Volkswagen scandal: Unintended Consequence from Climate Change Politics

Prolific science author Matt Ridley explains why the Volkswagen scandal represents the unintended consequence from the politicization of Europe's auto industry due to climate change politics. [bold mine]

The Volkswagen testing scandal exposes rotten corruption at the core of regulation. Far from ushering in a brave new world of cleaner air, the technologies adopted by European car makers, driven by policy makers in Brussels, have been killing thousands of people a year through an obsession with lowering emissions of harmless carbon dioxide, at the expense of creating higher emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides. 

There is a lesson here that goes much wider than the car industry, the clean-air debate and even the regulation of business. The scandal is a symptom of the political world’s obsession with directing and commanding change, rather than encouraging it to evolve.

The great European switch to diesel engines was a top-down decision as a direct result of exaggerated fears about climate change. Convinced that the climate was about to warm rapidly, and extreme weather was about to get much worse, European governments signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and committed to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in the hope that this would help. In the event, the global temperature stopped rising for 18 years, while droughts, floods and storms also showed no increase.

But in 1998, urged on by EU transport commissioner Neil Kinnock, welcomed by environment secretary John Prescott and acted on by chancellor Gordon Brown, Britain happily signed up to an EU agreement with car makers that they would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over ten years. This suited German car makers, specialists in Rudolf Diesel’s engine design, because diesel engines have 15% lower CO2 emissions than petrol engines.

The EU agreement was “practically an order to switch to diesel”, says one clean-air campaigner. As subjects of Brussels, Britain obediently lowered tax on diesel cars, despite knowing that they produce four times as much nitrogen oxides as petrol, and 20 times as many particulates, both bad for human lungs.

The story is almost a textbook case of why top-down regulation can be so dangerous. It lets single-issue pressure groups set targets with no thought to collateral damage, and imposes regulation that inevitably gets captured by those with a vested interest. Regulation also often stifles innovation. We may never know just how much innovation in cleaner petrol engines was prevented.

Pls read the rest here

I can't resist a good quote when I see one...more from Mr. Ridley 

Dirigisme often does real harm. Telling people to eat less fat, based on a few dodgy studies in the 1950s that purported to find a link to heart disease, has probably worsened obesity by encouraging high-carbohydrate food. Discouraging electronic cigarettes, in the demonstrably wrong belief that they increased rather the decreased smoking, is slowing progress in the fight against smoking. Deliberately mandating that banks and government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) make or purchase sub-prime loans, as Bill Clinton and George Bush both did as a way of trying to raise home ownership among ethnic minorities, was a major contributor to the crash of 2008.

Equating order with control retains a powerful intuitive appeal, as the American social theorist Brink Lindsey has pointed out: ‘Despite the obvious successes of unplanned markets, despite the spectacular rise of the Internet’s decentralized order, and despite the well-publicized new science of “complexity” and its study of self-organizing systems, it is still widely assumed that the only alternative to central authority is chaos.’

That's because economic and political myths are popularized by media, political agents and their cronies.

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.)

Video: Bruce Yandle on The Bootleggers and Baptists

Professor Bruce Yandle explains his Bootleggers and Baptists theory 

From LearnLiberty.org (hat tip Prof Art Carden) 

We all know bootleggers and Baptists rarely see eye to eye. Ask one group and its members will probably tell you they despise the other group. Yet, when it comes to government regulation, both bootleggers and Baptists work together. Prof. Bruce Yandle explains that this happens because both groups actually desire the same outcome. The Baptists benefit, for example, from laws that make the sale of alcoholic beverages illegal on Sundays. Bootleggers benefit because now they can sell alcohol on Sundays. Groups who would never meet together but both desire the same outcome can often be found upon closer examination of many government regulations. Prof. Yandle demonstrates how environmental regulations fit into the bootlegger-Baptist theory.

