The Web As Foundation To The Knowledge Revolution

``The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate "given" resources—if "given" is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these "data." It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.”- Friedrich von Hayek

Dictators of Tunisia and Egypt have recently been toppled. Autocratic leaders of Yemen, Jordan and Algeria have likewise been under political pressure.

The web’s real time connectivity coursed through social media has allowed for a widespread diffusion of information...and knowledge. And this has lowered the cost of organization and mobilization that has apparently increased the demand for political spontaneous actions in the form of “people power” political movements.

In short, the economics of the web has been transforming the political order[1].

But when we read social media sceptics like such as Stratfor’s Marko Papic and Sean Noonan, who writes[2]... (bold highlights mine)

Social media alone, however, do not instigate revolutions. They are no more responsible for the recent unrest in Tunisia and Egypt than cassette-tape recordings of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini speeches were responsible for the 1979 revolution in Iran. Social media are tools that allow revolutionary groups to lower the costs of participation, organization, recruitment and training. But like any tool, social media have inherent weaknesses and strengths, and their effectiveness depends on how effectively leaders use them and how accessible they are to people who know how to use them...

The key for any protest movement is to inspire and motivate individuals to go from the comfort of their homes to the chaos of the streets and face off against the government. Social media allow organizers to involve like-minded people in a movement at a very low cost, but they do not necessarily make these people move.

...we understand that such objections have been founded on superficial premises-mostly from underrating the importance of knowledge and the continued the expectations that political developments flow from top-down dynamics.

Hayek’s Knowledge Revolution

Knowledge, according to the great Friedrich von Hayek[3], never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.

This simply means that everyone’s unique perspective represents as dispersed knowledge. When dispersed knowledge are combined, exchanged, mimicked and improved upon these interactions result to fresh or innovative ideas.

Prolific author and writer Matt Ridley calls such phenomenon as Ideas having Sex[4].

Professor Don Boudreaux expounds[5] on Matt Ridley’s intellectual intercourse.

The easier it is for ideas to get together, check each other out, and jump into bed with each other, the greater will be the number of newly created ideas — ideas that would not otherwise be conceived.

Copulating ideas has also another very important role: coordination of diversified information into the production of goods and services. And this has been the path to our (human) progress.

Matt Ridley, author of the very impressive book the Rational Optimist writes[6]

``the sophistication of the modern world lies not in individual intelligence or imagination. It is a collective enterprise. Nobody—literally nobody—knows how to make the pencil on my desk (as the economist Leonard Read once pointed out), let alone the computer on which I am writing. The knowledge of how to design, mine, fell, extract, synthesize, combine, manufacture and market these things is fragmented among thousands, sometimes millions of heads. Once human progress started, it was no longer limited by the size of human brains. Intelligence became collective and cumulative.

And that’s exactly what the web has been facilitating—an unlimited orgy of ideas—Hayek’s knowledge revolution is essentially being realized through social media.

From Vertical To Horizontal Flow

In the past the flow of information reflected on how economic production had been organized: the industrial age marked by mass production and thus a top to bottom dynamic. This holds true even with the political framework. From the top down economic structure emerged the grand experiments with centralized form of governance in the form of communism, socialism, autocracy, fascism and totalitarianism.

The traditional medium of information for the consuming public had been mostly through TV, radio and newspapers. Because of the limited networks, these institutions discriminated on the information it chose to broadcast, thus the exchange of ideas had largely been constrained.

Governments easily resorted to information control via political censorship in order to regulate “the moral and political life of the population[7]” or when political leaders felt the need to advance their interests.

Controlling the flow of information meant controlling the medium. Thus, political leaders throughout history have attempted to control the medium to preserve political power.

This time is proving to be different.

Today information flows real time and horizontally, enabled by the web.

People can simply self publish their thoughts, unedited, via the blogsphere (which incidentally accounts for an estimated 133 million[8] bloggers and growing) or through privately owned websites.

People can send messages via email or even by text messages via mobile phone.

People can also air blips of short messages or comments via the online community as Facebook and Twitter.

Or produce videos via podcasting and youtube that are being broadcasted via blip.tv or vimeo or video aggregators which has been posing a threat to TV.

And investors have been following the money trail.

As more and more people get wired or become netcitizens AD money spent on the internet has substantially been growing[9] see figure 6.

Figure 6: AD Spending Follow the Money Trail (Morgan Stanley)

Morgan Stanley’s Mary Meeker predicts of the explosion of mobile internet as the major source of growth for the web[10].

Even some TV programs today try to interact with the web by publishing tweets or facebook comments of audiences on air!

The democratization of information from the web or cyberspace has dramatically altered the complexion of knowledge distribution.

