Categories
Economics

[2204] Of beware the tragedy of economic populism

The story in Greece is a result of intertwining plots. One major plot concerns economic populism. It is a reminder that populist measures tend to ignore scarcity. It highlights that the policy of spend, spend and spend and then hoping someone else will take care of it, is risky.

With a brick wall up ahead, the Greek government is frantically trying to change its course. It plans to raise taxes, combat tax evasion and cut the salary as well as bonuses of its bloated civil services. Massive cuts are in order. It has to do this urgently because not only Greece is on a collision course, but also because the International Monetary Fund and European governments have told the Greek government that if the country expects others to save Greece, Greece has to be serious about saving itself.

The policy as demanded by the IMF and EU is harsh, but Greece would not have reached this juncture if it had not spent to please Greek voters with impunity. At so many points, there were so many opportunities for the Greek government to stop indulging in immediate gratification. There were so many chances to cease appealing to crass populism.

But no. They wanted to keep the voters happy. Political expediency was more important than responsible fiscal policy. To finance its spending, Greece even misreported its statistics. Oh, what was that about government as the guarantor of transparency in the markets?

It is all too late now. Only hard choices are on the table. The party is no more.

Greece is in so great a wreck that the possibility of bankruptcy is very real. Funny that even in times of great distress, certain fractions within the Greek society are protesting against plans to address structural fiscal deficit suffered by the Greek government. Shockingly, they want the clearly unsustainable status quo to remain.

The Greek Communist Party for instance staged a protest against the austere fiscal policy, which the IMF and the EU demand in exchange for bailing Greece out. Perhaps, it is unfair to single out the Communist Party in such a manner. The outrage in Greece appears to be one shared by many outside of the Communist Party. It is popular outrage after all.

That popular outrage is a little amusing. Where was the outrage when outrageous demands were made and met? It was this populism that brought Greece to where it is today. Due to that, there is some sadistic value to the whole episode.

The Greek government has shown political will to see through reform that the country needs so far. It has no choice. A capitulation to populism at this point will prove to be more costly than the cost austere fiscal measures. The fact that a left-leaning government — typically a leading proponent of government spending — has now become the leading proponent of the austere measures is telling. They finally realize that their freewheeling spending programs invite disasters. It invited disasters.

Greece is so far away from Malaysia but the story of populism is relevant. Perhaps, a comparison between Greece and Malaysia is an overkill, especially as the memory of the Asian Financial Crisis — which is more or less thirteen years old — fades. Yet, the pressure of populism is present in Malaysia. It is not hard to name these populist pressures.

Expansion of the civil service, demand for special treatments, pork-barreling during election times, opposition to subsidy removal, opposition to introduction of goods and services tax to replace existing sales and services tax, call to nationalize highways and effort to provide water free of charge are among many examples that will surely increase government expenditure without raising the necessary revenue to fund it.

In fact, at least three of the pressures that exist in Malaysia contributed to the Greek fiscal mess.

We are not done with 2010 yet but at the rate Malaysia is going, 2011 is likely to be the 14th consecutive year that the government is running a fiscal deficit. Clearly, Malaysia is suffering from a structural deficit. Needless to say, cyclical spending, which is largely unavoidable, exacerbates the situation.

The size of government in Malaysia is wildly big. Its scope is maddeningly wide. Its cost is incredibly huge. Malaysia needs to address this. This is why the story of Greece is a compulsory reading for all public office holders. Beware: populist measures will not address this concern, even up to the very end.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on May 11 2010.

n/b — there are multiple grammatical problems at the TMI article. That is entirely my bad. I was rushing the article through. I know, I look stupid now.

Categories
Economics

[2200] Of proposed tax cut on savings interest in Australia

Holding all else constant, I do not like tax. I do not think, too many people actually like paying tax.

I only rationalize the need for paying tax by holding on to classical rationale for the need of the state: that there is externality. The state is there to protect individual liberty which, generally, cannot be guaranteed in anarchic environment. I say generally because I am still reading Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia and he has some idea how that maybe false. Yes, I am still reading it. But I am digressing.

