Theft Is Deflationary – Especially The Crony-Capitalist/State Kind

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Monopoly power in all its forms–in our system, crony capitalism and its partner, the neofeudal state–enables theft on a systemic scale.

If a monopoly forces its customers to pay more for low-quality goods and services because they have no choice, how is that not theft?

If the Mafia raises the price of "protection" on small businesses (another case of monopoly and no other choice), how is that extortion not theft?

When a local government raises junk fees to fund its cronies' excessive (i.e. non-market-rate) salaries and pensions, how is that monopoly power to extort more money from those with no other choice any different from Mafia extortion/theft?

If a pharmaceutical company extends a patent on a costly medication by changing the dosage slightly, how is that not theft via regulatory capture? If a government contractor charges the Pentagon $1,000 for a hammer (all those overhead charges, tsk-tsk–lobbying corrupt politicos costs a lot, you know), how is that not theft of taxpayers' money?

When the Federal Reserve drops the yield on savings to near-zero to funnel all that stolen wealth to its cronies on Wall Street, how is that not theft?

Monopoly power in all its forms–in our system, crony capitalism and its partner, the neofeudal state–enables theft on a systemic scale. When crony capitalism and the state are essentially one system, the propaganda organs of the state and mainstream corporate media combine to persuade the stripmined populace that their theft is not theft, it's "capitalism and democracy at work." This is known as The Big Lie. What we have is systemic theft, predation and exploitation.

Calling things what they really are would upset the apple cart of systemic exploitation. Let's Call Things What They Really Are in 2014 (January 15, 2014)

Correspondent Jeff W. explains that all this systemic theft is inherently deflationary:

ll forms of stealing are deflationary. Stealing cuts into the average citizen’s disposable income, it reduces how much he can buy. Because there are now fewer dollars chasing more goods, deflation is the inevitable result. Stealing is actually worse than a zero-sum game. Society loses more than the thief takes. In addition to losses from theft, a victim often has to spend more on security measures. Theft also has a chilling effect on capital investment and commerce in general.

Consider how many different kinds of theft the American citizen is exposed to: street crime, sickcare industry ripoffs, legal system ripoffs including huge fines for traffic violations, high taxes, interest earnings on his savings that amount to ZIRP, a corporatist state determined to suppress his wages by any means necessary, unending victimization at the hands of predators enabled and protected by the state. If he owns a small business, he has to deal with a corrupt regulatory state, higher taxes, and an enlarged menagerie of predators. Today there are thieves everywhere.

 

So one big deflation trend is theft. As theft increases, deflation increases. As society collapses and thieves start roaming freely all over the landscape, a deflationary collapse can be expected—absent a determined and persistent campaign of money printing.

 

Exhibit A for the case that stealing is deflationary is the Dark Ages. Stealing was rampant in the Dark Ages. How did people react to that? By “going medieval.” They wore clothing that made them look poor so as to avoid attracting the attention of thieves. Their dwellings looked poor for the same reason. If they had cash, they would bury it in the ground; no one could be trusted. Unless one was an insider who could get protection from the state, no one’s property was safe.

 

Capital investments were much too risky, and out of the question. What were the price characteristics of the Dark Ages? Wages were low. Real estate valuations low. Prices of manufactured items (such as they were) were low. Only food was expensive. People can cut back on clothing and shelter, but there is a limit to how much they can cut back on food. In the Dark Ages, people really hunkered down and just focused on basic survival.

 

Exhibit B is Detroit. Detroit for many years has been a high crime area, i.e. it had lots of thieves running around. What are the price characteristics of Detroit? Wages low. Real estate valuations low. There is very little manufacturing being done inside the city limits today because of high property taxes and crime. There is also very little capital investment for the same reasons.

 

There is a vicious circle at work here.

 

1) Thieves control the government;

2) Which results in increased stealing;

3) Deflation results from that;

4) Which gives the thieves a reason to print money and give it to themselves;

5) Which enriches the thieves some more;

6) Which gives them more resources they can use to consolidate their control of the government;

7) Back to step 1.

 

Many people seem confused about how there could be deflation in the paper (or digital) money era. If they would recognize how much stealing is going on, and if they understood the powerful deflationary effect of stealing, then perhaps they would not be so surprised to observe price decreases, particularly in wages and the prices of manufactured products.