Gossip And The Transition To A Horizontally Based Political Order

In the hunter gatherer society, where our ancestors wandered in small tightly knit groups, gossips were used as a tool to evaluate relationships and as form of social discipline.

Aside from useful information, gossips, according to David Brooks of the Biorational[11], served to ``maintained social bonds and enforced social norms. In small groups like our ancestors' hunter-gatherer bands, in which everyone talks to everyone else regularly, liars and social cheats were found out quickly and were dealt with quickly. So lying and social cheating were relatively rare.”

The introduction of the web has basically brought back the traditional role of gossip.

For instance, Wikileaks has spilled the beans on many stealth government activities, and wikileaks has been instrumental in unleashing the popular “Jasmine” revolt in Tunisia[12].

Despite governments attempt to harass and control the founder of wikileaks, the success wikileaks has prompted for the broadening of competition.

As Professor Gary North rightly observes[13],

WikiLeaks has taken this to a new level. Now a disgruntled former WikiLeaks employee is branching out on his own. He has started a new organization, OpenLeaks. This is the kind of competition I love to see. A Reuters story describes what is about to happen. "All across Europe, from Brussels to the Balkans, a new generation of WikiLeaks-style websites is sprouting."...

As the number of these sites increases, it will become more difficult for governments to contain the leaks. The desire of leakers to become important overnight will grow.”

Of course governments can initiate countermoves such as instituting “firewalls” (as in the case of China) or kill-switch strategy[14] or the shutdown of ISP providers or disseminate counterpropaganda.

Cuba’s government for instance has designed a campaign to counter the web. Unfortunately this was again exposed, according to Wall Street Journal’s Mary O’Grady[15]

Last week a leaked video of a Cuban military seminar on how to combat technology hit the Internet. It demonstrates the dictatorship's preoccupation with the Web. The lecturer warns about the dangers of young people with an appealing discourse sharing information through technology and trying to organize.

As in the case of Egypt, the kill switch strategy has ultimately failed[16].

Circulating political propaganda or spreading disinformation can easily neutralized by “local based” knowledge or by speciality sites (e.g. snope.com).

One important development from the web is that it has altered the way governments have been behaving, as governments seemingly become more cautious and possibly less repressive in dealing with transgressors or with the political opposition, as in the case of China.

Borje Ljunggren of Yale Global notes of several incidences and sees[17] that

In case after case since 2004, the internet has dramatically changed the course of an event, forcing the party to maneuver between response and repression.

Mr. Ljunggren further notes that Chinese state control of information has also been under pressure,

He further writes, (bold emphasis mine)

Censorship is an organic part of the party-state and will no doubt remain a crucial weapon, but its usage is increasingly exposed as the Chinese internet society becomes aware of the extent to which entrenched party interests determine their access to information. As a consequence, an idea of a “right to know” is taking shape in China’s rapidly growing online civil society and this could, in Shirk’s analysis, become “the rallying cry of the next Chinese revolution.

While internet freedom clearly is not about to be declared, civil society and new technology will over time push limits beyond the axiomatic boundaries of the party-state.”

As one would notice the vertical-hierarchal structure of governments are constantly held under pressure by the democratization of knowledge.

And this should apply with political ideology too.

Political and economic ideology latched on a vertical top-bottom flow of power will be on a collision course with horizontal real time flow of democratized knowledge.

This would likely result to less applicability of ideologies based on centralization, which could substantially erode its support base and shift political capital to decentralized structure of political governance that would conform with the horizontal structure of information flows.

People will know more therefore control from the top will be less an appealing idea.

The final word from futurist Alvin Toffler[18], who predicted this Hayekian Knowledge Revolution which he molded through as his Third Wave concept.

``Computers can be expected to deepen the entire culture’s view of causality, heightening our understanding of the interrelatedness of things, and helping us to synthesize meaningful “wholes” out of the disconnected data whirling around us....The intelligent environment may eventually begin to change not merely the way we analyze problems and integrate information but even the chemistry of our brains.”

