A Couple of Related Items

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission gave up the identity of a Pipeline Trading Systems LLC whistleblower when an SEC lawyer decided to show the PTS executive the lawyer was questioning a notebook compiled by the whistleblower that was “filled with jottings about trades, calls and meetings.” The executive in question recognized the whistleblower’s handwriting.

The WSJ article also cites an SEC spokesman:

Our review of the facts confirms that we followed this practice in this case.  While we utilize evidence from all witnesses, we do not reveal which witnesses may be cooperating with the government except as required by law or the governing rules of civil procedure.

Oops.  Apparently, given the spokesman’s claim that the lawyer “followed this practice” in the present case, it’s SEC civil procedure to give a whistleblower’s identity to the investigation target during the investigation.

In another WSJ report, we learn that The Obama/Holder Justice Department “inadvertently misled the Supreme Court in January 2009 by asserting that officials routinely ‘facilitate’ the return of erroneously deported immigrants.”  That assertion was provided the Supremes pursuant to Nken v Holder, and Chief Justice John Roberts cited it in a ruling that deportation while an appeal was still pending didn’t necessarily impose irreparable harm on immigrants.  This revelation is especially timely given that the Supreme Court also heard arguments this week about the legitimacy of Arizona’s immigration law,

Oops.  Sorry about that.

How are they related?  By the dishonesty shared by these government organs.  Why dishonest?  Because the lawyers involved are highly trained, very intelligent people, and they were not acting on the spur of the moment.  It stretches credulity well past breaking to think these were simply careless mistakes.

For how much longer can afford this level of dishonesty in our government?

An Object Lesson

…in excessive national debt and bailouts.  Greece is an open laboratory that is demonstrating in real time the fallacy of borrowing ad lib. and then going the bailout route, coupled with pure austerity measures that ignore the mechanisms of growth.

After a number of rounds of austerity measures involving public spending cuts and tax increases, rewarded by the EU’s “lending” of billions of euros to help Greece pay off its debt by borrowing more, we have the following outcomes.

The Bank of Greece has revised downward its economic forecast for the Greeks: contraction of 5.0% for 2012, compared with a previous estimate of 4.5%, and compared with a 6.9% decline last year.  This makes the fifth straight year of recession for the country.  The cause of this steady contraction?  All that borrowing to cure an excessive debt problem (feed the addict methadone to “help” him with his heroin addiction.  As with the new lender, the methadone does nothing for the addiction, it’s just a supposedly easier means of maintaining it).  On top of the transfer of addiction from one pusher to another, retirees, public-sector workers, and most households have suffered deep cuts in their disposable income as the government cut spending and raised taxes.  Moreover, the government continued to fail to privatize nationalized enterprises or to sell off nationalized assets—€50 billion ($66 billion) of real estate and other assets such as the government’s stake in Thessaloniki’s port and water utility, the Piraeus port and the Hellenic Postbank, for instance.

The parallels of the United States’ economic policies these last three and more years, together with our own continued economic straits, is striking.

Faced with a similar economic threat some short years ago, Estonia took a different path: government thinned its bureaucracy and reduced healthcare and social services.  Businesses reduced wages by up to 40 percent, with the promise these would be increased as soon as the economy improved.  Most importantly, the government did not pump borrowed funds into the economic cycle.  These are not austerity measures—they’re a return of individual responsibility to the individual.  And the individuals and businesses cut deals to help each other survive the dislocation.  Today, Estonia has little public debt, a budget surplus for the first half of 2011, and an economy growing at an annualized 8% over that same half.

The once sick man of Europe, Germany, did much the same thing in much the same straits.  The Germans, in answer to high debt, high public spending, high taxes, and slow growth, cut welfare benefits and gave employers more flexibility in reaching agreement with their employees on hours and pay.  They also cut federal corporate income taxes to 15% from 1998’s 45%.  With state and local taxes added to the mix, and the effective corporate rate today is close to 30%, down from 50%+ in the 1990s. Today, Germany has an unemployment rate currently at 5.7%, and who’s propping up the EU in today’s debt crisis on the continent?

Government must achieve two things, and then a third, for a sound, free economy within which truly free men have an opportunity to show the best that there is in them.  Government must obtain a net positive income—that is, it must maintain its spending below its revenue intake (especially where the national debt has gotten excessive), and it must do so without raising tax rates.  The second thing it must do is commit that budget surplus to paying down the national debt until that value is at a properly low level.

After that, the surplus must be reduced by reducing the taxes yet further—after all, it isn’t the government’s money.  Money must be left in the hands of those who know best what to do with it—those who’ve earned it.