Like I have mentioned earlier, I do not like tax. And some taxes are worse than others. One of the worst that can exist is tax on savings in one form or another. In Australia, much to my dismay, savings is taxed. More precisely, they tax interest gained on savings.

Tax on savings has its purposes. For one, it encourages spending to promote economic activities. Or allegedly. Islamic economics for one has this goal imbued in it due to its objection to the concept of time value of money, a concept which necessarily brings in the concept of interest. Without interest, there are less reasons to save for tomorrow and more reasons to spend it all today. Tax on interest earned on savings does that albeit to a lesser degree.

Whether that purpose is good or bad is a normative question that cannot be answered with the end set. And I know my end and I frown at the end of taxation savings. In promoting the economy, it penalizes prudent spenders and it penalizes effort to smooth out consumption by savers.

I say allegedly because savings can be turned into loans and that encourage economic activities. There are ways to promote economic activities without penalizing savers. Indeed, that is how the banking sector helps grease the economy. Fractional banking is a magnificent social technology that takes care of that.

In Australia now, there is a big discussion regarding tax reform. Called the Henry tax review, the report was released just days ago. It aims to reform the Australian tax system. One way it seeks to support those reforms is by proposing a large tax on miners. That is dominating the headlines. There appears to be a war between the big miners and the Rudd government right now.

Meanwhile, many other details slip away from public attention. One of the details is the proposed cut on interest earned on savings.[1]

I like that particular proposed tax cut. Hell, I always like tax cut. I hate giving away money that I earned just like that.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — The review proposes a 40 per cent discount on all income from savings, as well as on all residential rental income and losses, and capital gains.

These recommendations were widely flagged prior to yesterday’s announcement, with critics saying the current system doesn’t give enough incentives for workers to put money in savings accounts. [The Henry tax review – what it means for you. Chelsea Mes. News. April 15 2010]

Categories
Economics Liberty Society

[2192] Of embrace a more holistic view on development

There is much stress on economic freedom these days. This is clear by the fact that the New Economic Model is advocating less government in various aspects. So excited are the document authors about the idea of free market that at its rhetorical climax, they highlight the phrase ”market-friendly affirmative action”, never mind the apparent contradiction that the phrase invites. That phrase is perhaps the hallmark of contradiction of the document in terms of economic freedom. The latter part of the document suggests various government interventions that do not tally with its rhetoric. Yet, the document does begin from a liberal point and that is a good starting line. It has to begin somewhere after all.

Truthfully, the goal of the document is development and not the creation of freer market. Without strong conviction to the idea of free market in pursuing its main goal, contradiction is only natural. To criticize the authors of such contradiction is an effort unlikely to impress them and others who share the same view on development vis-à-vis free market.

They primarily believe that the government has a role in development. Such idea is hardly a controversial one. The government can indeed play a role in development even while adhering to the concepts of limited government and free market.

The issue is that the goal of development set by the New Economic Model is unsatisfactorily limited in its scope. The document limits the idea of development to merely economic progress. It ignores the larger meaning of development, just as freedom takes a larger meaning well beyond the realm of business and economics.

Development is not merely about better infrastructures or higher income levels for us all. While income levels do indicate general well-being in many ways, it is not the only factor in development that needs to be taken into account.

Development must empower individuals in a comprehensive manner. More often than not, this means enhancing economic progress as well promoting individual liberty. Indeed, economic progress and individual freedom work hand in hand. Without the other, each feels empty even if each lifts one up from the gutter by a tiny margin. Both are required to catalyze the jump out of the gutter.

Without development as confined within self-limiting definition of economic progress, individual freedom itself is redundant. Individuals living in dire economic condition will be unable to reap the dividend of liberty for they are incapable of understanding virtues of freedom. Without such comprehension, they are unable to make full use of it for their benefits. As the Malay idiom goes, what is a flower to a monkey?

There are so many elementary concerns need to tend to that whatever freedom they have is meaningless. It is the excess capacity that will never be used up. For instance, what is free speech when the stomach growls endlessly? In fact, free speech with an empty stomach can easily descend into anarchy as the hungry and famished knock rule of law essential to the preservation of liberty down to the ground to satisfy their very basic desire while robbing somebody else’s rights and liberty.