Thank you, Jeff, for explaining the causal connection between systemic theft and deflation. To all those terrified of deflation (for example, central bankers and their cronies holding trillions of dollars in phantom assets and illusory collateral), the solution is obvious: get rid of systemic theft. But since those terrified of deflation are at the top of the monopoly-power thievery pyramid, that is asking the impossible: for the thieves to relinquish their power to steal.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1a7N6Io Tyler Durden

Ronald Bailey Says Obama’s ‘Opportunity’ Makes Everybody Less Well Off

Obama 2014 SOTUAt a speech in December to celebrate the
10th anniversary of the left-leaning Center for American
Progress, President Barack Obama declared, “The combined trends of
increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental
threat to the American Dream.” Earlier this week, the president
dropped the claim that income mobility was increasing and just said
that it had “stalled.” The president pointed out that it was easier
for people in our rich country cohort to rise from the lowest
income quintile to the highest. Reason Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that that is true, but it’s
largely because people living in Denmark, France, and Germay have
much shorter income ladders to scale due to massive income
redistribution.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1bIjw7o
via IFTTT

Ronald Bailey Says Obama's 'Opportunity' Makes Everybody Less Well Off

Obama 2014 SOTUAt a speech in December to celebrate the
10th anniversary of the left-leaning Center for American
Progress, President Barack Obama declared, “The combined trends of
increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental
threat to the American Dream.” Earlier this week, the president
dropped the claim that income mobility was increasing and just said
that it had “stalled.” The president pointed out that it was easier
for people in our rich country cohort to rise from the lowest
income quintile to the highest. Reason Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that that is true, but it’s
largely because people living in Denmark, France, and Germay have
much shorter income ladders to scale due to massive income
redistribution.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1bIjw7o
via IFTTT

Spain’s Economy Surges—Off the Books

Not that Europe is lacking for economic basket cases, but Spain
has been an especially fascinating train wreck to watch, with the
unemployment rate hitting
27 percent last year
. Official statistics are so dismal that
they could be expected to produce riots in the streets; that they
haven’t is evidence that, somehow, Spaniards are finding ways to
eat and pay the bills. If some sort of invisible economic activity
were not under way,
pointed out
Victor Mallet and Guy Dinmore in a 2011 article in
the Financial Times, “Spain would not be as peaceful as,
barring a few demonstrations, it has so far been.” Now comes
confirmation from the country’s government that the people of Spain
have, in fact, retained their ability to work and create jobs and
wealth—by staying as far under the state’s radar as possible.

A new
report
from Spain’s Finance Ministry reveals that the shadow
economy—underground activity that would be legal, if subject to the
usual tax and regulatory regime—has grown steadily every year from
2008 through 2012, the most recent year measured. In that time, the
shadow economy increased from 17.8 percent of official GDP to 24.6
percent.

Spain's shadow economy

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a country troubled by state meddling
with the economy, the shadow economy is smallest in Madrid, the
seat of government, at 17.3 percent, and sharply larger in every
other region, hitting 31.1 percent in Extremadura.

And Spain’s economy is somewhat hobbled by government
interference. On the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, Spain ranks at
49
, and 22nd out of 43 countries in Europe. “Its score is 0.8
point lower than last year due to declines in the management of
government spending, business freedom, and labor freedom that
outweigh small improvements in trade freedom and freedom from
corruption.”

For Spaniards looking to climb out of the country’s economic
doldrums, not only are taxes high, but “Incorporating a business
takes 10 procedures and about three weeks, but completing licensing
requirements takes over seven months and costs more than the level
of average annual income. Labor regulations remain largely
inflexible hindering job growth in the private sector.”

The country has actually improved its overall economic freedom
ranking a bit over the past 20 years, but unevenly and with decline
in recent years, even as the Euro crisis made life difficult.

As they grapple with the growth of the shadow economy, Spanish
officials, like officials everywhere, will have to deal with the
fact that underground activity can develop its own inertia as
people get accustomed to living that way.