The Law

…doesn’t apply to me; I’m special.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department is getting something right, and they’re coming in for all kinds of opprobrium from the Left for their efforts.  It seems that the government’s lawyers are haling a band of publishers into court for colluding on the prices for which they would permit eBook versions of their publications to be sold by resellers.  With great crocodile tears, for instance, Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) bleats

I feel absolutely befuddled by the lawsuit.  For the Antitrust Division to step in as the big protector of Amazon doesn’t seem to make any sense from an antitrust point of view.  Rarely have I seen a suit that so ill serves the interests of the consumer.

Others insist that that, even if the publishers are illegally colluding, they’re acting in the best interests of the industry and, by extension, of readers.  They also insist that book publishing is special: books are the heart and soul of culture and civilization, and if publishers can’t make a decent profit, their ability to produce books is threatened (ignoring whose definition of “decent profit” should be operable here, or the legitimacy of the “heart and soul” bit in an age of virtualization).  As a result, these critics further insist that DoJ should allow the publishers to continue breaking the law.

Leaving aside the cynicism of the meme that holds that illegal behavior is acceptable so long as it serves favored interests, such objections stem from a distortion of what the anti-trust law actually is.  American antitrust law is concerned with protecting competition, not competitors.

Law professor Herbert Hovenkamp, of the University of Iowa, notes that

The goal of antitrust policy is to protect consumer prices….  It’s not to protect inefficient firms from having to exit the market.

Professor Hovenkamp points out further that

Price fixing [the particular beef of the DoJ’s action] is kind of the first-degree murder of antitrust violations.  [DoJ doesn’t] have discretion to just walk away from what appears to be a strong set of facts that, if true, are one of the most central of antitrust violations.

Senator Schumer, et al., know better.  This is a demonstration of their morality.

More Big Government

Now we have a big government feedback loop between the EU and the EU wanna-bes.  The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that our Treasury Secretary is urging the EU and its European Central Bank to “take stronger action” to get control over Europe’s potentially deteriorating debt crisis.

The success of the next phase of the crisis response will hinge on Europe’s willingness and ability, together with the European Central Bank, to apply its tools and processes creatively, flexibly and aggressively to support countries as they implement reforms and stay ahead of markets[.]

Not, apply themselves to get out of the way of the markets and give them room to right themselves.  No, the big government policies that created the economic disasters of the PIIGS and of the EU generally need to be applied even more so to stem the tide.

Hmm….

Indeed, as the WSJ went on,

Washington has long pressed Europe to bolster its emergency bailout funds and use them to backstop government debt. It has also urged the ECB to use all the weapons in its arsenal to calm financial markets.

How’s that working out for us, exactly?

The IMF is in on this tragicomedy, also.  Its steering committee Issued a Communiqué with this sage advice for the euro zone:

[C]ontinued progress on ensuring debt sustainability, securing financial stability, and undertaking bold structural reforms will be crucial to boosting confidence and productivity, facilitating rebalancing within the monetary union, and promoting strong and balanced growth.

Most of this is pap, intended solely to give the impression of advisement.  However, with apologies to Inigo Montoya, you keep using that phrase “undertaking bold structural reforms.”  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Another Object Lesson

…if we’re only willing to listen to it.  The Wall Street Journal‘s sub-headline says it all:

Borrowing Fueled Chongqing’s Infrastructure Projects, Highlighting National Problem of Reliance on Government Spending

“…10 major investment vehicles the city used to fuel its growth accumulated more than 346 billion yuan ($54 billion) in liabilities,” the WSJ reports.  Moreover, this is just the publicly acknowledged debts of the city.  The various national government-owned enterprises in Chongqing likely have their own debts, and these are not obligated to discuss them.  Northwestern University Associate Professor of Political Science and an expert on local government debt in the People’s Republic of China, Victor Shih, adds

I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that Chongqing local government, state-owned enterprises and state-owned developers collectively owed 1 trillion yuan [$156 billion] at the end of 2011[.]

What has Chongqing to show for this?  High risk, for one: a significant per centage of that debt is secured by land the city owns or controls.  To pick on Chongqing Yufu Assets Management Co., a city-owned investment vehicle established in 2004 as an example: the city loaded Yufu with land that then was used as collateral.  Now its 63% debt-to-asset ratio makes it one of the most heavily indebted financing vehicles sponsored by the Chongqing government.  Its 2010 profit of 1 billion yuan sounds good, however, asset sales now are likely to be necessary in order to service that debt—but Yufu’s assets are that land that’s bound up as collateral.  Moreover, that 2010 profit is down, sharply, from the prior year’s profit of 1.7 billion yuan, due to just as sharply falling revenue from its land holdings.

What happened the last time vast debt was secured by a land or housing market in a country near you and I?  At least in the US, our government can just print up all the money it needs….