Scottish independence! Yay or Nay?

Haven’t blogged in a while, mostly due to military engagements but I’m out now and in Scotland. So a topologically relevant topic seems appropriate, on September 18th Scotland will have a vote about whether or not to leave the UK: should they?

Who should be able to vote for such a thing? I think in philosophy the solution to the boundary problem (who can vote) is called “all-affected-interests-principle”. So it’s odd that I can vote even though this probably doesn’t affect me and UK citizens can’t even though they are to be affected in a number of ways, including Security Council status in the UN, military strength, and the economy.

Weird legal issues:

Not in UK means not in EU which comes with not being an EU citizen. However it is likely that Scottish people will just remain UK citizens and also gain the Scottish citizenship, while not all UK citizens will get Scottish Citizenship, so Scots would get the rights of all UK citizens (including voting) and their own but UK citizens would now not have such easy access to Scotland, doesn’t sound too fair to me.

Now, Scotland would probably be allowed into the EU but “probably” is not certainly and there could be a significant lag time between independence and entering the EU, in the meantime Scotland might not have member state rights, including free trade. I don’t think I’ve read anything on what can possibly happen to their exports in such a scenario.

So when should an area try to be independent?

The US declaration of Independence puts it well: “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes”. It’s reasonable to want independence if you are slaves of some sort, secondary citizens or governmental abuse. There doesn’t seem to be any freedom that a Scotsman doesn’t have, if they really want to I’m sure the UK would not mind the website suffix “.scot”.

Even weirder finance issues:

As usual politicians throw around random figures, specifically some undeniably inaccurate statements about future projections of income for Scots conditional on independence.

So if Scotland becomes independent, what happens to its debt? Does the UK pass some its debt on to it? If so how much? Apparently if it pays its population share (aka total UK debt*proportion of UK citizens which are Scottish) then the only way to increase the wealth of Scotland is to get at least as much revenue from the optimistic projections(joke) of North sea Oil.


Finally to the good stuff, fairly obvious, asymmetric SHOCKS! Monetary policy is pretty good at dealing with shocks to the economy which are symmetric but not so good at dealing with asymmetric shocks, so the wider your government the more it can have fiscal stabilizers to dampen a crisis. Aka if a crisis hits Scotland only and not the rest of the UK, the UK government will be able to reallocate funds to dampen the Scottish shock and vice versa, setting independence achieves almost nothing but surely limits options.

There is also question of what currency Scotland will be using as the BOE won’t have them be using the pound. If this is done quickly and efficiently, which I deem as unlikely then currency might not be a problem but if Scotland temporarily has its own currency and does not set about the right expectations about joining the Euro or at least pegging, then there is room here for immense volatility which would also be catastrophic for trade.

The truth:

As always the problem comes down to politicians, since they have the most to gain by separations. Alex Salmond claims that Scots will win a thousand pounds over the next 15 years if they vote yes, and the UK government has a counter-bribe of 1400 per person over the next 20 years. This is what democracy comes to, bribing the public with(in all likelihood) borrowed funds.


Accepting such a thing sets a precedent and others would want to join, including Catalona, Veneto, Basque country, Padania, Brittany, Corcisa and Transyvania.

Why should Edinburgh not be independent from the rest of Scotland, why should households not be independent from the rest of the world?

Data is scarce on this issue, so it should be natural to be risk averse and vote no. I would however think it worthwhile if independence implied a return to Scottish Banking! I am unsure as to if it could work when such a system is competing with neighbouring central banks but it’s worth a try.

Consequences of inflation phobia

updated: added the summation of the factors for a -1.5 deflation rate.

I’m sure most people have heard that increasing how much money is going around generally increases prices (and the opposite holds true). Economists have a formal method for explaining this phenomenon:

M * V = P * Y

The model’s variables are aggregates representing different aspects of the economy. M is how much money there is (though unclear as to what money is). V is Velocity which is s how quickly money is circulating, this variable can tell you quite a bit about the economy and confidence. P is the price level of the economy (Consumer price index is a proxy for consumer), and Y is the total output (Gross Domestic Product is a proxy).

You generally have to get it logged so you can work in growth rates which help tell you better where the economy is heading. So that gives:

m + v = p + y

To clarify, that means that if GDP grows by 10% then y would be 10%. Rearranging for the price level gives us:

m + v – y = p

Now it’s just a question of plugging the right numbers in to predict what inflation will be. Money velocity is expected to be dropping by about 2.5% because of broken financial institutions and lack of confidence in the economy. GDP growth rate in the Eurozone is up for debate but for the sake of argument let’s say its 2%. The ECB is unwilling to be expansionary (thanks to Germany’s hyperinflation phobia) so money growth seems to be about 3%.

3 – 2.5 – 2 = -1.5

So why is this bad? Because when people expect deflation, they end up waiting more (since they expect their money to buy more in the future). This means that economic activity decreases even further and sends the economy further down a depressionary spiral. This includes not only consumers but investors, since consumers won’t be spending, investors won’t find fruitful projects. This comes back in the form of less stuff and less employment. This is not to say that the marginal effect of a deflation movement from 1 to 0 is worse than one from 0 to -1, but generally speaking, the more deflation, the worse things will be. 