Writes
economist Friedrich Schneider
(PDF):

But even major tax reforms with major tax rate deductions will
not lead to a substantial decrease of the shadow economy. Such
reforms will only be able to stabilize the size of the shadow
economy and avoid a further increase. Social networks and personal
relationships, the high profit from irregular activities and
associated investments in real and human capital are strong ties
which prevent people from transferring to the official economy.

Having given people ample reason to hide their activities and
experience in doing just that, Spain’s government may have a tough
time getting those underground entrepreneurs back into the official
economy.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1bIjvAl
via IFTTT

Spain's Economy Surges—Off the Books

Not that Europe is lacking for economic basket cases, but Spain
has been an especially fascinating train wreck to watch, with the
unemployment rate hitting
27 percent last year
. Official statistics are so dismal that
they could be expected to produce riots in the streets; that they
haven’t is evidence that, somehow, Spaniards are finding ways to
eat and pay the bills. If some sort of invisible economic activity
were not under way,
pointed out
Victor Mallet and Guy Dinmore in a 2011 article in
the Financial Times, “Spain would not be as peaceful as,
barring a few demonstrations, it has so far been.” Now comes
confirmation from the country’s government that the people of Spain
have, in fact, retained their ability to work and create jobs and
wealth—by staying as far under the state’s radar as possible.

A new
report
from Spain’s Finance Ministry reveals that the shadow
economy—underground activity that would be legal, if subject to the
usual tax and regulatory regime—has grown steadily every year from
2008 through 2012, the most recent year measured. In that time, the
shadow economy increased from 17.8 percent of official GDP to 24.6
percent.

Spain's shadow economy

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a country troubled by state meddling
with the economy, the shadow economy is smallest in Madrid, the
seat of government, at 17.3 percent, and sharply larger in every
other region, hitting 31.1 percent in Extremadura.

And Spain’s economy is somewhat hobbled by government
interference. On the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, Spain ranks at
49
, and 22nd out of 43 countries in Europe. “Its score is 0.8
point lower than last year due to declines in the management of
government spending, business freedom, and labor freedom that
outweigh small improvements in trade freedom and freedom from
corruption.”

For Spaniards looking to climb out of the country’s economic
doldrums, not only are taxes high, but “Incorporating a business
takes 10 procedures and about three weeks, but completing licensing
requirements takes over seven months and costs more than the level
of average annual income. Labor regulations remain largely
inflexible hindering job growth in the private sector.”

The country has actually improved its overall economic freedom
ranking a bit over the past 20 years, but unevenly and with decline
in recent years, even as the Euro crisis made life difficult.

As they grapple with the growth of the shadow economy, Spanish
officials, like officials everywhere, will have to deal with the
fact that underground activity can develop its own inertia as
people get accustomed to living that way.

Writes
economist Friedrich Schneider
(PDF):

But even major tax reforms with major tax rate deductions will
not lead to a substantial decrease of the shadow economy. Such
reforms will only be able to stabilize the size of the shadow
economy and avoid a further increase. Social networks and personal
relationships, the high profit from irregular activities and
associated investments in real and human capital are strong ties
which prevent people from transferring to the official economy.

Having given people ample reason to hide their activities and
experience in doing just that, Spain’s government may have a tough
time getting those underground entrepreneurs back into the official
economy.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1bIjvAl
via IFTTT

BofA Technician Watching 1750 S&P Support: “Below Here Is Trouble”

"Where's the bounce," asks (rhetorically) Bank of America's Macneil Curry, warning that despite the repeated signals that investor anxiety is at unsustainable levels and that this is a late stage "risk off" environment, given the blow off top conditions in several EM currencies, particularly $/TRY, and extreme readings in SPX volatility, with the VXV/VIX ratio recently breaking below 1, the S&P500 can't maintain a bid. "Risk assets are vulnerable," he concludes…

 

Via BofAML's Macneil Curry,

S&P500 key support at risk.

Despite the repeated signals that investor anxiety is at unsustainable levels and that this is a late stage "risk off" environment, given the blow off top conditions in several EM currencies, particularly $/TRY, and extreme readings in SPX volatility, with the VXV/VIX ratio recently breaking below 1, the S&P500 can't maintain a bid. Key support is vulnerable.

A break of 14m trendline support, now 1750/52 and risk markets are in big(ger) trouble.