---

[1] See The Web Is Changing The Global Political Order, January 29, 2010

[2] Papic Marko and Noonan Sean Social Media as a Tool for Protest, stratfor.com February 3, 2010

[3] Hayek, Friedrich August von The Use of Knowledge In Society, Individualism and Economic Order, Mises.org, p.77

[4] See Matt Ridley: When Ideas Have Sex, August 11, 2011

[5] Boudreaux Donald J. Promiscuous, Productive Ideas, CATO Unbound, September 10, 2010

[6] Ridley Matt, Humans: Why They Triumphed, Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2010

[7] Newth, Mette Newth The long history of censorship Beacon for Freedom of Expression, 2001

[8] Bradley Phil, Great Blog statistics, Phil Bradley’s Weblog

[9] See The Deepening Of The Information Age: News Sources And Ad Spending, January 7, 2011

[10] Meeker, Mary Internet Trends 2010 by Morgan Stanley Research, slideshare.net 2010

[11] The Bio-Rational Institute Pleistocene brain, mobile phone, May 26, 2006

[12] International Business Times, Wikileaks helped spark Tunisia revolt : FPJ January 29, 2011

[13] North Gary When the Insiders Lose Control, February 3, 2011

[14] Cowie James, Can the Internet Tame Governments? – Part I, Yale Global, February 9, 2011

[15] O’Grady, Mary Anastacia Will Cuba Be the Next Egypt?, Wall Street Journal February 7, 2011

[16] See Egyptian Revolt: Web Censorship Fails, February 1, 2011

[17] Ljunggren Borje Can the Internet Tame Governments? – Part II, Yale Global February 11, 2011

[18] Toffler, Alvin The Third Wave p 175

Warren Buffett: Embracing Crony Capitalism

Warren Buffett used to be the person I wanted to emulate. Not anymore.

This is because Warren Buffett’s investment approach has radically changed. He has undergone dramatic transformation from a Graham-Dodd modeled value investor to a political entrepreneur-crony capitalist.

The Huffington Post writes, (bold highlights mine)

No matter what the government does, taxpayer bailouts of the financial sector will sometimes be necessary, according to the nation's second richest man.

As markets crashed in the fall of 2008, government officials feared that if certain financial institutions failed, the entire financial system -- or perhaps even the entire economy -- would come down with them. In the months after the government extended a $700 billion bailout to the financial sector, lawmakers have striven to ensure that no institution poses such a systemic risk that it would be too big, or too interconnected, to be allowed to fail.

But famed investor Warren Buffett, whose own firm profited handsomely from the bailout, said bailouts are an inevitable feature of finance, Bloomberg reports.

Buffett, who is personally worth at least $45 billion, told the government panel charged with investigating the causes of the financial crisis that its work would not prevent the phenomenon of "too big to fail."

Reading last night’s very timely article at Mises.org, Frank Chodorov wrote of how some capitalists have contributed to the advancement of socialism.

Mr. Chodorov wrote, (bold highlights mine)

The task of producing goods and services for exchange was accepted as a necessity, but the summum bonum was the acquisition from the king of grants, patents and subsidies that would yield them monopoly profits, that is, profits over and above what might be garnered in a competitive market. Their aim was to live like nobles who rendered no service for the rents they collected from their tenants.

It appears that such “rent seeking paradigm” seems to be Mr. Buffett’s newfound specialty.

Warren Buffett’s perceived “bailout-as-a-necessity” is due to the fact that he or his company profits from these. Yet, what is beneficial for him comes at the expense of ordinary people. Bailouts are basically redistribution of wealth from the average Americans to Mr. Buffett, his company and shareholders.

Nonetheless bailouts are not inevitable. Eventually a political economic system that persists in doing so will only degenerate. And this will likewise affect his company’s profits overtime.

Besides, bailouts or political concessions depend on patronage. Once Mr. Buffett’s political network has gone out of the loop then such privilege goes out of the window as well.

So instead of looking for economic opportunities to exploit on, Mr. Buffett and his executives will be focusing on lobbying.

This only goes to show how Mr. Buffett’s the time horizon has substantially narrowed. Maybe it’s because of age.

But Mr. Buffett has certainly been a disappointment, unlike his libertarian father, a staunch defender of the “old right”, Howard Buffett.

More Financial Globalization: Proposed Deutsche Boerse AG-NYSE Euronext Takeover

The trend towards further consolidation of global stock exchanges continues with the proposed takeover Deutsche Boerse AG's of NYSE Euronext.

Integrating national stock markets has been part of the ongoing financial globalization process that will only deepen the correlation of price actions among global bourses. In 2007, I wrote,

With the revolutionary advances in the field of communications and information technology-the advent of on-line electronic trading platforms makes it possible for real-time electronic transactions regardless of the geographical distance.

Grounded on this premise, the major exchanges appears to be in a rush to integrate financial services, to diversify and expand their market coverage, reduce transaction (bookkeeping, clearing and settlement) costs by achieving the economies of scale, to eliminate further inefficiencies by way of human intervention, provide for financial depth by attracting global investors (to augment the demand side), traders and listing companies (to increase supply side), to improve on liquidity by easily matching buyers and sellers, and finally, adapt to the ongoing changes in marketplace by being accessible to the growing significance of institutional investors [pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds and insurance companies] as compared to retail investors in the past.