Money velocity and GDP can be affected by fiscal stimulus that is, government spending more money. You can also affect velocity by increasing confidence in the markets which makes people not hoard cash as much. But both of these seem unrealistic in the Eurozone with its lack of political union where everyone seems to be obsessed with austerity. An easier solution would be for the ECB to say we are going to increase how much money there is in the economy by 10%, since money is something they directly control this is very easy to do, just print more money, but that won’t even be necessary, as long as they say it out loud, investors and consumers will all know to expect inflation and will invest or spend in the economy.

A note: the expansionary monetary policy would also allow government debt to become more sustainable which makes the other options easier to do.

Understanding Currency Areas and the Eurocrisis

I’ve been quite perturbed that most analyses of the Eurocrisis is done by politicians and doomsayer journalists to the extent that most of the content out there centers on the least likely events and fails to capture the spirit of the intellectual debate. Nice thing about blogs is that you can make things as complicated as you like, though in this case I will restrict myself and not use formulas or graphs for the sake of clarity.

Some helpful background

Devaluation is used as a mechanism to reduce real wages. The reason devaluation works is that workers fail to notice or respond to the inflation by raising their money wage demands. If wages were all tied to inflation(also known as indexation), as many multinationals do, the process would not work, and if some did and others didn’t, the process would disproportionately affect those without this adjustment. This power of devaluation is much more prominent the more the cost of living is reliant on the outside world and hence more likely to provoke a response from the labour force. From that point of view this makes the case for much larger currency areas since devaluation is possible without provoking a response. Devaluation can occur not only through monetary means but also by decreasing the cost of doing business which includes a decrease in taxation levels;

I would recommend reading my Unit of account post and Unit of Exchange post to fully understand the functions of money because they are directly relevant to this post.

The benefits of monetary union

These are microeconomic in nature and involve helping out small firms remain competitive as well as alleviating consumer burdens.

Transaction cost

The first benefit is a reduced transaction cost. Though fees on large currency transactions are quite small, currency turnover is extremely high, so cumulative costs can be higher than one might imagine. Although it’s easy to say that the transaction cost of a single currency is reduced, it is possible to overestimate the magnitude by which this is so. This mistake might be enabled by ignoring the fact that not all foreign currency loans are simply hedging exchange rate risk, indeed some of these are favourable because the foreign loans have a lower interest rate. Even so the reasons for this lower financing rate could not be related to the exchange rates whatsoever, an example of which is a multinational borrowing in the domestic market because its reputational capital can be leveraged into higher credit ratings. Additionally many of the potential perceived costs of foreign trade are simply rents extracted by financial institutions exploiting their economies of scale. This allocation of resources not only has an opportunity cost in terms of human labour but also causes inequality between industries by funneling money into finance.

As an example let’s consider a bid-ask spread (buying versus selling currency) of 0.05%. To the individual this might seem insignificant, but this is a very deceptive way of analysing the situation. Given that 600 billion in currency transactions take place in London, such a spread would represent 300million in costs per day. Even so, this element is frequently ignored by politicians because the savings might be negligible from the narrow view of an individual country, especially since a great proportion of the trading is done on behalf of foreign principals, this means that although monetary union would be a considerable savings cost, the UK perceives it as a booming export sector. Even so, the savings potential from a UK resident’s perspective of an EMU would be limited to transactions within the Eurozone. Academic estimates with all this taken into account estimate that the cost savings in transaction costs would be about 1% of EU income.

Accounting costs

Foreign flows being converted into a common currency for the consolidated balance sheet inherently introduce greater variability in forecasts of share prices and increases capital market volatility.

When evaluating risks of currency splitting we must be able to partition the arguments for what it does and doesn’t do. Any individual entrepreneur is likely to be less enthusiastic of any prospect if an additional risk of currency fluctuation is introduced. However when dealing with multinational firms this risk is not necessarily as large as it appears since a true multinational would have flows in both currencies and opportunities to finance from institutions in both currencies and so the risk is likely to be overstated if we just look at the variance of the exchange rate. If the company has accurate forecasts of these future cash flows it may even hedge, but this is a return to the previous point that this process funnels money into the financial industry. Perhaps most importantly we may overstate the cost of the currency risk because even if the foreign currency value does depreciate, this will be partially offset by the fact that the foreign production will become more competitive and in the process, increasing prospective cash flows. However these options are not present for smaller companies, which have to rely on financial institutions ability to mimic these advantages and generally are likely to reduce competitive forces within the economy since it offers more than just an economy of scale advantage to bigger firms.

Insulation from monetary disturbances and reduced political pressure

Given multiple currencies, it’s possible that the domestic prices are sticky (don’t adjust fast enough). This stickiness might lead to unnecessary and temporary fluctuations in the real exchange rate due to speculative bubbles.