Stay bullish US Treasuries

As such, we stay bullish Treasuries. US10yr yields target 2.544%/2.459%, potentially below. Meanwhile, 5s continue to stair step lower to 1.473%. This should be strong resistance, but a break below opens 1.245%/1.2245 (see charts for key support in 10s and 5s).

For risk assets to regain a more stable footing, ESH4 needs to regain 1790.75, with a move above 1801.25/1805.75 to confirm a base and turn higher. 

Bullish the US $, but the Japanese ¥ is the fairest of all

With the risk off environment continuing the US $ and Japanese ¥ remain on strong footing. The €/$ setup remains bearish. Declines are impulsive and gains are corrective. We target the 200d (now 1.3377) ahead of 18m channel support at 1.3177. Watch the US $ Index. 7wk trendline resistance at 81.37 is fast approaching. Above here should provide further bullish momentum for the Greenback.

As much as we like the US $, we like the Japanese ¥ even more.

Indeed, $/¥ continues to roll over. Watch 14m trendline support at 102.00. Below here clears the way for the 200d (now 100.05) and eventually the summer/spring 2013 lows at 93.79/92.57.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1frT9H6 Tyler Durden

BofA Technician Watching 1750 S&P Support: "Below Here Is Trouble"

"Where's the bounce," asks (rhetorically) Bank of America's Macneil Curry, warning that despite the repeated signals that investor anxiety is at unsustainable levels and that this is a late stage "risk off" environment, given the blow off top conditions in several EM currencies, particularly $/TRY, and extreme readings in SPX volatility, with the VXV/VIX ratio recently breaking below 1, the S&P500 can't maintain a bid. "Risk assets are vulnerable," he concludes…

 

Via BofAML's Macneil Curry,

S&P500 key support at risk.

Despite the repeated signals that investor anxiety is at unsustainable levels and that this is a late stage "risk off" environment, given the blow off top conditions in several EM currencies, particularly $/TRY, and extreme readings in SPX volatility, with the VXV/VIX ratio recently breaking below 1, the S&P500 can't maintain a bid. Key support is vulnerable.

A break of 14m trendline support, now 1750/52 and risk markets are in big(ger) trouble.

Stay bullish US Treasuries

As such, we stay bullish Treasuries. US10yr yields target 2.544%/2.459%, potentially below. Meanwhile, 5s continue to stair step lower to 1.473%. This should be strong resistance, but a break below opens 1.245%/1.2245 (see charts for key support in 10s and 5s).

For risk assets to regain a more stable footing, ESH4 needs to regain 1790.75, with a move above 1801.25/1805.75 to confirm a base and turn higher. 

Bullish the US $, but the Japanese ¥ is the fairest of all

With the risk off environment continuing the US $ and Japanese ¥ remain on strong footing. The €/$ setup remains bearish. Declines are impulsive and gains are corrective. We target the 200d (now 1.3377) ahead of 18m channel support at 1.3177. Watch the US $ Index. 7wk trendline resistance at 81.37 is fast approaching. Above here should provide further bullish momentum for the Greenback.

As much as we like the US $, we like the Japanese ¥ even more.

Indeed, $/¥ continues to roll over. Watch 14m trendline support at 102.00. Below here clears the way for the 200d (now 100.05) and eventually the summer/spring 2013 lows at 93.79/92.57.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1frT9H6 Tyler Durden

Amazon Drops 10% – Triggers SEC Short Sale Rule

Despite the best efforts of CNBC to have every bull on Amazon explain how great it really is and how they could enable to magical profit machine any minute if they so choose, the hedge fund hotel stock du jour is now down 10% and Bloomberg headlines blare:

  • *SEC Short Sale Rule 201 is in Effect : AMZN (NASDAQ)

Last night’s algo-ramp to VWAP (on rising Prime prices?) is a long-distant memory now…

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/LxkoWe Tyler Durden

Obama, Who Evidently Has Not Read the Controlled Substances Act, Denies That He Has the Power to Reclassify Marijuana

In an
interview
with CNN’s Jake Tapper that aired last night,
President Obama tried to dodge responsibility for eliminating the
contradiction between his
recent comments
about marijuana and its classification as a
Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act:

Tapper: You said that smoking pot was a bad
habit but you didn’t think it was any worse for a person than
drinking. Now that contradicts the official Obama administration
policy, both on the website of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy and also the fact that marijuana is considered a Schedule I
narcotic, along with heroin and Ecstasy. Now do you think you were
maybe talking just a little too casually about it with Remnick in
The New Yorker, or are you considering not making
marijuana a Schedule I narcotic?