Video: How Government Regulations Affect the Transportation (Bus) Services

The following video from ReasonTV.com demonstrates of the adverse impact of government regulations on the commuting public and the transport industry (hat tip Cafe Hayek)

This should not be seen as isolated to the US as regulatory interventions apply everywhere and to any industries.

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.

Quote of the Day: The Social Costs of Regulations

Rahm’s Rule is a useful accessory to a body of theory that seeks to explain the political economy of regulation. The rule tells us that major crises can provide cover for distributing benefits to targeted special interest groups. The greater the magnitude of a given crisis and the shorter the interval for forming legislation to deal with it, the larger the spread of pork that can be packed into the final legislation. Rahm’s Rule is a guarantee that efforts to resolve a deadline-based crisis will go on to the very last minute. We might keep this in mind for the next deadline-driven crisis.

In today’s economy, regulation is found at every meaningful margin. Politicians set and rearrange prices for important services and products for consumers nationwide. They open and close market entry and give advantage to favored groups by altering taxes, depreciation schedules, and other regulatory schemes. Doing all this in the full light of day and with full and open debate would be a challenge. But then there are crises to serve the politicians’ interests. Some arise spontaneously and some are created or magnified consciously by the politicians themselves. The sequestration element in the fiscal cliff story is an example. The shouts of crisis and the end of western civilization that preceded TARP are another. In all cases, Rahm’s Rule applies: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

This is from Professor Bruce Yandle at the FEE, discussing the social costs of regulations, as well as, the concentration of benefits from arbitrary regulations that are funneled into political power blocs, which are especially pronounced during the implementation of crisis management measures.

One can't help but suspect that much of the ongoing and past crises may have been engineered or concocted by politicians and their cronies as part of advancing their interests.

Vatican’s Scapegoating Capitalism

The easiest way of blaming social evils has been to bash capitalism. 

A good example has been the recent New Year homily by the Catholic Pope Benedict XVI who condemned “unregulated capitalism” for sowing “hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor” due to "the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism” (BBC)

In the eyes of the Pope, the world operates on unregulated or unfettered individualism. 

In reality, the world is being suffocated by mounting regulations that has essentially been shifting the balance of social power from the markets to politicians.

Proof?

In 2012, in the US 29,000 laws came into existence in the state laws with more coming.

From CNBC.com

In 2013 in Illinois, motorcyclists will be able to "proceed through a red light if the light fails to change." In Kentucky, releasing feral or wild hogs into the wild will be prohibited. And in Florida, swamp buggies will not legally be considered motor vehicles.

On Jan. 1, as crowds of people toast to a new year, more than 400 news laws across the country will take effect — and possibly improve life for some.

"The laws that state governments deal with are really the laws that impact people on a daily basis," said Jon Kuhl, a spokesmanfor the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks the bills. "Whether amending or updating laws or enacting brand new legislation, it was an active year."

In addition to the new laws of 2013, more than 29,000 laws were passed by state legislatures this year, Kuhl said. Many dealt with healthcare, education, gay rights, child safety and the Internet.

And that’s aside from Federal laws. (MSNBC estimates the above at 40,000 laws including federal)

Another fact is that US tax code has ballooned from 400 to 72,000 words.

As Voxxi notes (chart theirs)

We have more professional tax preparers in the United States than law enforcement officers (765,000) and professional firefighters (310,400) combined.

But we need them. Consider this: in  1913, we had 400 pages of federal tax code in law. Today, its more than 72,000 pages.

Fear of being audited has led to this boost in tax preparers.

In short lobbying, tax avoidance, corruption and other means to influence political institutions to acquire favorable treatment becomes the commonplace operations.

 

And the above is just a segment of the overall political picture.

In other words, the Pope got his perverted idea of social malfeasance backward. Either the Pope has been misinformed or has not been forthright.

The Pope only needs to see how government debt levels in developed countries has been skyrocketing and how central banks have been bailing out the the privileged bankers. This has hardly been a function of individual-market based greed but of greed by those in power and their cohorts.

