De verkeerde recepten (The Flemish Beerdrinker)

Ik heb zo mijn twijfels bij al de maatregelen die men aan het nemen is om bedrijven uit de recessie te trekken. Het idee lijkt te zijn dat als de overheid ervoor kan zorgen dat kredieten blijven vloeien of dat als men desnoods zelf als overheid meer kredieten en subsidies ter beschikking stelt aan het bedrijfsleven, alles wel in orde zal komen.

Ik vrees dat die benadering te eenzijdig focust op de aanbodkant van de kredietmarkt. En verrassend genoeg is zoals deze studie aantoont met de aanbodkant, en dat ondanks de financiële crisis, niets mis mee. Kredieten blijven vloeien, banken blijven lenen aan mekaar, en hoe dan ook doen bedrijven voor het grootste deel van hun financiering (80%) géén beroep op het bankensysteem.

Nu handelt deze studie over de V.S. en ik heb een vermoeden dat de situatie in Europa enigszins anders is, maar dat doet er in feite niet toe. Zelfs indien de markt voor kredieten op zijn gat zou liggen, dan nog is het een illusie te geloven dat men een recessie kan vermijden door de kredietverlening op één of andere manier opnieuw vlot te trekken. Men moet immers afrekenen met een dalende vraag. Als gevolg van de paniek, en door de recessie, stellen bedrijven sowieso investeringen uit, of het geld nu beschikbaar is of niet.

Het doet een beetje denken aan de Grote Depressie van de jaren dertig van vorige eeuw. Ook toen probeerde men met Keynesiaanse recepten de economie vlot te trekken. Maar zoals Robert Higgs heeft aangetoond lukte dat maar ten dele en bleef de werkloosheid tot aan de Tweede Wereldoorlog op een koppige manier hoog. Volgens Higgs moet de oorzaak daarvan gezocht worden in wat hij noemt "regime uncertainty". Het bedrijfsklimaat onder Roosevelt nodigde niet uit tot investeringen. Er werd te veel geëxperimenteerd, er was rechtsonzekerheid en bedrijven werden allerlei nieuwe lasten en verplichtingen opgelegd. In zulke situatie mag men nog zoveel geld in de economie pompen als men wil, veel zal het niet uithalen. De New Deal, kortom, was in de praktijk eerder een hinderpaal voor het herstel van de Amerikaane economie.

Ook nu probeert men dezelfde combinatie. Verlaging van rentevoeten, waarborgen van bankkredieten, verhogen subsidies enzovoorts aan de ene kant gecombineerd met allerlei vormen van herregulering aan de andere kant. De Franse president Sarkozy wil nu zelfs niet-financiële ondernemingen opnieuw nationaliseren. Deze aanslag op de eigendomsrechten van private ondernemingen zal ongetwijfeld leiden tot "regime uncertainty" en een verergering van de crisis. Iemand moet die man stoppen en ontmaskeren als de gevaarlijke staatssocialist die hij in werkelijkheid is (net zoals Noam Chomsky in werkelijkheid geen libertaire anarchist is, maar een staatssocialist, genre Sarkozy).

En verder moet in de eerste plaats werk worden gemaakt van een beter investeringsklimaat: verlaag de belastingen, verminder de administratieve lasten, flexibiliseer de arbeidsmarkt, dereguleer de niet-financiële markten (met name in de kleinhandel is er nog veel werk voor de boeg). Klinkt als marktfundamentalisme? Damn right it does! We hebben er meer van nodig in de plaats van de Keynesiaanse recepten die Alan Greenspan jarenlang heeft toegepast en die geleid hebben tot de crisis waarin we nu zitten. We kunnen toch alleen maar meewarig glimlachen om naïeve veronderstellingen als deze niet?

Mocht de Amerikaanse huizenmarkt alsnog instorten, en de Amerikaanse en wereldeconomie in zijn val dreigen mee te sleuren, dan kan Greenspans opvolger het recept (renteverlaging) van zijn voorganger naar believen toepassen. In de hoop dat de rentetrap opnieuw de glijbaan blijkt te zijn die de economie aan een zachte landing helpt.

Ijdele hoop.

Read more...

A big defeat for freedom and democracy (cleppe.be)

Early this morning the 27 government leaders of the EU reached a compromise on how a new European Treaty should look like. The intention was to revive the "dead" European Constitution by keeping all of its essential changes in a new compromise. This despite the French and Dutch "No" - votes in 2005.

