Chingo De Dinero

Sometimes when you commit a crime, you should sit in jail and reflect on what you have done, so in the future it will not happen again.  If you are simply let off you will not understand the extent of what you have done.

This is no different from the banking bailout now.  If the government takes responsibility for what others have done, those who made the mistakes will do it again.  Many times this is called moral hazard.  If I know someone will catch me if I fall, I will take risk which I normally would not take.  Although it is nice be caught when you fall, is comes at a cost, and inflicting that cost on those who are not willing is a violation of their rights.  There may be some trickle down, but it will not be as bad as if there is a bailout and risky actions are still taken, and we find ourselves in the same situation in the future.

I recently read a quote form a congressman that when he started Chrisler was going into bankruptcy, and the worry was that they could go bankrupt, and they needed to be saved.  Here we are again, and issue.  If they would have fallen the first time, there would have been room for a better company to step up, and we would have been better off.  Instead, they were bailed out and squeezed out new competition, only to mess it up again.

All the argument should be is does the calapse of the financial industry violate anyone’s rights.  The clear answer is no, but forcing people to pay for a bailout is clearly a violation of individual rights.  All of the arguments about the trickle down and the positive possibility of the assets being worth more than they are bought for are wrong, and just a short fix.  Kind of like when you get a wish from the geniue in the bottle, you make your wise, get it, but the unexpected side effects are worse than what you have gotten.

Don’t bail out the financial industry.  It may hurt for a little while, but we will make it through it and will be stronger after.

If you have been to Venezuela recently you will know about their currency control.  If you have read about business in Venezuela recently you will know about their currency control.  It is one of the craziest things on this earth.  So, the government says the exchange rate is 2.15 Bolivars Fuertes to 1 dollar.  But, if you can do DPN transactions or exchange in the informal market, it is maybe 4 Bolivars Fuertes to 1 dollar.  So, how does this play out and who is hurt/helped.

The basic way to control the currency is by requiring all exchanges to be done by the government (CADIVI).  You can imagine how slow this must be…all businesses needing to send funds overseas much go through a government organization.  6 months waiting on cash, the supplier will not be too happy about that.  Less quantity supplied, higher prices, Venezuelan people hurt (#1 loser).  That is why yearly inflation is around 30%, they are also spending the oil money like crazy.

Also, the government must convert the Bolivars to Dollars to pay the suppliers.  They convert at the official rate 2.15, when they could you the unofficial 4, 1.85 in loses on each dollar traded (#2 loser).  Of course Venezuela produces Bolivars, so the impact is not really direct.  Additionally, citizens have learned how to get a piece of the pie, they travel, and max out their credit cards to get cash back…in casinos, or special shops set-up for this.  They then come back and convert the funds to Bolivars at the unofficial rate, and pay off their credit cards which convert Dollars to Bolivars at the official rate.  Easy way to make a few thousand dollars.  To limit this, the government restricts the amount people can spend on their credit cards overseas to 5 KUSD per year (#1 winner).  If they want to spend more than 5 KUSD, they must convert their Bolivars to Dollars at the unofficial rate (#4 loser).

The big winners of this are those who have access to convert Bolivars to Dollars at the official rate, then convert the Dollars to Bolivars at the unofficial rate.  There seem to be some banks who can do this, mainly because of close contact to government officials (#2 winner).  I am searching for a way to do this, if I find it, I will write a book about it while in the Bahamas so you can learn it too.

To sum, the government has fixed the exchange rate, which creates more bureaucracy, a tougher business environment, make a few people extremly wealthy, and screws the every day Venezuelans.  So much oil, and the government has found a way to keep the people poor.  My advise, open the market, put reasonable taxes on oil.  Cut all other taxes to 0.  Reduce government, and watch the growth.

When trying to explain different types of economies it is easy to get confused and start to cross over from one type to another.  This is particularly important this time of year, when we need to pick a president.  The economy is always a hot topic, mainly because people associate the economy with employment, home prices, oil prices, inflation, etc.  But, when I look at it, not one really looks at the big picture, it is always issue by issue, which results in the wrong direction being taken.

Before I begin, let me lay a little basic foundation.  The goal of the economy is to allocate scarce resources.  This is a very big statement.  First, to allocate, what is made and also how is it divided.  Second, scarce resources, everyone can not have everything, we have a limited amount of resourses to work with.