Finally without the option of protectionist policies from myopic politicians, we reap the benefits from the most agreed upon economic policy of all: free trade.

Costs of monetary union

These are macroeconomic in nature (more about patterns of adjustment to disequilibrium) and would hence be up for rigorous debate. Some schools of thought, like the Austrian school of economics might even dismiss them completely and blame this thinking for the business cycle by enabling the allocating of resources to be done in a manner that does not reflect the preference of consumers, implying an inevitable crisis.

Monetary flexibility

This is perhaps the main cost being referred to. Currency union makes regions less able to respond to macroeconomic imbalances through specific monetary policy. This belief is mostly credible in the monetarist sphere of thought since fiscal stabilization is a very plausible alternative to most interventionists (and perhaps the only choice when interest rates hit the zero bound, ignoring of course the more unorthodox methods being suggested).

Monetary flexibility also includes financing government spending via inflation, by reducing the burden of public debt (e.g. if your currency is worth less, government bonds are worth less and easier to pay back). Though some would question such indirect measures of taxation as not being transparent it is an important option for extreme times such as wars. However EU wide tax and transfer systems reduce the need for this. Similarly seigniorage revenue in a common currency area (the ability of new money to buy goods and services) would need to split in very equitable ways.

Labour mobility is king

These arguments are all rendered irrelevant by one thing, a sufficiently high labour mobility (people willing to move across the currency zone).

To give an example lets imagine the price level dropped in a country by 10% and that foreign goods are responsible for 50% of the cost of living, so real wages have increased by 50*10%=5%(since you can now afford your previous lifestyle with less money). However given that the people can now buy more but their productivity has not changed this will make firms less competitive and apply downward pressure on the economy which will increase unemployment, bankruptcies and so forth. With sufficient labour mobility, employment will be restored without transitional unemployment because people will fleet to the new high wage country until the supply of people brings wages back to equilibrium.

The question as to how the existence of labour mobility comes about is of course a different one. Although Economists usually perceive it as a requirement for an optimal currency area, it is likely that action must first be taken to increase the labour mobility. Indeed since the Euro was introduced an increase of labour mobility has occurred within the Eurozone and the crisis has further fuelled this trend.

However it is obviously still insufficient and more could be done to encourage this trend, reforms to this end would include: a single language being used in business, transferable pensions, lower transportation costs(from country to country), standardized unemployment benefits, common legal systems…etc; This encouragement is not only important for Europe but also for the US where empirical estimates show that about six years are required for labour mobility to substitute the failure of wage levels to fall. From this point of view you could argue that even the US should be a candidate for monetary disintegration. I would also add that policies that encourage home ownership, which are taken by most governments are likely to reduce labour mobility.

Of course there is also the matter that entering a common currency usually leaves countries open to speculative attacks by investors. Though this has already been experienced by the EU in the early 1990s and paying any attention to this now is merely a sunk cost fallacy.

Expectations and Politics

Fixed exchange rates could theoretically offer many of the benefits of union without the costs. Though the assumption here is that the countries can keep this indefinitely, and if it would have been done indefinitely they would have just joined the monetary union. So in practice fixed exchange rates have a problem of credibility, how long will they keep doing this? In some cases the market will use immense capital to attack these fixed exchange rates and break down the regime.

Although this analysis is economic, it is impossible to ignore the effects of political framing on the markets. From the very outset the framing of North versus South has had an enormous influence on the markets and has greatly impeded the ability of governments to take action. When it was presented that the crisis is a result of Greek fraudulence and profligacy, it becomes difficult to aid them from a political point of view. If the crisis was framed in terms of economic interdependence and not of morality aka, helping the lazy Greek (some economists disagree with that stereotype) it is likely that bond spreads within the EU would not be as high as they are now and more credibility could have been given to weaker governments, as it is now stronger governments are able to retain market confidence. The more these benefits are spread out, the more consumers of these advantaged countries will lose out in terms of an increase in cost of living.

The idea that monetary union requires fiscal union has been spouted enough but it doesn’t go far enough. In addition to the measures that would encourage labour mobility, common deposit insurance, financial regulation, true lender of last resort abilities from the ECB and a federal constitution that overrides state power would all go a long way to unifying Europe.

Of course in ordinary times it is true that countries are able to borrow more than they would have otherwise due to the credibility of their neighbours, creating an incentive for governments to be unsustainable. In turn this increased spending creates inflation and boosts real wages (and hence, standard of living) to levels that don’t reflect the competitiveness of the country.

However, in another light all this talk about restricting countries from defaulting and requiring German taxpayers to bail out other sovereigns is nonsense. US states and local governments have defaulted in the past as John H. Cochrane’s puts it: “A currency is simply a unit of value, as meters are units of length. If the Greeks had skimped on the olive oil in a litter bottle, that wouldn’t threaten the metric system.” Too much is done to enable bailouts either in more direct manners (ECB buying government bonds in the secondary markets) or indirectly (ECB lending to banks that lend money to the governments), which is not helping sustainability and will require hoards of EU taxes to fix or the Euro will be inflated away.