What the Pope and the Vatican seem to really rebuke hasn't been unregulated capitalism but state capitalism, corporatism or cronyism.

Yet in truth, individuals are not innately evil. It is mainly political power that debauches morality.

As the great John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, popularly known as Lord Acton [Online Library of Liberty] pointed out

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

I am inclined to think that institutions like the Catholic church have used capitalism as convenient scapegoats when they are underfire, i.e. to deflect on the raging controversies, such as charges of institutional corruption and sexual abuse  which like the Australian Catholic Church admits and apologized.

Is it not that the Bible warned that “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”? (John 8:7)

Does this not apply to the Vatican too?

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.

Video: Should Governments Regulate and Intervene to Correct "Market Failures?"

In the following video, Professor Steve Horwitz at the Foundation for Economic Education explains the dynamics of regulations and interventions in the marketplace

"What regulation and intervention do is prevent markets from discovering new ways of solving existing problems and new ways of solving new problems. When regulation erects barriers to entry or other kinds of limits on market behavior, it cuts short this discovery process, and that leads to inefficiency and waste of resources." 

Quote of the Day: Rules versus Discretion

We talk about "regulation," but the real issue is rules vs. discretion. Regulating by simple clear rules is much better than regulation by discretion, or by rules so complex they amount to discretion. When a zoning inspector can come in after the fact and always find something wrong, it's in invitation to corruption. We are increasingly a country in which "regulation" means that regulators can tell people what to do on a whim, not one in which clear objective rules are imposed.

That’s from University of Chicago Professor John H. Cochrane. It’s really rule of law versus arbitrary edicts, legislation or regulations. Again corruption is an offshoot to the latter.

Quote of the Day: Unintended Consequences of Regulations

Unregulated, a business’s reputation is its most valuable asset. A regulated business does not have the same problem, so long as it obeys the regulations. Regulations replace the overriding need for a business to protect its reputation, and it is no longer solely concerned for its customers: the rule book has precedence. And the more regulation replaces reputation, the less important customers become. Nowhere is this more obvious than in financial services…

The regulators assume the public are innocents in need of protection. They have set themselves up to be gamed by all manner of businesses intent on using and adapting the rules for their own benefits at the expense of their customers. These businesses lobby to change the rules over time to their own advantage and hide behind regulatory respectability, as clients of both MF Global and Bernie Madoff have found to their cost.

That’s from Alasdair Macleod at the GoldMoney.com

Actually this has represented more of the anatomy of crony capitalism and too big too fail corporations. Interventions upon interventions, through regulations, ultimately leads to politically captured industries.

Putting Into Perspective Brazil’s Ban on Outdoor Billboards

Since 2006, São Paulo, Brazil has eliminated billboard ads

Image from Smartplanet.com

From Newdream.org

Imagine a city of 11 million inhabitants stripped of all its advertising. It’s nearly impossible when the clutter and color of our current urban landscapes seem inextricably entwined with the golden arches of McDonald’s or the deep reds of Coca-Cola.

Yet for the residents of São Paulo, Brazil, this doesn’t require imagination: city dwellers simply have to walk down the street and look around to see a city devoid of advertisements.

In September 2006, São Paulo’s populist mayor, Gilberto Kassab, passed the so-called “Clean City Law," outlawing the use of all outdoor advertisements, including on billboards, transit, and in front of stores.

Before being enacted, the law triggered grave alarm among city businesses and other economic constituents. Critics worried that the advertising ban would entail a revenue loss of $133 million and a net job loss of 20,000. Fears that the city would look worse without the mask of the media alarmed residents. Despite the concerns, the law passed and the 15,000 billboards cluttering the world’s seventh largest city were taken down.

Five years later, São Paulo continues to exist without advertisements. But instead of causing economic ruin and deteriorating aesthetics, 70 percent of city residents find the ban beneficial, according to a 2011 survey. Unexpectedly, the removal of logos and slogans exposed previously overlooked architecture, revealing a rich urban beauty that had been long hidden.