And stock markets have been evolving—the introduction of dark pools has also been prodding for such mergers as competition deepens.

Nevertheless with the proposed merger, the Wall Street Journal editorial rues on the apparent the loss of America’s leadership, they write

The merger is nonetheless one more lesson in how easily capital, both financial and human, can relocate. It's no coincidence that the heavily regulated equity business has languished or moved out of the U.S., while lightly regulated derivatives markets have boomed in the United States and elsewhere.

In the early 1990s, American exchanges played host to half of the world's new public companies. Last year, according to Dealogic, U.S. exchanges hosted 171 initial public offerings worth a total of $45 billion. But this U.S. deal-making was dwarfed by the action overseas, where 1,295 companies went public with a total value of $237 billion. The iconic NYSE now lags behind two Asian exchanges in IPO volume. This is partly the result of more rapid growth in developing economies, but it used to be that foreign companies wanted to float their shares in the U.S. Now they're as happy in Hong Kong.

U.S. over-regulation is certainly to blame here, especially the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law and its multimillion-dollar compliance burden on public companies. The Securities and Exchange Commission's own exhaustive 2009 survey of U.S. and foreign firms showed that the burden of complying with Sarbox remains a major deterrent to going public in the United States. Yet the agency still hasn't made a serious effort to pare these burdens. (bold emphasis mine)

The lesson is clear: interventionism diminishes competitiveness

Coming Soon: Atlas Shrugged The Movie

(hat tip: Robert Wenzel)

Inflation Expectations: The Widening Chasm Between Households And Experts

Despite mainstream experts blabbering about deflation, we’ve been defiantly predicting for a long long long long time that inflation would be coming and would pose as the next real risk (everywhere).

That’s because it has been the instinctive/intuitive approach by central bankers to use their printing presses as antidote to perceived economic predicaments. (Despite years of experience people never learn and always find ways to perpetuate policies anchored upon acquiring “something from nothing”-which I would call “political greed”)

And reemergent “consumer price” inflation represents as the “unintended consequence” and “symptoms” from such persistent policies.

This report from the Wall Street Journal’s Blog, (bold emphasis original)

Consumers see more inflation ahead. That views puts them at odds with Federal Reserve officials and private sector economists.

According to Friday’s consumer sentiment survey released by Reuters/University of Michigan, inflation expectations have been rising since late summer. Back in September, U.S. consumers expected the inflation rate one year out to hit 2.2%. In early-February, the one-year expected inflation rate is up to 3.4%.

Contrast that rate with the tamer forecasts at the Fed and among private economists.

On Wednesday, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke told the House Budget Committee that “inflation is expected to persist below the levels that Federal Reserve policymakers have judged to be consistent over the longer term with our statutory mandate to foster maximum employment and price stability.”

In the US, it’s hardly true that mainstream private sector experts have been on the “inflation risk” camp, many, if not most, have sided with officials to claim inflation hasn’t been a threat mostly because of “output gap", “capacity utilization”, “unemployment” conditions and etc...an example of this outlook can be read here

Yet the “man on the street” sees things differently.

More from the same article, (bold highlights mine)

How can households be more hawkish about inflation than the Fed?

Much of the dichotomy reflects which prices are in focus. The Fed and economists tend to pay attention to core inflation, which ignores food and energy and which better reflects underlying economic conditions. Households pay more attention to the items most frequently bought, in particular gasoline and groceries.

See the difference?

The expert-official camp fundamentally relies on statistical data which isolates real world variables.

Meanwhile, households feel the pressure from relative price changes that affects their overall purchasing power based budgets.

The end result: A massive detachment between expert-official opinions and real events which shapes household’s expectation.

The use of statistical data can be manipulated to the extent that it will be (has been repeatedly) used to justify the imposition of ideologically based policies (mostly predicated on mathematical models).

Again to quote Mark Twain,

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics

Eventually statistical chicanery backfires, as the above developments shows.

Will Humans Achieve Immortality By 2045?

So says Ray Kurzweil, chief proponent of Singularity is Near –“an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today—the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity.”

From Time’s Lev Grossman

Here's what the exponential curves told him. We will successfully reverse-engineer the human brain by the mid-2020s. By the end of that decade, computers will be capable of human-level intelligence. Kurzweil puts the date of the Singularity — never say he's not conservative — at 2045.

Read the rest here

Ray Kurzweil’s betting on the exponential growth of human ingenuity which converts technology into our life preserver.

We Are All Africans: Exposing the Falsity of Nationalism

This 2007 article says that all human origin is from Africa.

From Reuters, (bold emphasis mine)

An analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins, British scientists said on Wednesday.