Governments and the ECB have been pressuring banks to keep buying their debts, the ECB is more of culprit since it gives conditional liquidity injections. These banks become more and more dangerous as this effect continues, Cyprus’s recent bank troubles are but a demonstration of this instability.

Possible endings

We could possibly kick the can down the road with just more bailouts but eventually wishful thinking will end and the true choices will emerge.

One of these is fiscal and monetary union, federal government issuing controls on government budgets and allowing for some of the above frictions for labour mobility to be eliminated.

The other is monetary union only, this would mean governments need to be able to default like companies, and banks would be allowed to treat sovereign debt like any other debt (something BASEL 3 doesn’t help with).

And the most costly option is the breakup, probably after a crisis and inflation. This would be seriously debilitating to all contracts that would have to be converted to a currency that doesn’t exist and would lead to immense capital flight and economic damage. Once again in the words of Cochrane: “The euro, like the meter, is a great idea. Throwing it away would be a real and needless tragedy.”

Should we abolish government? What is a libertarian?

I’ve been noticing that libertarianism has been gaining quite a bit of traction, Ron Paul is probably the first Libertarian I’ve seen get so far in politics, yet I am astounded as to the number of people who don’t properly understand what it means, I plan on making reference to libertarians in a future post so I thought a quick and simple(and visual) definition for my readers who are not familiar with the term was in order:

First of all watch this 2min video:

Libertarians believe that society should only have one law and that is to protect people from externalities, also known as tragedy of the commons. Many things can be viewed as externalities have a look at this video for a brief introduction:

The majority of our legal system today would not exist under a libertarian’s wet dream. Government would only have the roles of running courts, the army, and probably the police. My previous post on patents and IP would probably be agreeable to libertarians.

In many ways a libertarian society is a true democratic one, since the output of society is reflected on what most people want to do. A politician will claim he owns the majority of the vote, yet even among the people who did vote for him it is likely that most people disagree with him on at least some point, the only person who can represent you, is yourself.

It’s impossible to please everybody with one size fits all policies, and yet everybody is paying for it with their tax dollars. Under a libertarian society, the majority can no longer sway the other 49% to do as they are told, this might sound controversial but a moment’s reflection would probably result in the conclusion that this is as true as democracy can ever get. For instance the 51% can no longer force the 49% to pay foreign aid; any individual who wants to give money to a charity practicing foreign aid, can do so at his own expense.

What occurs in non-libertarian societies is that some guy, has a view, and believes his view is absolute and whoever doesn’t follow it should be punished. So if Obama decides to rescue the automakers and you disagree with it, so you don’t pay your taxes that year, the IRS will pick you up and throw you in jail.

As far as I’m concerned a libertarian society is as immune to the public choice dilemma as we can get without falling into anarchy, here’s another video explaining the problem of public choice:

As a hint to why I wanted this term clarified I would pinpoint to the fact that libertarians only wish to limit the role of government not its scope.

Money’s use: the unit of exchange

Picking up from my previous post on the value of money which talked about its use as the unit of account we continue here with the next benefit, unit of exchange.

So every good has two values, the first is its retail value, X. This is what people would pay for it because they want it (or need it). The second is its exchange value, Y; this is what people who don’t want it would pay for it and they would do this because they can exchange it later on. So by definition X should be higher than Y otherwise people would not buy it to sell it on since they would make a loss.

So, let’s take a situation. Let’s say person A wants to buy a cell phone, but the only thing he has in excess is a microwave.  So A goes to meet another person, person B (who has an extra cell phone) so he can exchange his microwave for the cell phone. It could be that B wants or needs the microwave, and if that’s the case, that’s what economists call a “double coincidence of wants”. In this case he will get fairly close to the X value of the microwave since person B wants it.

If however person B does not want the microwave then he will not want to exchange it. That is unless he is making a profit from this transaction, and the only way he can do that is by thinking he can exchange it for a higher value than he will get it for. So person A will get a value close to Y in this case.

This difference between X and Y is the cost that person A will suffer in the second but not the first scenario. It is the second transaction cost that takes place without money.

As I mentioned before, money is essential to the division of labor of society.As a last demonstration of division of labour’s important to the exchange value, let’s imagine that a bakers TV broke down. Without the presence of money, he will have to spend hours and hours on end trying to learn how this works, and then fix the TV. These hours are of considerable value to people, but with money, the baker can essentially fix the TV by baking cookies. He has the ability to liquefy his effort and make it take any form he wishes it to without suffering much of a transaction cost at all. I find this amazing, how you manage to achieve everything people can do with equal efficiency by doing just one thing what you can do most efficiently. That is unless labour prices are distorted.