Articles like this like to paint the world as operating in a vacuum. The idea is once a law has been imposed, what you see is what you get.

In reality, there is much beyond what has been stated above. Part of the consequence of the Clean City Law has been to bring Brazil’s advertisement industry underground.

According to the Financial Times

Advertising creatives and marketing directors were forced quickly to find new ways to spend money that had been earmarked for outdoor advertising, especially since the law came into effect almost immediately. “Usually in Brazil it takes a little time for laws to get set up,” says Marcello Queiroz, an editor at Propaganda and Marketing newspaper in São Paulo. “It was really dramatic how quick things changed. Big companies had to change their focus and strategies.”

Marketing directors had to find a place to spend the money they previously put into billboards. The result, they say, was a creative flowering of new and alternative methods – including indoor innovations such as elevator and bathroom ads – but primarily in digital media.

“The internet was the really big winner,” says Mr Oliveira. In 2007, there was already a move towards the internet, digital media and social networking marketing worldwide, but the Cidade Limpa law gave Brazilians an extra push, he says.

So advertisements have shifted from the outdoor to the indoor and mostly to the web.

Second, Brazilian companies realized that billboard ads were hardly as effective or as feasible as they were, such that even those with advertisement licenses diverted their money elsewhere.

Again from the same FT article,

Anna Freitag, marketing manager of Hewlett-Packard Brazil, says a realisation came that outdoor advertising is less effective than these newer strategies. “A billboard is media on the road. In rational purchases it means less effectiveness . . . as people are involved in so many things that it makes it difficult to execute the call to action,” she says.

“HP decided to go deeper and understand consumer behaviour – the path to purchase, and place media in this direction . . . The internet and social media are the big trends associated with point of sale presence.”…

The law is now so popular that some companies that were able through legal action to maintain some outdoor presence chose not to, so as not to be seen as flying in the face of Cidade Limpa.

And considering that Brazilians were hooked into the web, the local advertisement industry followed the money…

Again from the same FT article

It also helped that Brazilians were extremely active in social media. The country has one of the highest percentages of active Twitter users in the world and Brazilians are avid social networkers.

Lalai Luna, co-founder of Remix, a new agency specialising in digital and social media strategies, often focusing on music culture, says this opened up opportunities and cash flow for young creatives with experimental models to develop their craft.

“Companies had to find their own ways to promote products and brands on the streets,” she says. “São Paulo started having a lot more guerilla marketing [unconventional strategies, such as public stunts and viral campaigns] and it gave a lot of power to online and social media campaigns as a new way to interact with people.”

The point is that people incentives, or in this case the advertising industry's incentives, adjusts or responds to regulations.

Since consumer’s preferences in Brazil have already been shifting (even prior to the law), the outdoor ban only expedited the transitional process, thus giving the impression of the positive externality from the said regulation.

Another very important point to stress has been the radical impact of digital media to the advertisement industry.

Nevertheless Brazil’s politics have their idiosyncrasies too.

Politicians got rid of outdoor ads, but decriminalized graffiti (which for me is a good thing).

From Untappedcities.com (image theirs too)

In March 2009, the Brazilian government passed law 706/07 which decriminalizes street art. In an amendment to a federal law that punishes the defacing of urban buildings or monuments, street art was made legal if done with the consent of the owners. As progressive of a policy as this may sound, the legislation is actually a reflection of the evolving landscape in Brazilian street art, an emerging and divergent movement in the global street art landscape. In Brazil, there is a distinction made between tagging, known as pichação, and grafite, a street art style distinctive to Brazil.

Perhaps the defining line between “street art” and “advertisement” may converge or may become a gray area.

Will Derivatives Cause the Next Financial Crisis?

So predicts investing guru Mark Mobius

According to this Bloomberg report,

Mark Mobius, executive chairman of Templeton Asset Management’s emerging markets group, said another financial crisis is inevitable because the causes of the previous one haven’t been resolved.

