Investcafe.org

The Times reports today that France has obtained a list of 3,000 account holders at Swiss banks.  This is only days after France and Switzerland reached an agreement to exchange information on French citizens who hold Swiss bank accounts. 

Just last week the U.S. Department of Justice and the I.R.S reached a deal with Switzerland to get the names of 4,450 U.S. account holders who may be suspect of hiding income and assets from Uncle Sam.

And the week before that Britain and Liechtenstein inked a new tax cooperation agreement to allow British account holders the opportunity to disclose their hidden accounts.  British citizens must disclose their accounts to get some leniency for tax evasion and those who do not will be forced to move their money out of Liechtenstein and face the full consequences – back taxes, penalties and possible legal action.

These three events are not coincidental and clearly indicate a growing trend among nations to shore up badly needed tax revenues.  The question is what will happen when the global economy picks up again.  There are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars at stake for countries like the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Italy.

Once the tax coffers begin to rely on an increased taxpayer participation rate it would be hard to notice any dramatic reduction.  But that is where I think we could see an eventual pullback to the traditional tax evasion scheme.  It is always that slow and gradual change that proves to be the hardest to see.  A slow but sustained effort to chip away at these new rules and agreements could be just what the banks ordered.

The motivations behind hiding assets from tax authorities can vary from the outright criminal to well justified.  For those parties that use offshore havens to sustain their criminal activities I share no sentiment with you.  Those activities include money laundering, tax evasion and fraud.

In the case of tax evasion I take additional exception, as I liken it to you living under my roof and refusing to help pay the rent.    Regardless of the extent to which one may agree or disagree with the tax code, the fact should not be lost that citizenship has its privileges AND responsibilities.  One of those responsibilities being that of helping to pay for the government that protects you, defends your way of life and makes it possible for you to create any wealth in the first place.  Grievances with tax rules should be funneled through the appropriate channels – call your senator not your offshore banker. 

If you are one of those 4,450 lucky winners on that UBS list then you might want to call your local I.R.S agent too, as the Sep. 23 deadline for disclosing those secret accounts is getting close.

The Times and NPR have written recently about employers using credit checks as an additional means to screen potential new hires.  I’ve heard about these on rare occasion but it seems that a trend may be developing whereby one’s personal financial situation becomes a hiring tool.  This is an interesting issue that poses some important questions:

• Should potential employers have access to your financial history?
• What relevance does one’s credit score have on employment candidacy?
• What protections have been put in place to prevent abuse?
• Who (what federal agency) is representing the interests of the candidate?
• Are employers opening themselves up to potential legal problems by making hiring decisions based on personal and confidential financial information?
• What kinds of externalities can we expect from this activity?

Lets start with the most basic question – why should potential employers have access to this information?  The most compelling argument I have seen is that potential employers can use a credit report to gauge a candidate’s decision-making abilities.  It goes like so: the likelihood that a candidate who has a history of delinquencies, collections, foreclosure or perhaps a bankruptcy will make similarly poor decisions in their professional life is higher than a candidate with a clean credit history with few or no blips. In other words, the argument says, “hey, this person has taken good care of his/her financial reputation and demonstrated responsibility over the long term”.

While I may appreciate and even agree with that claim, I cannot reconcile that argument against a more important claim – that personal financial and medical information is too sensitive to be used for anything other than what they were originally intended for – doctors need your medical record to provide health care and banks need it to decide whether they should lend you money for that car or business idea. Why did I throw in medical information? Because I consider both to be the last bastions of personal privacy afforded us by the government from prying employers, insurance companies, marketing agencies and the like.  Although HIPAA has made progress with Protected Health Information it seems that our credit history is slowly becoming a one-stop shop for anyone willing to write Experian, TransUnion or Equifax a check.

Another area of concern is what happens to this information once it is obtained by potential employers?  Who in the organization has access to this information?  In today’s world of Twitter and Facebook how long will it be before we hear about someone tweeting about a candidate’s bankruptcy?  What happens after a candidate has been hired?  Will the employer have an obligation (read unintended consequence) to disclose any of this information to other parties?

Perhaps my strongest concern for using credit reports as a way to screen job candidates is the long-term and compounding (yet to be determined) socioeconomic effect.  Hans Rossling’s enlightening presentation at the 2006 TED Conference comes to mind.  Watch it below.

What we should be cognizant of is that this is a slippery slope we have started.  I know that my car insurance provider accesses and (whether they acknowledge it or not) utilizes my credit score to determine my premiums.  Although I have yet to be asked by a potential employer for my credit report it may only be a matter of time.  What will be next?  Will credit scores be required for admission to colleges and universities? Hey, the admissions departments could argue that it would help them keep their graduation rates high.

I can imagine a situation where pervasive use of credit reports for employee screening could perpetuate a gradual segregation of those who have had the success or luck in maintaining their credit in good standing from those who have not.  I can imagine watching Hans Rossling’s presentation 10 years from now as he shows the ‘completely new world’ we live in, where those with good credit have access to every definition of economic opportunity one could conceive while those with poor credit are left to struggle for whatever remains as they descend into a self reinforcing spiral.

I am sure others have noticed by now that the discussion about bailing out our Big 3 auto firms reliably ends up with GM being the focus of attention.  I think there is something to be said about this.

It has always been my opinion that GM is the embodiment of poor management, lack of vision and a stubborn proclivity to rely on excuses in the face of adversity.  The public apprehension towards bailing out the Big 3 seems to be a manifestation of the same sentiment.