Now so far we have assumed that both parties know the true value of what is being offered. If however B does not know what A’s product is worth the transaction is crippled since B would need to be educated. This education process is costly and if he is exchanging it for the purpose of reselling it, then he might also expect that who he sells it to will also need to bear an education cost. So the price person B will pay will be Y minus the cost of acquiring this information, which means A got even less value out of his product.

So in our economy with millions of products, we can introduce money and what this does is make X=Y.

Money isn’t some artificial thing that was dreamt up, it was a spontaneous process, one where people saw immediate benefit from its use. There was no real need for government to issue currency as medium of exchange; historically gold and silver fulfill an equally good role. The criteria for a good medium of exchange are durability, portability, recognisability, divisibility, homogeneity and scarcity (this one is tricky with elastic money). As a side effect, when something becomes the medium of exchange, its value is no longer determined by its intrinsic value but by its value for trading.

As a final note, it should be obvious that money is only worth something in the context of the economy’s output. If you have 10% of all money in the economy, you essentially own 10% of value of the economy. So printing money doesn’t really create value, it merely increases the medium with which to exchange things, the amount of things to exchange has not changed.

Do we need patents/intellectual property?

It’s easy to think that industries can’t work without patents, and this is very true to some extent. Many biotech firms make a loss year in and year out, hoping to survive until that patent gets accepted. But this is a static view of the world; let’s take a moment to consider how the world would look without these patents. To be sure demand for medicine and this kind of research would still remain and as long as demand remains, then there will be solutions. Maybe the political process will create funding for such projects, though that would probably not be very efficient. So how can the private sector profit without patents?  How do other industries which don’t have the luxury of patents/IP(intellectual property) property do this? Let’s start with the latter question.

The theory

If a fashion designer comes up with a great new style of dressing, but can’t patent it and the next day all others do something similar what has he gained? Well reputation of course. Monetizing reputation is then easy; this fashion designer will be the first to be called by people who want something designed. Or if he has a certain brand or logo associated with him, it will signal competency to the consumer boosting his sales. This same process is also present in finance, most notably, investment banking, one bank invents(or finds) a market, then, the other’s join in, nobody can claim that investment banks don’t have the incentive to innovate, in fact most of the media coverage suggests they innovate in excess. Part of what allows them to thrive is this lack of patents, which allows instant liquidity through the duplication of products. Reputation actually works surprisingly like patents; they give you a great name (which you can use to profit) but fade with time. I’m sure it’s no surprise to anybody that having a good reputation allows a company to charge a premium for its products and if no premium is charged then they have an advantage over equally priced competitors.


Music is to me is the industry which is most undeserving of IP. US copyright protection is active until 70 years after the author’s death! Not only does protecting music not produce better music(no surprise since it’s an art and not a science) but the structure of IP law doesn’t even take into account how the market works. Most of the profits of music are usually made within 10 years of release so protecting it for another century seems kind of insane. Especially if you wish to use an extract from one of these artists after he dies, you have to be chasing down his heirs (who could be anywhere) to ask for permissions.

The theory described above is probably the easiest to prove in the music industry. Artists can improve their reputation by releasing popular music (which can be done with almost no cost, thanks to peer to peer sharing) and can then monetize it by using their reputation, perhaps to advertise or in concerts. The greater their reputation the higher they can charge for their concerts, and the more money they can get from advertising. Businesses (like movie studios) may also wish to contract them to create music for them. It’s hard to make a statement that is “ceteris paribus”(all things being equal) consistent, but since illegal pirating has commenced, I would say music has grown much more popular, there are more artists today than there have ever been. This is in fact partly helped by youtube (an example of how artists can make money without IP) but this was the case before youtube ever started. There is no doubt in my mind that more pirating of a given artists music, boosts his concert sales. Perhaps the most frustrating thing the about the music industry is that they are crippling peer to peer networking technologies which have very high potential welfare benefits for the everyday consumer.


So now to the real challenge, how would pharmaceuticals get developed? Well in a very similar way really, though the industry would probably own a lot more hospitals. So a pharmaceutical firm develops something spectacular, let’s say they cure aids. Then their brand value will rise and their hospitals will be more popular because their doctors there will be perceived to be the best in class. Even without hospitals, their medicines would become more popular due to the prestige associated with their brand. There is still an incentive to create these products, in fact the incentive to innovate is strengthened like never before, since there is no chance to sit back and relax through rent seeking (royalties), you must now always be one step ahead of your competitors, you are forced to keep innovating, cure cancer, Alzheimer’s, death, etc.

You’ve got to remember that IP at the end of the day makes things much more expensive, and could bring things out of reach of certain people in the world. Although it might not be a big loss for people on the music end, it holds back the private sector from being able to distribute innovative medicinal practices to people all over the world. If a firm develops a technology, it is under no real pressure to start distributing it, since it can just sit back and claim royalties from others who wish to do the dirty work. However those others will have to overcharge for the product and will probably not have much incentive to do this. Whilst in a world with no patents, the incentive is for these pharmaceutical companies to get this product to all markets they can identify before anyone else. What’s their incentive to do this fast if they have 20 years until the patent expires and can claim royalties without effort or investment? Let’s not restrict competition, whoever can save the most people first, wins.