“There is definitely going to be another financial crisis around the corner because we haven’t solved any of the things that caused the previous crisis,” Mobius said at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan in Tokyo today in response to a question about price swings. “Are the derivatives regulated? No. Are you still getting growth in derivatives? Yes.”

The total value of derivatives in the world exceeds total global gross domestic product by a factor of 10, said Mobius, who oversees more than $50 billion. With that volume of bets in different directions, volatility and equity market crises will occur, he said.

The global financial crisis three years ago was caused in part by the proliferation of derivative products tied to U.S. home loans that ceased performing, triggering hundreds of billions of dollars in writedowns and leading to the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008. The MSCI AC World Index of developed and emerging market stocks tumbled 46 percent between Lehman’s downfall and the market bottom on March 9, 2009.

A financial crisis may be around the corner, but I highly doubt if derivatives will be the principal cause of it.

Derivatives were symptoms of the 2008 crisis rather than the cause. A bubble in the US housing prices had been pricked by rising interest rates which eventually got vented on the marketplace, part of which had been seen on derivatives.

Prescribing regulations, which for some function as an elixir, seems oversimplistic and naïve.

Regulators and the markets have played a perpetual cat and mouse game. Regulators usually apply regulations premised on the past events and markets usually find ways to circumvent them. Eventually fueled by monetary inflation, such loopholes become conduits for the next bubble. So regulations would look like the whack-a-mole game. Regulators hit the moles only as they appear.

And as pointed in the post below, regulations and complex relationships between politically privileged groups and regulators functioned as main causes to the last US mortgage crisis. History may rhyme but not necessarily repeat. Players and markets involved may be different, but principle will be the same. Bubble cycles from inflationism.

Besides, regulators are people too and so with market participants. While both may differ in their respective operating incentives, shared relationships and interactions will cause difficulties in the administration or implementation of regulations. Not even a total ban on derivatives will erase or reduce the risks of another financial crisis caused by inflationism. That would be barking on the wrong tree.

Does Government Have The Right Incentive?

Professor David Henderson writes,

``what so few advocates of government intervention even try to show us, is how a government regulator will have the right incentive to do the right thing. Will the government regulator be fired if he screws up? Not typically. Will he get a huge bonus if he does something right? Not typically. And how, with a centralized information system, will he get the information needed to make a good decision...”

Exactly.

This is in contrast to the conventional or popular expectation where political entities function as supposed saviours of mankind. Or that once people get ushered into public office, they are elevated or transformed into entities who assume omniscience and superhuman virtues. Or as Professor Henderson points out, government is expected to play the role of Deux ex Machina.

But as we keep pointing out regulators, bureaucrats, or politicos are merely human beings. They are all influenced by the knowledge problem, stakeholder’s dilemma, time consistency, cognitive bias, perceptional variance, networks, personal values and others, all of which adds up to what shapes their priorities.

With markets people are driven by mainly profit and loss incentives. How about politics? Isn’t the incentives all about power over the others? So how does power over the others or political become a better alternative in solving social and distributional problems relative to the market?

Mainstream’s Three “Wise” Monkey Solution To Social Problems

Say what you want
Say what you will
'Cos I find you think what makes it easier
And lies spread on lies
We don't care
Belief is our relief
We don't care

-Roland Orzabal, Tears For Fears, Ideas As Opiates

For the mainstream, our social problems can be simplified into three “wise monkey” solutions:

First, speak no evil-throw money at every problem.

Everyone desires a free lunch. Almost everybody believes that they deserve a special place in this world. Since society’s interests are divergent, such sense of entitlement should come at the expense of someone else. It’s usually dignified and justified with the word “right”. One man’s effort is another man’s privilege.

For them, scarcity of resources can only solved by forcible redistribution. It doesn’t really matter if there are limitations to the scale of taxation. It also doesn’t matter if redistribution reduces the incentives to produce and trade. It doesn’t matter if “picking winners” takes away resources meant for productive activities which have been meant to enhance livelihood. The only thing significant is to be at the receiving end. And it’s hardly ever been asked “when is enough, enough”?