Obama: Well, first of all, what is and isn’t a
Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress.

Tapper: I think it’s the DEA that decides
that.

Obama: It’s not something by ourselves that we
start changing. No, there are laws undergirding those
determinations.

Tapper: Would you support that move?

Instead of answering that question, Obama started talking about
a “public health” approach to marijuana (a subject I plan to
address in another post). But notice that Obama at first denied
that the executive branch has the power to reschedule drugs, saying
“what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress.” As
Tapper pointed out, that’s not true. While Congress can amend the

Controlled Substances Act
 (CSA) to increase or reduce
restrictions on particular drugs, the statute also gives that power
to the attorney general, who has delegated it to the Drug
Enforcement Administration (a division of the Justice Department).
In fact, the DEA has repeatedly
rejected
petitions to reschedule marijuana, most recently in
2011. I forget: Who was president then?

Apparently Obama forgot too. Obama often speaks as if he is an
outside observer of his own administration—condemning
excessively long prison sentences while hardly ever using his
clemency power to shorten them, sounding
the alarm
 about his own abuses of executive power in the
name of fighting terrorism, worrying
about the threat to privacy posed by surveillance programs he
authorized. Now here he is, trying to distance himself from his own
administration’s refusal to reclassify marijuana.

When Tapper challenged that evasive maneuver, Obama tried
another one. “There are laws uindergirding those determinations,”
he said, implying that the language of the CSA somehow dictates
that marijuana remain on Schedule I. These are the statutory
criteria for drugs in that category:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for
abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or
other substance under medical supervision.

The DEA argues that marijuana satisfies the first criterion
because people like to consume it for nonmedical purposes, which
according to the government qualifies as abuse. It’s illegal, after
all. According to that definition of abuse, prohibition justifies
itself, which hardly seems fair. A more reasonable view defines
abuse as harmful, excessive, or problematic use. Regardless of
which definition you prefer, it is hard to see in what meaningful
sense marijuana has a higher abuse potential than, say, the
barbiturates and benzodiazepines on Schedule III. According to the
DEA, even dronabinol has a lower abuse potential than marijuana.
What is dronabinol? A synthetic version of THC, the main
psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

The DEA says marijuana meets the second criterion—no currently
accepted medical use—not because the drug is ineffective at
treating symptoms such as nausea, pain, and muscle spasms (in fact,
the Obama administration
concedes
the medical utility of cannabinoids) but because such
uses have not gained wide enough acceptance within the medical
community. Given the subjectivity of that judgment, it amounts to
saying that marijuana has no accepted medical use because the DEA
deems medical use of marijuana unaccceptable. The agency likewise
does not accept that marijuana can be used safely, although it
obviously can, as Obama
conceded
when he observed that alcohol is more dangerous.

The DEA clearly is
bending over backward
to keep marijuana on Schedule I, and
nothing in the CSA requires it to do that. It could easily apply
the CSA’s criteria in a way that would make marijuana less
restricted, and the decision not to do so is ultimately Obama’s. He
is the one who appointed the current DEA administrator, a hardline
holdover from the Bush administration who is so committed to
prohibitionist orthodoxy that she recoils in horror at the thought
of a hemp flag flying over the Capitol and could not restrain
herself from
openly criticizing
Obama, notionally her boss, for his
scientifically uncontroversial statement about the relative hazards
of marijuana and alcohol. He is the one who, despite his avowed
commitment to sound science and his own statements to the contrary,
allows the DEA to insist marijuana is so dangerous that it must be
more tightly restricted than cocaine, morphine, oxycodone, and
methamphetamine.

“It’s very unfortunate that President Obama appears to want to
pass the buck to Congress when it comes to marijuana laws,” says
Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority. “If the president truly
believes what he says about marijuana, he has a moral imperative to
make the law match up with his views and the views of the majority
of the American people without delay. He should initiate the long
overdue rescheduling of marijuana today.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/MFomNq
via IFTTT