So now with the big boy of patents tackled, let’s go down to some chumps. Whilst the pharmaceutical industry is extreme in that the ratio of cost to create to the cost of copying is very high there are other industries which file thousands of patents without this ratio. One most extreme example is the software industry, most software innovation is incremental, created by teams of software engineers at very modest costs, worse yet most of these technologies quickly become obsolete. Each device (laptop, phone, etc) could potentially have hundreds of thousands of patents. We saw this summer how apple won a case over having rounded edges on smartphones. This creates endless opportunity to hamstring competitors.

The costs

In practice of course all these processes are very costly to our economy; we produce lots and lots of lawyers to protect these patents. Patents increase the prices of goods, they allocate resources to patent races(which is not a good competitive trait to base competition on, see my other post), there is a cost of having to look through the Patent and Trademark office every time you do something, there is of course a lot of  filing of defensive patents, which are patents which won’t necessarily yield royalties but they are there because you are scared someone else will file it, and of course patents give birth to patent rent seekers who buy large number of patents and only make money through fees and if necessary by suing . It seems obvious to me that if we had less lawyers taking care of this stuff, the innovation process would be much quicker, not to mention that the lawyers might maybe join a profession that actually directly helps competitiveness(and not by cutting off opponents feet). Let’s also not forget that we as tax payers generally have to pay to keep these(e.g patent office) public institutions running.

Fair use

In law “fair use” is a defense allowing for copying of short excerpts from a copyrighted work without a license. The rationale for this is that the transaction cost of negotiating a license for these is likely to exceed the value of the license. Yet even this law that has potential for being economically rational is so ill defined that the copyright owners can bring down this “short” phrasing to its bare minimum, for instance film studios insist that even a minute of their film is too much. Innovation comes in many forms, yet the most common is not the popularized “radical” but the “incremental” one. The lack of fair use objectivity in law is very damaging to the latter.

Global patents

One of the most vital advantages of the Chinese economy is in fact this lack of respect for patents, it allows their firms to have much lower costs of production, and this cannot be duplicated in the west because we fear the courts reining in on us. In fact in developing countries there is a reluctance to file patents, since it is in essence just telling your competitors your recipe. Another well documented global phenomenon is that patents cause inequality in society, a fact shown by various studies that should not really surprise anyone.

Some inventions are not patentable and could be just as valuable to society but having patent systems is funneling innovation to only occur in areas which are patented. For instance, the theory of relativity could not be patented, same for the theory of evolution, and our understanding of DNA and more recently the Higgs Boson breakthrough. Patenting directs our scientists to projects that can be patented rather than on pure scientific research(which might have much more productive output in the long run).

A video game called lord of the rings online, was initially a product you paid for, and once sales started dropping the owners made it free to play (making money through in game purchasing), and the game saw its profitability rise higher than ever before not to mention a much bigger player base (which will likely be beneficial on the next release of this company).  This is an example how the private sector can build models based around other ways of making profit. If every purchase gets duplicated by the net, then in the future we might see consumers cooperate to see products see the light of day, this is perhaps what kickstarter is accomplishing, if you expect that after the release the whole world will be playing your game and you’re not too sure about making an in-game profit system then you can just put your projects on kickstarter and wait for consumers to cooperate and give you funding for it.

We need to call out things by their real names, so what is a patent? It’s very simple, it’s a monopoly. In short I would not call for elimination for the whole patent system; I am not that extreme (though I obviously understand where that argument would come from). I would however wish for patents to end for all products except drugs and maybe some other expensive but easy to copy technology (emphasis on the maybe), this moderate stance is only because I’m afraid to meddle with a chicken that lays golden eggs (medicine).

Open source movements have definitely shown me that people will create not only for money but because they love creating, it’s self-fulfilling (an opinion shared by Akira Kurosawa in Ikiru). The private enterprise is resilient enough to find ways to satisfy demand without such artificial methods. Government intervention should be done when systemic and chronic market failures exist, these conditions are not met in our world as far as patents and IP are concerned.

How to protect depositors without bailing out the bankers!

The above is Laiki’s(Cypriot bank to be bailed out) balance sheet, which I pulled off their latest annual statement. I highlighted the assets which are safe in yellow, the assets which are risky in green and the “other” in blue.

I then highlighted the liabilities which we are trying to protect, the deposits, in yellow, and the liabilities which we don’t in want to safeguard in green. I then added those up in 3 categories of assets and 2 categories of liabilities the result is the column on the left in the picture below.

I then give all the safe/liquid assets to the good bank along with an optimistic portion of long-term which will be paid back. It is likely the majority of these are loans to Greeks which are unsafe and will probably not be paid back in full, so I assumed an 80% repayment rate, which might be optimistic, but the approach also works with less optimistic repayment rates, the difference being the good bank’s capital ratio, the capital ratio and the repayment rate are positively correlated.