Heck, it would even be politically incorrect to argue for prudence. ‘Moral’ justifications demand for immediate gratification. It’s almost always about NOW. Forget the future.

That’s why the intellectual classes long came up with varied theories in support of these political demands.

Importantly that’s why the political classes are enamoured with these concepts. Redistribution enhances only their power, esteem and control over the others. And that’s why “inflation” has long been a part of human nature, since the introduction of government.

For as long as the system is tolerant of such nebulous tradeoff, trouble can be kept at bay, ergo speak no evil.

The other way to see it is that while everyone wants to rule the world, in reality this isn’t feasible. It’s a mass delusion. The universal law of scarcity always prevails. By force of nature, artificially induced imbalances are resolved eventually.

Second, see no evil-elect or put in place a virtuous leader.

The popular redress to most social problems has been premised mostly on hope, cosmetically embellished by “specific” ennobling goals.

In times of frustrations, the next alternative has been to look for a saviour.

Yet hope is mostly anchored on symbolism. And these are what elections are mostly all about. Even if one’s vote doesn’t truly count, everybody believes they do. Elections are reduced to the polemic of self-import.

Hardly has the directions of policies been the context of any meaningful discussion. People’s arguments will always be simplified to what seems “moral” in the popular sense. Yet, a vote on a person to office is a carte blanche vote on the ensuing policies. But it’s hardly about stakes involved and the prospective costs, but mostly about emotions and the feeling of being in the winning camp.

And since the world has been condensed into strictly a “moral” sphere, political leaders are most frequently deemed to have been transformed into demigods.

Once in power, people mistakenly believe that these entities have transcended the laws of scarcity. People have assumed that they possess the superlative knowledge that is needed to effect the exigent balance on a complex and continuously evolving society. These leaders are presumed to know of our needs, our values, our priorities and our preferences, which lay as basis of our actions in response to ever changing conditions.

Not of only of knowledge, but people also expect leaders and officials to dispense justice and equity according to our sense of definition. Many see these leaders as reflecting on their values. And that’s why many fall for the dichotomous trappings of the well meaning “motivations”. Yet, motivations barely distinguish the role of “means” and “ends”.

Essentially genuflecting on hope to see one’s moral desires as represented by politics can be construed as refusing to see evil for what it is.

And it’s only when the rubber meets the road, from which people come to realize that their expectations have misaligned with reality-and usually through deepening frustrations or in the aftermath of some horrifying outcome.

Hardly has it been comprehended that politics and bureaucratic activities are merely HUMAN activities.

That leaders and officials are subject to the very same foibles as anyone else. That these people see things and act according to the incentives brought about by their interpretation of events, their existing limited and ‘biased’ knowledge and are swayed by influences brought about by cognitive biases, networks, familiarity, assessment of prevailing conditions, information relayed by the underlings, varying degree of stakes of involved and et. al.

Importantly like everyone else, their actions skewed based on personal values. So when a political or bureaucratic leader forces upon their sense of moral vision to a constituency and which has not well received, the result in some cases has been political upheavals.

Yet in spite of the repeated errors, people never learn from George Santayana’s admonition that those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.

The third intuitive recourse to any social problems is to hear no evil by enacting new rules/laws.

Like any “throw the money” and “virtuous leader” syndromes, rules are little seen for its costs but nevertheless oftenly envisaged as preferred nostrums to existing problems as identified from the biased viewpoint of the observer/s.

Causal factors are hardly considered in the appraisal of the existing problems. What seems more important is to automatically blame market forces and unduly impose proscriptions. Never mind if the past ills have been caused by the same underlying dynamic-previous interventionism.

The act of simply “doing something” is meant to be perceptibly seen by the voting public for political purposes (extension of career by vote or by appointment). Thus the “hear no evil” therapy, which is merely adding rules for extant fallibilities, are simply props for more of the same malaise.