Most researchers agree that mankind spread out of Africa starting about 50,000 years ago, quickly establishing Stone Age cultures throughout Europe, Asia and Australia.

But a minority have argued, using skull data, that divergent populations evolved independently in different areas.

The genetic evidence has always strongly supported the single origin theory, and now results from a study of more than 6,000 skulls held around the world in academic collections supports this case.

I am asking forgiveness in advance to those Christians who might think that this may seem as heresy: But I just can’t help deduce, based on these findings, that our version of genesis or Adam and Eve could have their roots as Africans.

But this is beside the point.

Regardless if we all came from Africa or not, the scientific finding only reveals what has been obvious—that we are all human beings.

This means that the conceptualization of “anti-foreign bias” or “nationalism” practiced and preached by many have all been premised on falsehoods, whether applied to trade, migration, investment, culture or etc…

Instead, nationalism or a form of groupthink (me against them mentality) has actually accounted for as mainly a political scarecrow meant to manipulate the ignorant and to advance the vested interests of certain political classes mostly by imposing controls which ultimately inhibits people’s freedom to act and produce.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote,

Interventionism generates economic nationalism, and economic nationalism generates bellicosity. If men and commodities are prevented from crossing the borderlines, why should not the armies try to pave the way for them?

Nationalism has been a pivotal force that has led to many devastating wars like the World war I with estimated deaths at 15-65 million and World War II (40-70 million)

And given that we are all one, there simply is no justification (science, philosophical, economic or political) to raise barriers to advance social civility based on voluntary cooperation from free trade.

Ludwig von Mises and Bettina Bien Greaves explains,

The market is that state of affairs under which I am giving something to you in order to receive something from you. I don't know how many of you have some inkling, or idea, of the Latin language, but in a Latin pronouncement 2,000 years ago already, there was the best description of the market — do ut des — I give in order that you should give. I contribute something in order that you should contribute something else. Out of this there developed human society, the market, peaceful cooperation of individuals. Social cooperation means the division of labor.

State Aid and Political Centralization

The US appears to be headed for political centralization in spite of her Federal constitutional republic government framework.

And this is due to the growing dependence of US States on Federal Aid (“grants in Aid”) Programs.

Cato’s Chris Edwards enumerates why state aid programs negatively impacts the economy.

1. No Magical Source of Federal Funds

2. Aid Spurs Overspending

3. Aid Allocation Is Inefficient

4. Aid Reduces Innovation

5. Aid Is Intensely Bureaucratic

6. Aid Distracts Federal Politicians

7. Aid Breeds Irresponsibility

8. Common Problems Aren’t Necessarily Federal

Read Mr. Edwards explanation here.

The point is the broadening dependence of US states on federal government aid has been undermining the decentralized political power structure, and importantly, has been diminishing political and economic freedom.

And applied locally, even if the Philippines has yet to embrace federalism, any attempt to decentralize via Local Government Units would signify a sham if only to remain dependent on the largesse of the national government. (my latest article on MMDA should serve as an example)

Peak Oil Represents Government Failure

The beauty of the internet is that it has been leveling the playing field between the public and the governments in terms of information.

The web has placed much of government’s stealth activities in jeopardy.

A good example is the controversial Wikileaks which has recently revealed that Saudi Arabia could have been exaggerating the declaration of her oil reserves. Translation: Expect higher oil prices soon.

The Business Intelligence reports,

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, is unable to pump enough oil to keep prices from rising, the Guardian reported, citing confidential cables from the US embassy in Riyadh.

The cables from 2007 to 2009 made public by the website Wikileaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300 billion barrels, nearly 40%.

The report cites comments attributed to Saudi Aramco geologist and former exploration chief, Sadad al-Husseini, that Aramco couldn't reach the 12.5-million-barrel daily capacity needed to keep prices from rising.

According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said "Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12 million barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point." This crunch point is known as "peak oil".

Peak oil adherents may be quick to say “I told you so”.

However as we previously said,

While peak oil (via Hubbert Peak Theory) may be a valid engineering theory, it is a poor economic concept for the simple reason that engineering theories (like quant models) do not capture people’s behaviour.

The Wikileaks exposé only serve as a concrete example of how governments have steadfastly tried to manipulate every politically sensitive markets...and this includes the oil markets.

To consider, given the stranglehold control over oil supplies by different oil producing states, which accounts for more than 80% of the world’s proven reserves, if governments had the ascendancy to establish “equilibrium” then we won’t be bothered by prospective risks of shortages (via “Hubbert Peaks”) or suffer from elevated oil prices at all.