Essentially all of the liquid assets are given to the good bank and all the illiquid ones to the bad bank (in practice this would include some headquarters to continue with their remaining operations). The biggest asset for Laiki is the “advances to customers” this will have to undergo special evaluation for the split between liquid and illiquid to occur. The most important aspect here is that the bad bank holds the equity of the good bank, note that this means that the capital ratio for the bad bank remains fixed no matter how many assets are given to the good bank, nevertheless the good bank should have a maximum amount of liquid assets to ensure safety.


The only liability the good bank needs to take on is the customer deposits since it is what we are trying to protect and it is what prevents us from allowing them to declare bankruptcy. Once the deposits have been secured, capitalism can work again.


Both the old Laiki equity and the good bank Laiki equity are given to the bad bank.

What this achieves:

1)      The Deposits are safe and danger of a bank run is eliminated

2)      Remaining debt that was never promised a government guarantee goes to the bad bank.

3)      The old Laiki (bad bank) is still relatively better capitalized but still responsible for the decisions they made. If they do become insolvent they can declare bankruptcy without interfering with customers deposits, this means they can now be treated as a normal company.

4)      It’s important to highlight that this approach is not complementary(though it can be) to a bailout but a substitute, which does guarantee that bankers will not be over or under punished but will bear the fruits of their actions.

In practice

The good bank will continue to work under the Laiki brand and continue its operations just like normal whilst the bad bank will be running in the background trying to properly manage its existing assets. It will still benefit from profitable activity from the good bank but will be treated like a normal company. No public money (excluding any administrative costs to make this plan work) has been used and stability has been restored. Over time the good bank can also engage in secondary market trading and that can still follow the shareholder’s wishes and should the good bank face a similar crisis that Laiki is facing then the process can be renewed with a new good bank and the old good bank transformed into a new bad bank.

A pre-requisite for this approach to work is that there are sufficient safe assets, and a minor risk this mechanism faces is that banks will no longer favour liquid assets as to not allow this mechanism to work and force a bailout. This is however an extreme scenario that would not occur with properly executed regulation.

This innovative approach has been very well received academically but has not been applied anywhere yet.

Should feminists be suffering from existentialism?

Usually I don’t like him because he takes every chance he gets to jump on the “hate government bandwagon” but lets start with Thomas Sowell’s recent column anyway. He tell us what Ceteris Parabis is:

“The old — and repeatedly discredited — game of citing women’s incomes as some percentage of men’s incomes is being played once again, as part of the “war on women” theme.

Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out.

When you compare women and men in the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work, and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in incomes shrink to the vanishing point — and, in some cases, the women earn more than comparable men.”

Then lets move to this first paper here:

In 2003, a new law required that 40% of Norwegian firms’ directors be women—at the time only 9% of directors were women. We use the prequota cross-sectional variation in female board representation to instrument for exogenous changes to corporate boards following the quota. We find that the constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in Tobin’s Q over the following years, consistent with the idea that firms choose boards to maximize value. The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.

Now on the the Bureau of labor statistics. On average women work less hours than men, men work 40 and women work 35 hours per week. So that’s another explanation of the mythical “gender wage gap”, you could try to argue that the dependent variable in the model should just be the earnings per hour, but it would not work because its natural that people who work more hours get the promotion. This study here also supports the BLS:

In our data, the median male physician with 10 years of experience works 11 hours per week more than the median female physician in our sample with 10 years of experience. Simply put, the majority of women physicians do not appear to work enough hours earning the physician-wage premium to amortize that profession’s higher upfront investments.

This is also backed by this study:

This paper documents and studies the gender gap in performance among associate lawyers in the United States. Unlike most high-skilled professions, the legal profession has widely-used objective methods to measure and reward lawyers’ productivity: the number of hours billed to clients and the amount of new-client revenue generated. We find clear evidence of a gender gap in annual performance with respect to both measures. Male lawyers bill ten-percent more hours and bring in more than double the new-client revenue. We show that the differential impact across genders in the presence of young children and the differences in aspirations to become a law-firm partner account for a large part of the difference in performance. These performance gaps have important consequences for gender gaps in earnings. While individual and firm characteristics explain up to 50 percent of earnings gap, the inclusion of performance measures explains most of the remainder.

Even though the equal pay act has existed since 1963, pressure from feminist groups continue to attempt to destroy equality. It was normal that women take a few decades to get close to men’s wages since even when you first passed the bill that didn’t suddenly bring women’s skills up to men’s standards, it had to take awhile. Yet this movement persists, earlier this year they tried to pass the “Paycheck fairness act” but thankfully the senate didn’t go for it.

If after all this time feminists have been masquerading equal pay under the veil of equal opportunity then I have a better approach for equal wages. Mandate women’s work hours to mirror mens hours! We also could try force the other sex to change, force men to work less hours!

Moving further up on the ridiculous scale: Women take some days off after giving birth, and even if parental leave is also a thing, the reality is women take more leave than men. So we could fix the wage gap by mandating all women to have abortions every time! Or biologically change men so that they can also have babies!