Similarly, where there is economic progress without individual liberty, what use of those shinny sedans or overly big four-wheel drives, clean and smooth roads together with tall and richly decorated towers when they are merely a posh prison to keep the prisoners happy? After all, what is economic wealth while one is repressed, living in fear?

They have the all the means but if the means are prevented from reaching the ends by traditions or prejudices, economic progress become meaningless. Life must be one cruel joke if economic progress in the end only comes to naught.

Individuals have to become richer not only in monetary terms but also in terms of themselves. The set of what can be done must be enlarged and the set of what cannot be done must shrink for development to take its holistic meaning. Choices have to expand.

Their choices have to be well informed. That is only possible through the tradition of free enquiry that embedded in it the concept of free speech and free press, among others. They must be able to express themselves and to do so is to practice freedom of expression. We talk about how young graduates lack communication and social skills in general: can we blame them when the avenues for practice are limited and guided paternalistically?

This idea is not new. Nobel Prize Laureate economist Amartya Sen is the vanguard of the idea. Although it must be said that he goes farther than a classical liberal would, he articulated similar view much earlier and wrote Development as Freedom for wider consumption.

Development must focus on both fronts for it to be meaningful. It is in this sense that the New Economic Model is insufficient. Malaysia needs more than economic freedom.

This is not to say that the authors of the document are not doing their jobs. Their terms of reference are clear: focus on the economic front. And they are doing just that. They cannot be blamed for that.

The other focus on the social front where it involves individual freedom is the job of ordinary citizens.

And the government is in the way. Hopefully, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet embraces the wider meaning of development to enable Malaysia to progress at all fronts. Hopefully, they will realize that only a liberal democratic system can bring Malaysia forward in a convincing style.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 12 2010.

Categories
Economics

[2191] Of growth, recession and war

A random thought came to me.

War and recession have the same impact on the economic growth. Growth during wartime and during recession exhibit the same behavior. The same seems to be true for growth immediately after wartime and after recession. Relatively drastic changes happen during and after periods of war or recession.

If one looks at graph of growth without knowing history or context, one basically cannot tell the difference between wars and recessions. They are just dips which are unsuccessful in halting some long run growth trajectory.

Not so brilliant a realization, I will take that. But I am intrigued by it nonetheless.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — this may have been an overly strong statement. Relooking level of real GDP per capita from the 1860s to this decade, the Great Depression caused deep world economic decline while impacts of war appear relatively minuscule.

Categories
Economics

[2184] Of initial reaction to the New Economic Model

With over 200 pages, it will take some time to digest the so-called New Economic Model fully. I began by reading the speech delivered by the Prime Minister earlier today and I am only beginning to read the document proper just now. Given time constraint, I doubt I will able to able to go through the points presented comprehensively. At first past though, the NEM seems to suggest something favorable to me.

It appears to suggest the retreat of the state from the marketplace. The stress on frictions in the market due to subsidies and trade restrictions, the need of liberalization and reduction of government holding in some government linked enterprises are proofs for this. The term market is prominently used throughout the document.

There is more nuance than a simple retreat however. The speech itself suggests that entities like Khazanah and EPF will be allowed to invest abroad as part of effort to not crowd out the private sector.

That is good but it does not erase the fact that these entities still exist.

Affirmative action itself is still in force although the PM suggests that it will be reformed from race-based to need-based. Somewhere in the speech, the term market-friendly affirmative action appeared. I am not quite bought by that term. I rather hear the abolition of affirmative action but I am willing to give ground that need-based is far better than race based affirmative action.

The existence of national key performance indicators itself suggests a huge bureaucracy. It has been taunted as part of government transformation but I am not at all impressed with the idea of enlarged bureaucracy. Nevertheless, I am willing to give the administration a benefit of a doubt on this front.

Never mind the administration seeks to strengthen the public sector. How that strengthening will affect the size of the bureaucracy is something I hope to find out while reading the report.