What I find unfortunate is that Ford, while equally responsible for its current situation, has been more responsive to the realities of the marketplace and yet seems to be getting dragged down with GM’s bad reputation.  Ford has brought in a new CEO, it has been in the process of painful but necessary steps to restructure and it has quickly begun to adapt.  If any of these firms should be bailed out it should be Ford.  GM should be forced to restructure under Chapter 11.

What many do not seem to understand is that allowing GM to fail could be a blessing in disguise.  With the anticipated growth of the alternative energy industry (wind, solar, etc…) we will need workers to man these jobs.  Where will they come from???  Look at the unemployment rate as it stands in the midst of a considerable economic  downturn – 6.5%.

Let’s look past the trees for a moment and see the forest.  The next decade will see baby boomers leaving the job market en masse – creating an industry that caters to them in the process.  Energy will be an ever increasingly important industry that will require imagination, talent and huge amounts of capital.  There is opportunity on the horizon, but we need to recognize it and prepare ourselves for it.  Americans have always shown their ability to take a bad situation and thrive on it.  Let’s keep that tradition alive.

President Truman must be rolling in his grave.  We have become a society enthralled with the notion that responsibility lies…… way over there.  Burn yourself on HOT coffee at McDonalds?  Easy, just sue them for serving you hot coffee.  Suffer hearing loss from listening to your iPod to loud?  No problem, stick it to Apple for creating ADJUSTABLE volume controls. (more…)

The Times reports in this article that you can now make an arbitrage profit off of all those pennies and nickels lying around… in theory that is. Increasing metals prices has driven the value of pennies and nickels to more than what you will get for them at the local washeteria. In fact, nickels can be worth up to 7 cents – that’s a 20% premium! (more…)

The New York Times just published an article that could be a great case study for those clamoring towards protectionist policies.

Every time I decide to blog something about this issue I can’t get over how anyone could take issue with unrestricted trade policies. It takes acute short sightedness and a very narrow interest to do so.

What do protectionists want? Well, they want to protect a small group’s interests at the expense of everyone else. For example, GM and Ford workers argue that they are entitled to a job, regardless of whether or not they can work as competitively and cheaply as workers at Toyota or Nissan. Not only do they feel that Ford and GM owe them a job, but they should be paid handsomely for it as well. In the case of GM, if the company has trouble finding people to buy these cars at inflated prices, these prima donna workers are entitled to participate in the Jobs Bank Program, whereby they get to receive full pay and benefits regardless of whether they have work or not. Who do you think is paying the bill?

In a nutshell, protectionists feel that everyone should pay more for a Tahoe or Explorer simply because some workers want to shield themselves from the competitive pressures of the labor market. Protectionists like to use fancy terms like ‘exporting American jobs’ or make one-sided statements like we will hear a ‘giant sucking sound’ as American jobs are moved out of the country, but the truth is that we benefit in many ways.

What gets me is that they are ironically protecting themselves from any form of self improvement. Our economy, and anyone else’s for that matter, depends on increasing productivity gains to raise the standard of living while at the same time staving off inflationary pressures. These productivity gains essentially allow firms to make a product or provide a service at the lowest cost per worker hour.

What protectionists often fail to mention is that many overseas competitors actually create jobs in the U.S. that were supposedly exported. Using the auto industry again as an example, Toyota and Nissan have invested billions in the South to build new plants. What Toyota and Nissan and others like Mercedes Benz are NOT doing is creating these jobs in places up north like Detroit. Gary N. Chaison of Clark University in Worcester, Mass. is quoted in the Times article saying that ‘These international companies want a fresh start — not in a town like Detroit, with a long history in the auto industry, but in an empty field where people appreciate them.”

Toyota must be doing something right because it is now the number 2 automaker and is not far behind GM. Toyota is making a profit and GM is hemorrhaging cash. Toyota makes cars that people want at attractive prices and GM is doling out discounts as incentives to attract buyers. What the two automakers do have in common is that both are unapologetic for their performance. However, if I were Rick Wagoner I would reconsider this.

CNN reports that a man in California is putting together a lawsuit against Apple. The lawsuit is claiming that Apple’s iPods are capable of causing hearing loss to those that use it. (more…)

I sent this letter to Congressman Pete Sessions today.

December 1, 2005

Congressman Pete Sessions
Park Central VII
12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1434
Dallas, Texas 75251

Congressman Sessions,

As one of your constituents, I am writing you to express my deep concern for the corruption, dishonesty, and questionable dealings that appear to be going on in our government. I do not take comfort in having to pick up the newspaper, only to see yet another article about another politician or lobbyist or other government worker doing something that is unethical and dishonest.

I am equally frustrated with, what seems to be a growing trend, efforts to undermine or circumvent checks and balances as well as processes set up to maximize transparency in our government. Instead of placing a proposal or project out onto the table for debate, politicians are getting creative with ‘earmarks’ and such to pass items that are more than likely representing narrow interests.

That said, I am asking you follow on the initiative some politicians have taken, like that of Senators McCain and Coburn, to stop this rampant abuse of public trust and begin representing the true interest of Americans. I am tired of hearing ‘sound bites’ and insincere public statements. I want to see politicians, regardless of political affiliation, who stand for integrity.

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Respectfully,

Jose Lionel Velez

The Logic of Collective Action, written by Mancur Olson, is an in depth discussion of groups and the dynamics involved in their formation, ability to attract members and ability to provide any benefit. He takes a very logical approach to analyzing groups. Step by step he puts the main components of a group together to give a clear understanding of the purpose and function of groups. His thoughtful review and subsequent dismissal of both traditional and orthodox group theories is more than adequately bolstered with strong arguments and compelling evidence. (more…)