Many rules, regulations, edicts or laws are imposed upon the “populist demand of the moment”, without the realization that rules, which tend to realign people’s behaviour, can cause huge unintended consequences and likewise entails costs of enforcement. Hence when new rules create distortions in the political economic order, the instinctive response is to have more of rules or regulations.

Importantly, popular clamor for new rules/laws hardly differentiates “rule of laws” against “rule of men”.

Rule of Law are in effect, the guiding principles or the laws that had been a legacy from our forefathers, as the great Friedrich August von Hayek wrote, ``Political wisdom, dearly bought by the bitter experience of generations, is often lost through the gradual change in the meaning of the words which express its maxims[1]”. (underscore mine)

This means because these laws have been constant, are anticipated by all and easily observed or practiced, they become part of our heritage. Again we quote the Mr. Hayek, ``Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand.[2]”

In stateless Somalia, customary laws serve as default laws after her government had been eviscerated,

Benjamin Powell writes[3], ``Somali law is based on custom interpreted and enforced by decentralized clan networks. The Somali customary law, Xeer, has existed since pre-colonial times and continued to operate under colonial rule. The Somali nation-state tried to replace the Xeer with government legislation and enforcement. However, in rural areas and border regions where the Somali government lacked firm control, people continued to apply the common law. When the Somali state collapsed, much of the population returned to their traditional legal system... But Somalia does demonstrate that a reasonable level of law and order can be provided by nonstate customary legal systems and that such systems are capable of providing some basis for economic development. This is particularly true when the alternative is not a limited government but instead a particularly brutal and repressive government such as Somalia had and is likely to have again if a government is reestablished.” [bold highlights mine]

That’s simply proof that “rule of laws” exists even outside of the realm of governments, which also goes to show that society can exist stateless. None of this is meant to say that we should be stateless, but the point is rule of law is what organizes society.

Importantly, “rules of law” have been passed through the ages as a means to protect the citizens from the abuses of the authority, again Mr. Hayek[4],

``The main point is that, in the use of its coercive powers, the discretion of the authorities should be so strictly bound by laws laid down beforehand that the individual can foresee with fair certainty how these powers will be used in particular instances; and that the laws themselves are truly general and create no privileges for class or person because they are made in view of their long-run effects and therefore in necessary ignorance of who will be the particular individuals who will be benefited or harmed by them. That the law should be an instrument to be used by the individuals for their ends and not an instrument used upon the people by the legislators is the ultimate meaning of the Rule of Law.” (emphasis added)

In short, the fundamental characteristics of respected and effective laws are those that to limited, steady or constant, designed for the benefit of everyone and importantly a law that is clearly enforceable.

Of course this doesn’t overrule the occasional use of arbitrary laws, but nevertheless arbitrary rules should compliment and NOT displace the essence of the “rule of law”.

Mr. Hayek quotes David Hume[5], ``No government, at that time, appeared in the world, nor is perhaps found in the records of any history, which subsisted without a mixture of some arbitrary authority, committed to some magistrate; and it might reasonably, beforehand, appear doubtful whether human society could ever arrive at that state of perfection, as to support itself with no other control, than the general and rigid maxims of law and equity.”

In essence, in contrast to mainstream thinking, the rule of law and not simply arbitrary regulations, serves as the central element to well functioning societies.

Former President Ronald Reagan nicely captures part of our “Three Wise Monkey” solution as seen by the mainstream, “The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”, from which I would add, “if subsidies are not enough, elect one who makes sure it would”.

---

[1] Hayek, Friedrich August von, Decline of the Rule of Law, Part 1, The Freeman April 20, 1953

[2] Hayek, Friedrich August von, Decline of the Rule of Law, Part 1, The Freeman April 20, 1953

[3] Powell, Benjamin; Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? The Freeman

[4] Hayek, Friedrich August von, The Road To Serfdom

[5] Hume, David; The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution, we earlier quoted this see Graphic: Origin of The Rule of Law