Graphs from the US EIA (includes BP Statistical Review and PRC Energy)

But obviously this hasn’t been the case.

Since governments are comprised by people—only that these elites have been politically mandated (which means they hold the barrel of the gun on us)—they suffer from the same frailties as anyone else.

Yet governments have been demonstrated:

-to lack access to the technology required to efficiently and productively utilize their oilfields,

-have had inadequate financing to invest to satisfy consumer demand,

-has revealed administrative incompetence in operating national firms or in the supervision of the 'choked’ industry, and

-most importantly, had been exposed for the paucity of knowledge to implement “equilibrium”.

It is worth emphasizing that with over 80% of proven oil reserves (supplies) controlled by global governments, this means there has hardly been a functioning free market in oil!

If Saudi officials are indeed guilty of withholding information then this reinforces the problems of the massive distortions in the oil markets which would likely implode on our faces-a negative externality as a result of government failure.

Otherwise, dynamic price signals in a free market would have reflected on the balance of demand and supply from which the marketplace would have adjusted accordingly.

What you have, instead, are vastly distorted oil markets that has been amassing intensive structural “supply-side” imbalances compounded by the manipulation of money supply by global central banks that has been contorting the “demand side”. A perfect storm in the making.

So what elevated oil prices suggest is not a validation of peak oil theory but one of the massive failure of government intervention or controls.

Paper Money System: Origin And Destiny

321gold’s Darryl Robert Schoon on the origin of paper currency (he quotes Ralph T. Foster’s book, Fiat Paper Money, The History and Evolution of Our Currency)

By 1661, China finally learned its lesson and the new Qing dynasty officially outlawed paper money. Regarding China’s 600 year experiment, Foster writes:

“Over the course of 600 years, five dynasties had implemented paper money and all five made frequent use of the printing press to solve problems. Economic catastrophe and political chaos inevitably followed. Time and again, officials looked to paper money for instant liquidity and the immediate transfer of wealth. But its ostensible virtues could not withstand its tragic legacy: those who held it as a store of value found that in time all they held were worthless pieces of paper. (page 29) [emphasis mine]

As the above excerpt shows, the paper money system has been an age old predicament for political leaders who always try to circumvent the fundamental laws of economics, but always ended up a failure.

Today, paper money has been repackaged and sold to the public as a product of modernity anchored upon central banking—operating on the platform of technology aided complex and sophisticated math or quant models.

And where lessons seem to have never been assimilated or learned, the same outcome should be expected as in the past. As Voltaire once said, “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value…zero.”

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

MMDA’s Anti Smoke Belching Campaign

On the way to obtain the documents needed for the release clearance of my wife in the hospital, I chanced upon a platoon of enforcers in black t-shirts, along a major thoroughfare (Buendia near corner Urdaneta Avenue, Makati) whom were palpably on lookout for transgressors.

I asked the cab driver, “we might get caught for not wearing seatbelts”.

He replied “No, they are only after smoke belchers”.

“So what happened to the seatbelt law?” I asked the driver anew.

This time the driver kept mum.

I realized that a colleague of ours had been harassed by the same political authorities almost in the same vicinity.

Of course there is nothing really new to expect here considering the predominant political philosophy “social democracy” espoused by mainstream Filipinos—where a huge majority had been inculcated to believe that government is an indispensable part of most of our lives.

But the incident above only goes to show the following:

Arbitrary laws dominate the Philippine setting. Implementation of laws have not been “fixed and announced beforehand” (F. A. Hayek The Road To Serfdom) but are applied unequally and whimsically according to the priorities of the political authority.

Arbitrary laws can be used against anyone for many reasons to which favors the political class.

I would further presuppose that such law isn’t binding between people and authorities because exemptions will be conferred to politically connected class and their networks.

Further I am reminded by economist Bruce Yandel’s analogy of the Bootleggers and the Baptist-where both parties are for restricting the actions of other people through regulations but for different reasons: Baptists-for moral reasons while the Bootleggers for anti-competitive purposes.

I would suspect here that the Baptists represents the 'green' environmentalist groups, who advocates for “nature” friendly energy, while the Bootleggers are probably those who benefit from the phasing out of old cars or as signalling to industries that haven’t been under the auspices of the incumbent political authorities. At the end of the day, what is restricted usually grows.

It’s been pointed out here that import restrictions of used vehicles have led to smuggling, where regulatory restrictions could have been due to big car companies in bed with political authorities.

Of course, there is always the need to be seen to “do something”, which can be no less than public image management, considering that the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is a national agency directly under the Office of the President.

Besides, it can also mean that the central government could flexing its political muscles relative to the local authority (Local Government Units) LGUs.