That being said, and to get to the title Push vs Pull Economy, these are the two ways to allocate the scarce resources.  First, I will discuss push.  This method is done at the top level.  If it is determined to build more power plants, resources are put towards that.  If we need more engineers, more engineers are made.  If people is a certain city need more gas, more gas is directed towards them.  This is most commonly done through taxes.  Taxes representing a pooling of resources, which is later disbursed by the government in the best way.  So, when the government says we need more wind power, that is what is happening, tax money is being taken, and put towards wind power.  Of course, it is not this simple, the government can use regulation, tax rates, or other incentives to direct resources, but none the less, resources are directed by the government.

The other system, Pull, uses a market to determine where to focus resources.  Although trying to map out and control the market is for the most part impossible, the idea is very simple.  The working of supply and demand determines a price, which results in additional or less resources being dedicated.  It also factors in the scarcity of the resource.  So, if the people want more oil, they will increase demand, which will raise the price, which results in more drilling, and more supply (i.e. allocate more resources to the production of oil).  Keeping the same examples as above, if people want more wind energy, they will demand, it, which will raise the price paid, which results in more wind projects, again, dedicate more resources to building wind energy.  And the last example, number of engineers.  If people want more engineers want more engineers, the pay rate for engineers will increase, which will result in more people becoming engineers, again, more resources being dedicated toward engineering.

Following these examples, it is just like manufacturing.  In Push, a person or group of people determine what to produce, and it is made.  Of course this is related to business demand, but after being analyzed by this person or group of people.  Pull on the other hand results in items being built only when the demand is know from the customer, ie order is made.  The results of the two can be drasic, Push can result in great waste, producing too much of products not wanted, and more damaging, not being able to produce what customers want because resources were dedicated to other those not wanted.  Pull on the other hand is very efficient, what is demanded is produced, nothing more, nothing less.  Of course, I have simplified this, but the idea is there.

When the government determines what is produced, we will end up with more of what we do not want, and less of what we really want.  If we let the market take over, we will get, by definition, exactly what we want.

Our positions/opinions should always be free of conflict, allowing whatever we think is true, not to contradict another truth that we believe in.  Bankruptcy is one of those things that gets me all tied up in knots.  First of all, to let someone walk away from their debts just seems wrong, and can lead to reckless behavior.  On the other hand, we do not need indentured servants, and need to have hope in everyone, if we want a productive society.  As Ayn Rand would say, the goal of Government is to protect our individual rights, so which is more important, our right to be free of financial slavery, or our right to our contractual right, to debt?

Although, I do see both sides, and I think everyone would agree the right answer is somewhere in the middle.  I would still lean more towards tougher restrictions on brankruptcy.  Main reason being the debts were incurred under free will, no one forced the person to sign the contract.  By stepping in an forgiving debts, future contracts for debt will be at higher rates, thus future borrowers are hit.  Also, let me make it clear, I am talking about individuals, not corporations.  The two are very different, and maybe I will talk about corporations later on.

So, what is the main cause of individual bankruptcys?  I really do not know, and if you do, please leave a comment.  My guess would be over consumption.  I make X, spend Y, X>Y, over time, the delta becomes so large, you need to reduce it dramatically.  Over time, if you know you can go bankrupt, you will over consume, because you know the “get out of jail for free card”  is waiting.  Also, the biggest punishment for bankruptcy is bad credit for 10 years or so, but really, what does that mean?  As of now, even with subprime credit is easy to obtain, maybe you pay a little more, but that could still be less than what is written off when you go bankrupt.  Also, you can only go bankrupt every few years, which really means you get your “get out of jail card” every few years.

I keep sociaty from abusing this, and over consuming only to reduce debts once they become too large, rules need to be very tight.  There is a process currently, where your case is reviewed, and situation assessed, so abuse is reduced.  Also, the bankruptcy law passed in 2005 helps keep people from abusing Chapter 7, and forcing them to go to Chapter 13.  Allof this is in the right direction, but I still wonder if anyone would say no, if you had a really good lawyer.

On the plus side, if someone is so worried about the bill collector, or if they will be able to buy food, they are not very productive, and could be more of a benefit to society, if this was removed.  By taking the weight off of their sholders, they can get back on their feet, improve, increase earnings, pay off a portion of the debt, and start adding to society again.  I am sure there are many people who messed up in college and need a second chance.  Second chances are always good, but you still much make a cost, so it will be remembered, and not repeated.  What percent do I think need an honest second chance, I am not too sure.  Also, the current cost which I described above, is pretty good, I have not been through the process, so I really do not know if it teaches a lesson, but it sounds pretty good.

If you fall in the boat mentioned above, I would recommend: Get Bankrupt.  It is a site that I am creating to pull lots of info, and in particular help people in Raleigh, Asheville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, Wilmington, and Hickory find info and local Lawyers.  If you have any comments, or suggestions for the site, please let me know…I am aiming for December to have it complete.