That we suffer under the thumb of neoliberalism is mostly a self-serving myth created by statism fans.

In its simplest form neoliberalism represents a belief in that free markets will do better for all, or at least for most, than government with its central planning. 

So many failures have been attributed to neoliberalism and its bad intents that it takes too long to explain them all. In this respect I will here refer briefly to only two aspects that have been sold as neoliberalism, but that in reality are quite far from it, namely financial deregulation and privatizations.

Bank regulations: In 1988 the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, decided that the risk weight of the Sovereign, meaning the central government was 0%, while that of We the People was 100%. That meant banks would be allowed to leverage more their equity when lending to the public sector than when lending to the private sector; which meant banks could earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to the public sector than when lending to the private sector; which meant banks would lend more to the public sector than to the private sector; which de facto meant that regulators believed the public sector could make better use of bank credit than the private sector. 

That principle is still well and alive today. How it has anything to do with neoliberalism, with financial deregulation and not with financial missregulation, is beyond my comprehension.

For instance those who attribute the financial meltdown of 2007‑8 to neoliberalism must ignore completely the decisive role that bank regulations played in distorting the allocation of credit to the real economy. It suffices to understand the definite role regulations played in the subprime mess and in the excessive lending for instance to Greece. Those regulations basically decreed inequality.

Privatization: Many or perhaps most of the privatizations of public services were allocated, not to those who offered to provide those services in the cheapest and best way, but to those who offered to pay the government the most for the rights. That in all essence signified the government collecting taxes in advance, leaving the citizens to repay these by mean of higher tariffs. How that has anything to do with neoliberalism, is beyond my comprehension.

Why have so many swallowed the myth of neoliberalism? One reason is that the world has too uncritically accepted using the term of crony capitalism, when most of the deviations it suffers are the direct consequence of crony statism.

Curses and blessings quite often come hand in hand

I will keep here my reflections on the subject in Kenneth Rogoff’s book “The Curse of Cash”. (For full disclosure I have yet not found the time to read it in its entirety)

In my comments I will often also refer to Professor Rogoff’s blog.

Kenneth Rogoff writes: “But for all the advantages of cash, we have to recognize that the current system is badly off kilter. A lot of central banks and finance ministries know it, as do justice departments and tax authorities.”

I fully agree, 100%, but do “We the People know it? There are reasonable and unreasonable doubts out there. And I am not 100% sure among which of those mine could best qualify.

Should not abolishing larger anonymous practical ways of storing wealth have to be subject to something like a referendum? I have no idea?

Yes cash might cause some local tax evasion, but does anyone really believe that big tax evaders keep their fortunes in cash like some seem to say? I just know that the word “cash” is open to all types of confusions (that are sometimes exploited)

Cash in hand, if devalued, looses its value equally for all. Non-cash can be devalued discriminatorily. Do we want our grandchildren to be subject to such great Big Brother power? As a Venezuelan, not me for sure!

Cash, as can oil, can indeed be a curse. But does that mean that we in Venezuela should stop extracting oil? I don’t think so.

And how would the elimination of for instance $100 bills, that might represent about one trillion dollars take place? I have no clue.

Would it not just dramatically increase the value of other assets? Not much, it seems like peanuts when compared to what is done with Quantitative Easing.

Do I want cash to assist drug trafficking? Of course not, don’t be silly.

Rogoff writes: “but most world holdings of dollars are in the underground economy (crime and tax evasion). I am not sure. First of all because I do not agree that all underground economy must be either illegal or bad. Then because I think criminals have many alternatives of how moving cash into something else. Moreover, much cash might make even many hardened criminals nervous.

Was it an accident or is it a statist setup?

In 1988, suddenly, without asking anybody, least us citizens, bank regulators, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, decreed the risk weight of the sovereign, the government, to be Zero Percent, while the risk weight for We the People was set at 100%.

Not having to hold capital against sovereign debt permits banks to lend to government at lower rates; which translates into a regulatory subsidy of government debt.

Then in response to the 2007-08 crisis, itself a result from distorting bank regulations, central banks launched quantitative easing, which basically meant injecting liquidity into the economy by purchasing government debt; and for example the Fed has ended up with about of US$ 4.5 trillion in government paper.

Much of the liquidity injected went to prop up real estate, bonds and shares, but a lot of it spilled over into more demand for government paper.

Naturally, interest rates for public debt fell, and many, like pension funds, in order to adjust for their liabilities, had to purchase even more public debt.

And while regulatory subsidies of public debt are kept in place, this vicious circle will continue.

And to top it up, too many “experts” now advance the argument that government should take advantage of these low interest rates, to launch infrastructure projects.

Let me be very clear about it, the fact that government might (artificially) even be paying a negative rate on its borrowings, does not mean it should borrow, because it is still very capable of investing those funds in projects yielding even more (real) negative rates.

I do not know how we got to this point, whether by accident or whether a set up by runaway statists. You tell me!

PS. When utilities were being privatized in South America, I often heard accusations in terms of “savage neo-liberalism”. Since these utilities were not adjudicated to whoever offered to serve us citizens the best and the cheapest, but to whoever offered to pay the government the most, a tax advance that left us with a huge bill to pay at private investment rates of return, to me those privatizations were much more an expression of sadist statism.