While MMDA says that they will attempt to meet their goals “subject to prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned”, political goals of national and local government can lead to conflicts. And the national political leadership would always want to be seen on top.

Patron client relations could also be at work here. Since MMDA is fundamentally an overlap or a redundant organization amidst the legal existence of LGUs, having boatloads of idle government employees, whom are most likely political appointees (election rewards), may put up a bad image for the national government, thus the need to be seen at work.

There are many other reasons to fill in, which you may all add up.

But there is one thing I am sure of, MMDA is just one of the many “public service” organizations which inhibits Filipinos liberty and ultimately represents a waste of taxpayer money.

Update:

I stand corrected: those operating within the Makati zone are from the Makati LGUs. Nevertheless, MMDA still conducts its own operations at EDSA as shown here. (thanks for the pointer Noynoy Oplas)

Moreover, political incentives even applied to the LGU levels, are almost similar (aimed at generating positive image for election purposes, the bootlegger-preacher incentive and posturing or projecting "public servants at work" for political appointees).

In addition, smoke belching, wang wang and seat belts signify as arbitrary laws that taints the Philippine legal environment.

How Militarization Diminishes Economic Competitiveness

Some industries in the US have become significantly less competitive, NOT because of globalization or China or the Chinese yuan or the immanent bubble policies but because of the enormous influence of her gargantuan militarized economy.

From Armscontrol.org

From Google Public data

A militarized economy has not only distorted pricing and resource distribution but also negatively affected the political economic structure of industries that depended on it.

A good example is the machine tool industries.

The following is an excerpt of the enlightening and excellent discourse by Thomas E. Woods Jr. on this. (published at the American Conservative) [bold highlights mine]

Measurements of “economic growth” can be misleading if they do not differentiate between productive growth and parasitic growth. Productive growth improves people’s standard of living and/or contributes to future production. Parasitic growth merely depletes manpower and existing stocks of goods without accomplishing either of these ends.

Military spending constitutes the classic example of parasitic growth. Melman believed that military spending, up to a point, could be not only legitimate but also economically valuable. But astronomical military budgets, surpassing the combined military spending of the rest of the world, and exceeding many times over the amount of destructive power needed to annihilate every enemy city, were clearly parasitic...

The American machine-tool industry can tell a sorry tale of its own. Once highly competitive and committed to cost-containment and innovation, the machine-tool industry suffered a sustained decline in the decades following World War II. During the wartime period, from 1939 to 1947, machine-tool prices increased by only 39 percent at a time when the average hourly earnings of American industrial workers rose by 95 percent. Since machine tools increase an economy’s productivity, making it possible to produce a greater quantity of output with a smaller input, the industry’s conscientious cost-cutting had a disproportionately positive effect on the American industrial system as a whole.

But between 1971 and 1978, machine-tool prices rose 85 percent while U.S. industrial workers’ average hourly earnings increased only 72 percent. The corresponding figures in Japan were 51 percent and 177 percent, respectively.

These problems can be accounted for in part by the American machine-tool industry’s relationship with the Defense Department. Once the Pentagon became the American machine-tool industry’s largest customer, the industry felt far less pressure to hold prices down than it had in the past. That decreased pressure undoubtedly contributed to the negligible investment by the machine-tool industry in modern production techniques of a kind used routinely in Europe. No longer under traditional market pressure to innovate and lower costs, the machine-tool industry saw a considerable drop in productivity.

In the short run, the American machine-tool industry’s woes affected U.S. productivity at large. Firms were now much more likely to maintain their existing stock of machines rather than to purchase additional equipment or upgrade what they already possessed. By 1968, nearly two-thirds of all metalworking machinery in American factories was at least ten years old. The aging stock of production equipment contributed to a decline in manufacturing productivity growth after 1965.

Why Americans couldn’t have switched to lower-cost imported machine tools as soon as prices began to rise involves the reluctance of machinery buyers to change their suppliers. Not only do they prefer to deal with established firms with good reputations, but they also want to avoid unnecessary and costly downtime, so they patronize suppliers who can perform repairs and supply spare parts on short notice. In the long run, American firms did indeed begin to shift into imported machine tools, and by 1967 the United States for the first time imported more machine tools than it exported.

The military-induced distortion of the American machine-tool industry, and the industry’s correspondingly decreased global competitiveness, is not confined to the perverse incentives created by the Pentagon’s cost-maximization approach to procurement. Another factor is at work as well: the more an industry caters to the Pentagon, the less it makes production decisions with the civilian economy in mind. Thus in the late 1950s the Air Force teamed up with the machine-tool industry to produce numerical-control machine-tool technology, a technique for the programmable automation of machine tools that yields fast, efficient, and accurate results. The resulting technology was so costly that private metalworking firms could not even consider using it. The machine-tool firms involved in this research thereby placed themselves in a situation in which their only real customer was the aerospace industry.