What does this compromise, that will dramatically centralise decision making and threaten freedom and democracy all over the continent, if it would be implemented, entail?

- Some symbolic, non-essential things will be scrapped, as the name "Constitution", the simplification of the legal content, the preamble with all the fuzz whether God is or is not at the origin of European civilisation and also the reference to a European flag and anthem.

- The number of domains where member-states will loose their right to veto legislation remains quasi intact as compared to the Constitution: energy, tourism, space policy and transport are only some of the few domains where the EU will achieve more power, because member-states will loose their veto powers. A centralised migration policy will become possible. Also an EU attorney-general is now feasible, although the UK keeps it veto on justice matters. Veto’s luckily remain intact over foreign policy, defence and the EU budget.

- From 2009 on, there will be a permanent President of the EU and a Minister for Foreign Affairs (although some bureaucratic name will be given to the latter).

- The primacy of EU law has been confirmed.

- The Qualified Majority Voting system (used where member-states don’t have vetoes) will change from 2017 on, as it will then become more easy to make decisions: a majority of 55 per cent of member-states will suffice if this majority represents 65 per cent of the EU’s population.

- The Charter of Fundamental Rights (containing amongst others the “human right” on paid vacation) will become binding for member-states (except for the UK)

- France made sure that a key clause stating that it was an objective of the union to ensure an internal market "where competition is free and undistorted" will be scrapped. Although still legally unclear, some predictions say this could mean the end of the single market, as judges would now have to allow governments to subsidise, regulate and prevent competition.

- One positive change is that national parliaments will get a say in the law making process through an alarm procedure, as the non-elected European Commission will have to drop a proposal if a majority of national parliaments, 55% of member-states and a majority in the European Parliament decides so.

- The EU will obtain a single legal personality, which will make it possible to agree on international treaties, which shapes the EU more and more into a "state".

Important is to know that this summit was not an intergovernmental conference (IGC), but only an ordinary European Council of Heads of State and Government. This has relevance because states are only allowed to agree treaties when this happens in an IGC.

As the tonight agreement makes clear:

"The European Council invites the incoming Presidency to draw up a draft Treaty text in line with the terms of the mandate and to submit this to the IGC as soon as it opens."

Further in the conclusions we find:

“The present mandate will provide the exclusive basis and framework for the work of the IGC that will be convened according to paragraph 10 of the European Council conclusions."

Information thanks to the EU Referendum Blog, which claims that this constitutes a coup d'état. What is certain, is that this statement has no legal value whatsoever. The IGC is separate from the European Council (for example European Commission President José Manuel Barroso will not be present there) and because of that the IGC has not any restriction to totally abort the compromise that has been achieved.

Politically one could argue that it is likely that the IGC will just voluntarly do what the European Council asks, but that is not so sure, as it will be Gordon Brown that will determine the UK position then, and not Tony Blair any more. Brown is definitely more euro-sceptic and torpedoing the whole European Constitution thing could provide him with a lot of political capital. New EU president Portugal wants to have a – real – IGC deal in october , so with Gordon Brown in charge there is a chance that the compromise won’t survive the IGC.

However the biggest hurdle to take for euro-centralists will be avoiding new referendums. The other side of the medal that the content of the European Constitution has been safeguarded is that this makes the claim less credible that a referendum is not needed, in the UK, Netherlands or France. Gordon Brown will have to announce what his position is on the referendum question, at least after an eventual adoption by the IGC of the proposed compromise. Nicolas Sarkozy has already ruled out a referendum, and in the Netherlands the judges of the “Council of State” will have to decide on the question. Also Denmark and Ireland are legally obliged to have referendums if their sovereignty is affected, although they are doubting if they will hold one. Maybe other governments, or newly elected governments, will decide that a referendum will have to be organised, so there is still room for European Democray to stand up and resist.

Read more...

Allons enfants de la Patrie, le jour de gloire est arrivé! If... (cleppe.be)

Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected with 53% of the votes last weekend as President of the French Republic. Although there are still elections coming up on 10 and 17 june in which he has to gain a parlementary majority, with the risk of becoming a lame duck when he loses, it appears clear what Nicolas must do to get France back on track:

1. Restore Law and Order

Even if one is a staunch anarcho-capitalist and one disapproves of the state doing anything, one should still be in favour of someone bringing law and order. It is clear that the current situation in France is not sustainable, as last year a list was published by French police of 751 "zones urbaines sensibles" (ZUS, or sensitive urban areas) which are no longer under the control of the authorities.

