand to the public, generate votes to prolong their tenures and their hold on political privileges, and most importantly, to expand their stranglehold over society with even more arbitrary rules which comes with more diversion of resources from the economy to fund the relentless expansions of regulatory agencies or the bureaucracy to enforce these feckless and corruption enhancing laws. This is another example of political insanity—doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results—except that these web of controls expand to cover different facets of our social life.

The public’s attention are always being diverted or framed to where the political establishment wants them to look at. To analogize, in a sports game, we cheer at the game itself but hardly examine the process from which the game came about.

It’s a wonder how these supposed investigators with all their unchecked hold over humongous amounts of pork barrels will be able to exorcise corruption. This would seem like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

The unfortunate nature of politics is that credit is usually gained from the degree of sensationalism extracted from the blaming of personalities than from the system.

And it is why the framework of the incumbent political institutions represents “an impossible administrative law apparatus that lacks justice” as Professor Rozeff writes. Corrupt laws which empowers corrupt political enforcement agencies will never deliver justice.

All the rest is public relations travesty.

Doug Casey On Corruption: Laws Create Corruption And Corruption Engenders Laws

Investment guru Doug Casey in this conversation gives a trenchant insight of the mechanics of corruption

On his definition of corruption: (all bold highlights mine)

a betrayal of a trust for personal gain

On the difference between private and public corruption

One can find corruption within corporations, as when directors betray their duty to the shareholders for personal gain. Or churches, as when priests, for pleasure, betray the trust of the young people under their guidance. Even a parent can be corrupt, if he fritters away on high living money intended to be left to his kid. But those types of corruption stem from personal weakness and personal vices. They're horrible – but corruption in government is much worse.

Only government can impose its will on you by law, and back it up with a gun. And with other sources of corruption you can – theoretically at least – go to the government for redress. But when the government is corrupt, it's hard to get the state's right hand to cut off its left. Not only that, but government – partly because its essence is force – concentrates corruption, and incubates it. If a company or church is corrupt, one can quit them. But citizens are stuck with their government – and they'll probably keep paying taxes to it regardless of their feelings toward it. A discussion about corruption is necessarily a discussion about government as an institution.

On the roots of public corruption:

As Tacitus said in the second century A.D., "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." It's absolutely predictable that as all these governments around the world – and I mean all of them – respond to the ongoing crisis with an ever-accelerating onslaught of new laws, there will be more and more corruption – and frustration with that corruption.

Tacitus was right. But he could just as accurately have said, "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state," because lots of laws engender lots of corruption. In other words, corruption isn't the problem. The state and its laws are the problem, to which corruption is an unsavory and unaesthetic – but necessary – solution. Laws create corruption, and corruption engenders laws.

Every time a legislature convenes, they pass more and more laws. That's all they do, all day long. So the body of laws and the accompanying volumes of administrative regulations and procedures to implement them is constantly growing – the whole world over. Legislatures are horrible and dangerous things that bring out the absolute worst in the people who inhabit them.

Laws and regulations are like barnacles on a ship. They keep growing and growing, weighing the ship down, slowing it down. If they aren't scraped off from time to time, they will threaten the ship's structural integrity.

On the efficacy of anti-corruption laws:

Those laws necessarily have the opposite effect of what's intended. By raising the stakes, they just raise the level of bribery required, resulting in even more severe corruption. Like everything governments do, it' not just the wrong thing to do, but the exact opposite of the right thing to do....

The only way to fight official corruption is to reduce the amount of legal control of officials, particularly their regulatory power over the economy. If there were no government regulators, inspectors, assessors, auditors, and so forth ad nauseam, there'd be no reason for businesses and consumers to bribe them to get the hell out of the way.

On how free markets are self regulated:

There are many market forces that regulate business activity – and more broadly, cultural forces that regulate interactions between people. In the marketplace, reputation is a very powerful force. So is competition. And so is liability – it's a powerful negative incentive. More broadly, culture is a very powerful regulatory force, which is to say, peer pressure, moral opprobrium, and social approbation restrain people from being naughty far more than fear of police does. And there are also private institutions that have powerful regulatory influences, such as churches, Rotary, Lions Clubs, and the like.

On the public’s wrong impression on the significance of government:

People somehow imagine that because government regulations are backed with the iron fist of the law, they work better, especially when the matter is considered vital. This is simply incorrect. It shows an ignorance of both history and of the state of the world today. Regulation usually becomes so corrupt that it ends up doing the opposite of its intended effect. A business that pays officials to look the other way can do even worse things than they would do if there were no officials, because the official seal of approval falsely tells the people that all is well. That's why the SEC should be called the "Swindler's Encouragement Commission" – because it lulls investors, especially the novices, into feeling they're protected.

On the roots of regulatory corruption:

Strict regulation leads naïve people to think, "Everything is under control." That has two important effects. One, it makes them irresponsible – a belief that they don't have to concern themselves. That general attitude then permeates the society. Two, regulation always creates distortions in the market. It's like a lid on a pressure cooker. Everything looks under control until the whole thing blows up.

That's what lies at the root of the concept of "black swan" type unexpected events. The black swan lands when the amount of corruption necessary to evade laws becomes as onerous as the laws themselves.

On why corruption is a good thing:

There's good news and bad news in this.

In itself, corruption is a bad thing – it shouldn't have to be necessary. As I touched on earlier, insofar as it's necessary, it's also a good thing. If we can't eliminate the laws that give rise to corruption, it's a good thing that it's possible to circumvent these laws. The worst of all situations is to have a mass of strict, stultifying, economically suicidal laws – and also have strict, effective enforcement of those laws. If a culture doesn't allow people to work around stupid laws, that culture's doom is further sealed with every stupid law passed – which is pretty much all of them.

Read the rest here