Mexico’s Government Declares War on Cash

The war on cash transactions has been gaining traction among governments. Crisis stricken European countries as Italy, Spain and Greece have earlier initiated the curtailment in the use of cash. 

The Mexican government has joined this bandwagon by announcing a ban on “large” cash transactions supposedly to stem money laundering, most likely emanating from the drug war.

From the Washington Post 

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has signed into law a ban on large cash transactions as part of an effort to fight money laundering that experts estimate may amount to around $10 billion per year in Mexico.

The bill forbids buyers and sellers from giving or accepting cash payments of more than a half million pesos ($38,750) for real-estate purchases. It also forbids cash purchases of more than 200,000 pesos ($15,500) for automobiles or items like jewelry and lottery tickets.

It is kindda odd for governments to pin the blame on the public in the knowledge that for the top 10 lists of most corrupt government officials, many of them have been known to launder pelf acquired during their morally tainted regimes. 

In the financial world they are known as Politically Exposed Person (PEP), which according to Wikipedia.org, “describes a person who has been entrusted with a prominent public function, or an individual who is closely related to such a person” 

The Wikipedia.org also notes of the relationship between corruption and money laundering… (bold mine)

By virtue of their position and the influence that they may hold, a PEP generally presents a higher risk for potential involvement in bribery and corruption. Most financial institutions view such clients as potential compliance risks and perform enhanced monitoring of accounts that fall within this category….

PEP-specific compliance legislation underlines the link between corrupt politicians, money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, more than 100 countries have changed their laws related to financial services regulation, with the fight against political corruption playing a fundamental role. Despite attempts at regulation, certain political leaders like Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak have made news for having frozen assets located in US banks that did not follow these processes for these individuals.

So by virtue of the connection of corruption and laundering then Mexico cash ban should also implicate politicians. But this isn’t likely the real score.

In the understanding the politicians typically use noble sounding justifications to camouflage the genuine design to impose social controls, cash bans have mostly been about governments wanting to take control of the public’s savings in order to finance their profligacy.

Except for the quirk this 2012 in terms of government budget as % of GDP—perhaps due to initial reporting, but as of September Mexico’s debt will equal to 42.9% of GDP—generally speaking, Mexico’s fiscal position (mostly supported by oil revenues) has been in marked deterioration. (chart from tradingeconomics.com) 

With oil production falling from declining reserves, and where oil revenues account for 40% of Mexico's national budget…

…we now get a better picture or understanding of the seeming desperation exhibited by the Mexican government which impels them to corral public’s savings through currency restrictions.

Of course ban on cash would do little to control supposed “money laundering” which in reality represents an offshoot to corrupt arbitrary laws.

In the US, the war on drugs, for instance, has prompted drug trades to migrate to other marketable commodities as the Tide liquid detergents as means of payment. Instead of dealing with failure of the war on drugs, governments typically resort to attacking symptoms. This has been no less than political showmanship or the pretense of doing something. 

Economic and financial restrictions or blockade against Iran by the US has prompted Iran to use gold as money. So essentially, the US government has taken steps to underwrite the decline of the US dollar standard by incentivizing emerging markets to trade using other mediums as gold. 

As I previously wrote, 

As governments stifle people’s social and commercial activities through tyrannical laws, expect the use of more cash, local currencies or commodities (such as Tide) as alternative medium of exchanges, as the informal or shadow economies grow. 

Most importantly, real assets will become more valuable and may become an integral part of money, as sustained policies of inflationism, as Voltaire once said, will bring fiat money back to its intrinsic value—zero. 

The Mexican government’s war on cash will do little to help what truly has been the problem of political greed.

Peak Oil: Where Art Thou?

Unrecognized by many, technology has significantly been improving on the way we do things. This includes finding new and adding to the existing resources that are deemed useful to society.

The chart found below is an example.

True, while oil prices are currently hovering at $80, technology is fast catching up on how unconventional oil is being found.
According to the Economist, (bold highlights mine)

``BP, A big British oil company, announced a round of efficiency measures and cost cuts on Tuesday March 2nd aimed at increasing annual profits by $3 billion over the next few of years. But BP and the world's other big oil companies face similar problems when it comes to boosting profits. Few big new oil fields that are easy to reach and cheap to exploit have been discovered in recent years. This has driven firms to seek oil ever deeper below the sea. In 1947, Kerr-McGee built the world’s first offshore oil well that was completely out of sight of land, drilling 4.6 metres into the seabed off the coast of Louisiana. This year Shell's 22,000-tonne Perdido rig is set to begin operation. Standing nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower, it is chained to the seabed 2.4km metres below and is capable of extracting oil at a maximum depth of 2.9km."

I'd propose that the problem of high oil prices isn't due to the "perceived" scarcity of oil (or peak oil), but instead with over 90% of proven oil reserves held by governments, the problem is one of the access to these reserves as shown below.

Chart from the US EIA

In short, while government intervention adds to the inaccessibility factor in the supply side, government inflationism (too much printing money, subsidies, etc...) has been prompting for artificially increased demand, which compounds on the market distortions which results to high (and prospectively higher) oil prices.

To consider, technology has materially improved, in spite of the tremendous restrictions and contortions plaguing the oil marketplace.

Had free markets been allowed to function, we'd likely see the wonders of the price mechanism work by having more supplies sooner than later. In addition, markets are likely to discover feasible oil substitutes rather than government imposed options via subsidies.

As Professor Don Boudreaux explains, (bold highlights mine)

``Petroleum was no resource to our ancestors who had yet to grasp the fact that it can be refined and burned in ways that improve the quality of life. In fact, I suspect that whenever that gooey, noxious black stuff appeared in freshwater creeks in pre-Columbian Pennsylvania, natives of that region regarded it as a nuisance.

``So economically, the Earth's supply of nonrenewable energy resources was, back then, much smaller than it is today. Human creativity and effort turned a nuisance into a resource.

``Human creativity and effort also are at work finding not only substitutes for oil, but also new supplies of oil. Each success on this front increases the supply of oil. The reason is that oil deposits that remain unknown are economically nonexistent.

``The same is true of oil deposits that are known to exist but are currently too costly to tap. Oil in the Earth's crust that is out of reach with existing technology is no more of a resource today than is oil on Pluto. But if and when human creativity discovers cost-effective techniques for extracting that oil, it then -- and only then -- becomes a resource. In effect, more of the resource "oil" is created.

``Of course, as a matter of physics, there is indeed only a finite amount of oil in the Earth. But we have no idea how much. And our ignorance of this physical fact is economically relevant."

In short, access to resources is a function of how the market values them, which can only be determined by the price mechanism.