Fiscal waste's decades out

Some want tax cuts.

Some wants tax increases

But no one want tax spending cuts

So its the fiscal waste's decades out

But why worry when it is so easy to finance it with QEs, low interest rates and regulatory subsidies.

Regulatory subsidies? 

1988, Basel I's risk weighted bank capital requirements that decree 0% risk-weight for sovereigns and 100% entrepreneurs. 

Is freezing at Christies US$ 450 million in purchasing capacity in Leonardo Da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi something good or something bad?

Clearly Leonardo da Vinci has to personally, from above, be extending his deepest gratitude to Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve and Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank. Had it not been for their quantitative easing (QEs) and ultra low interest rates, he would never ever have seen his Salvator Mundi valued, so soon, at an incredible US$ 450 million.

Of course the wealth redistribution profiteers will scream bloody murder. The US$ 450 millions is like a voluntary tax that has escaped their franchise. 

The real question though is: Was the freezing of US$ 450 million in purchasing capacity in a painting (or in a storage room), like with a sort of voluntary tax, something good, or something bad. If bad how do you reverse it without other negative unexpected consequences?

But, for the time being, what is much more interesting is what are the vendors to do with US$ 450 millions in cash?

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.

My current list of prominent inequality drivers

I do not care about some having much more wealth than others, for instance having Picasso's on their walls that if taken down only had to go up on somebody else’s wall… and I fret where all those jobs which are based on obnoxiously expensive manual procedures would be were it not for the insanely wealthy… and, if there were no accumulation of wealth where would all those savings that can be invested come from?... 

But I do care profoundly when wealth is acquired by ways of opportunities not accorded to everyone... like mothers (and fathers), not getting any direct monetary societal reward, for their extraordinary efforts when staying home to lovingly take care of their children.

And here are some new non traditional inequality drivers of which I am currently most suspicious.

Intellectual property rights which give way to incredible fortunes… there should be some more explicit limits on these… like a maximum amount of profits covered … a fixed number of units produced protected… or at least that profits derived from intellectually protected activities should be taxed at a higher rate than profits derived from competing naked in the market.

Monopolies… profit derived from monopolies should perhaps be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary profits.

Market shares/globalization… profit derived from activities that have achieved especially large local or global market shares should perhaps be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary profits.

Financial returns produced by the fact that banks because of implicit government guarantees are able to hold less capital than other normal commercial entities should be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary on their profits… something which they could naturally avoid by simply keeping more capital. 

And then there are those regulatory inequity drivers like pushing quantitative easing flows through a banking system with risk-weighted capital requirements, which so much favoring what is perceived as absolutely safe so much discriminates against what is perceived as risky, and something which of course impedes that liquidity and credit gets to where it is needed the most.

And had it not been for bail-outs and QEs Piketty’s book Capital in the 21st Century would not stand a chance to have seen the light as so much wealth would have been wiped out. 

And then there is the wealth tax, which if applied in a system where inequalities like those explained above persist, will only end up concentrating wealth more and more among fewer and fewer Plutocrats.

And, of course, perhaps foremost, all those other sources of discrimination that exist and hinders some from having the same opportunities as others... and all those resulting from the many existing inequalities at the start point.

And the list goes on, and the list goes on.. most likely including the low interests too.

And I also utterly dislike those who are only out to make a buck on the redistribution of wealth. If there is going to be redistribution do it through a system that guarantees that at least 99% goes where it was supposed to go… and that it all does not end in the hands of for equality fighting opportunists

But before ending let me pose the BIG Q.: Professor Thomas Piketty. What’s better, to live in your own inequality, or in somebody else’s equality?

Is not the interest that is not earned on public debt because of public policies a tax?

In terms of taxation, who is affected by a higher real tax rate?

Someone earning 5 percent in interest on public debt and, supposing a tax rate of 20 percent, then has to pay 1 percent in taxes, resulting in net earnings of 4 percent, or, 

Someone only earning only 3 percent on public debt, because of QEs, lower capital requirements for banks when lending to sovereign, and other fancy stuff causes lower interest rates on public debt.

You tell me, or better yet, tell them! on public