Some 20 years later, only 2 percent of all American machine tools belonged to the numerical-control line. It was Western European and Japanese firms, which operated without these incentives, that finally managed to produce numerical-control machine tools at affordable prices for smaller businesses.

The distortion of business decisions and strategy that contributed to the decreasing competitiveness of the machine-tool industry is at work in thousands of American firms in rough proportion to their reliance on Pentagon contracts.

Read the rest here.

There are other unintended consequences from the military economic-corporatist framework, such as corruption.

This seems very relevant today in Philippine politics, where an ongoing expose over a supposed payola has triggered a former top military officer to suicide.

According to Carlos Conde of the Asia Times Online [emphasis added]

To be sure, corruption in the military is nothing new. In fact, the slush fund had existed even before the time of Reyes, as Rabusa himself admitted. A questionable practice in the armed forces called "conversion" - funds or budgets allotted for a specific purpose being used on something else, thus making it vulnerable to manipulation and kickbacks - has for years practically been the norm.

The practice allows commanding officers to bypass the military's slow-moving bureaucracy and deal directly with the suppliers of urgently needed equipment and weaponry, according to a military official familiar with the practice. Military officials, in turn, often ask for the cash equivalent of the equipment and then allow the supplier to process the papers and deal with the bureaucracy. The supplier often pads the cost of the equipment and gets approval from the comptroller, who will only sign if a kickback is assured, according to the official.

At the end of the day, a nation’s lack of competitiveness has almost always been a result of the many forms or faces of government interventionism, and this includes the military aspects—whether it is the US, the Philippines or elsewhere.

Yet the public or the mainstream only goes for oversimplified and superficial explanations rather than examining the roots of the issues.

With public ignorance of the structural issues, hence the vicious cycle.

When Public Education Backfires: Seeds To Egypt’s Revolt

Education equals prosperity is an immensely misguided concept.

It is a belief founded on an observation where prosperous societies are populated by educated people. The oversimplistic causation or applied syllogism which led to this conclusion says that education “caused” prosperity. Hence, many social policies adapted by nation states focus on getting people “educated”.

We have pointed out in this space that this isn’t (necessarily) true. Throngs of unemployed in many places as the Philippines have been “educated” people.

Here is an eye-opening insight from Troy Camplin who argues that Egypt’s free “public” education has backfired and has virtually sowed the seeds of the today’s upheaval.

We quote Mr. Camplin, (all bold highlights mine)

There are plenty of reasons to want to overthrow the sitting Egyptian government. But the irony is that the government’s largesse is part of the problem. The government provided free educations for its people, even though there was not a sufficiently complex economic system in place to create jobs for all of those people. In 2001, Alison Wolf argued in Does Education Matter? that “Egypt is a country whose government made a commitment to give (university) graduates first call on jobs in the public sector. It very quickly found itself with a vast and underemployed army of civil servants, and a huge queue of students aiming at comparable sinecures for themselves” (p.40).

There can only be so many government jobs. What happens when government can no longer absorb the excess college graduates? In the end, the Egyptian government created the current situation by creating a population too educated for its economic system.

Critics will immediately accuse me of arguing that we ought to keep the masses poor and uneducated, to ensure they don’t rise up. What I am in fact arguing is that we cannot create wealth by skipping steps, by leaping a country into a population whose education does not match its economic realities.

One of the side effects of an overly-educated population (overly-educated meaning there are more people with educations than jobs for them at that level of education) is that one has a population composed of people who are both dissatisfied with their lot in life and who know exactly what is causing their dissatisfaction. Their world is bigger, and the limits of their situation cannot contain them. It eventually spills into the streets.

Keeping people ignorant is one way to control people.

Also indoctrination in the form of public education is another form of control, as John Stuart Mill once wrote

A general State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body

Nevertheless, governments, as F. A. Hayek and Mises pointed out, can’t know everything and can’t calculate the nitty-gritty requirements of society. Thus, governments frequently institute policies that are noble sounding that comes with short term benefits, but has been laden self destructive traps, e.g. policies may eventually be used against themselves.

I am reminded of the nice apropos quote from A. Whitney Griswold (1909-1963: Essays on Education, 1954) who wrote,

"Certain things we cannot accomplish… by any process of government. We cannot legislate intelligence. We cannot legislate morality. No, and we cannot legislate loyalty, for loyalty is a kind of morality."

Education isn’t intelligence nor is it a source of political loyalty. The Egyptian Revolt seems to demonstrate this.