So there is no problem, meritocracy is at work, is it really a problem that women don’t prioritize wealth as much as men do?  I don’t think so. The market isn’t perfect but I have not seen conclusive aggregate evidence of market failure in this domain.

edit: here’s an interesting speech by Larry Summers on the topic

Does Basel III make sense?

In the past couple of decades the sung mantra for deregulation has been overwhelmingly dominant yet today light touch regulation is shown to increase volatility in growth. With a new era of regulation taking place, perhaps the single most globally important measure is BASEL.  Although BASEL II was never fully fulfilled in the US, BASEL III is now in line to be implemented it’s important to understand the risk management mechanics of this series of regulatory implementations. BASEL aims to recommend to banks how to be solvent by creating a system that evaluates risk based on leverage and the rating of assets. The innovations of  BASEL III is that it introduces a buffer conservation which restricts shareholder compensation if the equity level is too low and a counter cyclical buffer which is an attempt at creating a more dynamic capital requirement which increases if the credit to GDP ratio rises. This is a great step in making BASEL more dynamic but as long as arbitrary static figures exist within it it’s likely to not be efficient.

It’s a romanticised notion that this is actually a policy which would reduce risk by limiting the amount of exposure allowed. However this can also be seen as a transfer of liquidity risk. From a retail banks point of view, the liquidity risk is passed to the citizen as he can now borrow less. The static figures of capital requirements also assume an excessive amount of knowledge as to how many good investments are really available, relying excessively on a top down approach measuring style of how much banks should lend. Additionally limiting leverage based on risk weight actually reduces diversification because it encourages investment in low risk assets as the number of low risk assets has not increased, this reduction in diversification could increase risk in the long run. This system also allows for an excessive amount of leverage if too many low risk assets are used. In the worst case scenario fruitful investment will not be undertaken and in the best case scenario predatory lending will decrease, having imperfect knowledge means at least one of these will occur.

However having risk weights also encourages banks to want to pass on the risks to other bearers who might not be optimal holders. For example holding mortgage-backed securities today on a balance sheet is a very expensive endeavour which encourages the passing of this risk. BASEL could have been the culprit behind the reckless behavior that caused the financial crisis since it indirectly encouraged securitization because of its ability to skip over capital requirements. This goes contrary to an optimal framework because to reduce risk on securitized assets the optimal practice is to keep them with bearers who have the most information about them, and the longer the chain of risk selling, the more fragmented and scarce on information on the product becomes. A more thought out policy would take measures to ensure that the holders of the risk were not too far from the entity whose risk they are holding. A more bottom up approach such as giving regulators guidelines on systemic risk is a much more potent way of controlling it. To boost regulatory performance, there should be incentives such as bonuses based on low systemic risk measurements to ensure there are parties actively pursuing the interest of taxpayers.

The relativity of entrepreneurship types

Entrepreneurship takes three forms, these are productive, unproductive, and destructive. Some academics believe that the supply of entrepreneurs cannot be influenced by policy and the only thing that can be changed are the “rules of the game” which will change the mix of these three types of entrepreneurship, hopefully influencing entrepreneurs to be productive. Some of these types are fairly obvious whilst others might be surprising.

Productive entrepreneurship is fairly obvious, someone opening up a restaurant with fully vegetarian dishes is productive entrepreneurship. A good rule of thumb for identifying productive is if you can identify an unsaturated demand for it.

Unproductive entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship that doesn’t really benefit society but benefits individuals. An individual who trades with his own money through the stock market. Trading through the stock market doesn’t really add much value since for every dollar he makes, somebody else loses it, however price discovery and liquidity could be argued for but these are hardly productive activities. A clearer example is perhaps someone who buys a building and then rents the rooms, this literal rent seeking obviously doesn’t change much at all, it makes no difference who owns the property. The Law profession is also widely considered to be unproductive the majority of its activities result in mere transfers instead of value creation.

Destructive activities on the other hand could be for instance the selling of bad drugs(emphasis explained later) because people will die. Or a pyramid scheme, although it might seem that it’s just unproductive since the net result is a redistribution of money with people at the bottom losing their money, its unproductive because it could destroy confidence in the market and maybe hinder multi-level marketing companies.

This identification process can be tricky, for instance a libertarian might call a lawyer discovering a clause that allows a company to pay less taxes productive since he assumed the money is more productive in the company, whilst a communist might say that’s destructive since the state spends money for the benefit of all and this could affect the budget. Selling drugs would probably be considered by most to be a destructive form of entrepreneurship yet if the drugs don’t necessarily have violence or overdose associated with them, like in Amsterdam, its probably not destructive. This relativity puts a large emphasis on political parties representing the will of the people as to what productive is. This is especially important since evidence as to wether government can influence entrepreneurship is not very certain, however there is strong evidence that it can funnel it in the “right” direction.

Read more on these types here: Baumol_1990_