2 Reduce taxes

With 45,8 % of wealth being taken by the French State, this level is unacceptably high from the standpoint of human rights, of which property rights clearly are one of the most fundamental.

3 Privatise “National Champions”

In order to cover the massive reduction in taxes, one might need some money, and the most obvious way to get money is to sell your property. So, Nicolas, go ahead and start selling your “national champions”: the monopolistic electric utility EDF (87 percent government-owned) and natural gas utility Gaz de France (34 percent government-owned) are the first obvious candidates, but I’m sure you’ll be able to find more.

4 Cut the Government

How to get even more money for your massive tax decreases? Cut the government! Where to cut? Everywhere and anywhere, except maybe in providing the vital services the State still should offer: police and justice. Honourable mentioning: cut the CAP. Now. Fully.

5 Deregulate the Economy

Not only in the field of labour law, but in virtually every field that the government has its ugly foot between the door. The French bureaucrats have done it back in 1985 for the banking sector. Let’s do it again, because the banking deregulation was of great success, as you can read here.

6 Privatise Education

“In France, everybody can go to university, without paying anything.” Well, don’t forget then that Higher education is divided into Business and Engineer Schools at the one hand and Universities at the other. You can guess which are the free ones and which are the best ones… In other words: if you want a quality degree (HEC, Science Po), you have to pay for the degree and for the taxes that keep old, bureaucratic, low quality universities in place. If you want to start working right away, you have to pay taxes for those universities as well. So, Nicolas, do as Tony Blair: raise fees for students at universities, but then don’t forget to lower taxes drastically of course, so they can have a cheap loan. This makes professors more responsible, and students more motivated.

And what about the poor? The authoritative OECD study on education (called “PISA”) debunked some common myths about education. "Socialized economies do not guarantee an equitable distribution of education. In countries such as Germany, France and Belgium, the parents' socio-economic background has a much greater impact on the student's performance than in capitalist America”, as the WSJ comments on PISA 2003.

Nicolas, this shows the “democratisation of education” has failed. It might have made things worse, when one thinks of the middle class French family that cannot let their children go to a GOOD university, because they have to pay taxes for the worthless bad universities.

7 Abolish all tariffs

Less tariffs means more competition on your market. This drives prices down, and that is good for customers. Just imagine we would forbid or hamper Samsung, Microsoft and Nike to enter our markets? It would make Nokia, Siemens and Adidas more expensive and less qualitative. Well, let’s welcome Chinese cars, Brasilian corn and skilled third world people (through green cards).

8 Integrate Foreigners and poor people by eliminating the welfare state

Integrate foreigners and poor people in the economy by scrapping all incentives that keep them into unemployment: lower taxes, abolish regulation, reduce social housing (privatise those GDR flats) , reduce child allowances, … If you think they will all fall into despair, well, keep a minimum social safety net. Reality will prove they won’t need it. They want to work, but the system prevents them to.

9 Keep your hands off Trichet!

Nicolas, don’t touch Jean-Claude and his euro. We don’t trust Jean-Claude of governing our money with his “one size fits none” - interest rate, but we certainly don’t trust you. Anyway, Nicolas, the Germans were maybe so foolish to let their currency be replaced by a euro and ECB that resembles the Bundesbank, they will definitely not let you touch the euro. I know you want to print euros, but that’s not how it works. Anyway, if you would propose that governments accept private money for payments to the government, we would all be on your side.

10 Make institutional change happen, but decentralise, not centralise

Nicolas, France has great people, food and culture, but its State is only something that humanity should be ashamed of. However, let’s not start complaining about the past but rather look to a confident future. A future where France will be split up, in order to be replaced by a web of privatised gated communities, a future where the European Union becomes not a superstate with super bureaucrats, but a treaty negotiating platform where free trade treaties are being negotiated among governments, companies and individuals. You can start with all that, allowing gated communities, decentralising the French state and its health care systems, making Corsica, Bretagne, Pays Basque and Flandre independent and stopping the European superstate.

Read more...