The Creation of Gravity Operates in Sweden; Economic Laws Against Socialism Work Too!

The Sweden Myth

08/07/2006 Stefan Karlsson

Recently, the so-called Swedish model — that is, the Swedish economic system with high taxes and a big welfare state — has been celebrated again in the press.

The alleged recent success of the Swedish economy has allowed welfare statists both inside and outside of Sweden to argue that high taxes and an extensive welfare state are good for the economy. To fully understand this fallacy, we should review Sweden’s economic history.

Until the second half of the 19th century, Sweden was fairly poor. But far-reaching free market reforms in the 1860s allowed Sweden to benefit from the spreading Industrial Revolution.

And so, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Sweden saw its economy rapidly industrializing, driven by the many Swedish inventors and entrepreneurs.

During that time, Sweden produced extraordinarily many inventions, given its small population, including: dynamite, invented by Alfred Nobel (who established the Nobel Prize); the self-aligning ball bearing, invented by Sven Wingquist (who used this to create the SKF company); the sun-valve, invented by Gustav Dahlén (who used it to found industrial gas company AGA); the gas absorption refrigerator, invented by Baltzar von Platen (which was later used by Electrolux).

In addition, there were countless non-inventing entrepreneurs during that period: car manufacturers Volvo and Saab, and telecommunications company Ericsson. Indeed, with just a few exceptions, nearly all large Swedish companies were started during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was not only a period of strong growth, but also the time when the foundation for later economic growth was laid.

Another factor which continued Swedish prosperity was the fact that Sweden was able to stay out of both World Wars, and indeed all other wars as well. Sweden is, in fact, the country with the longest consecutive period of peace, having fought no war since 1809, when Sweden was invaded by Russia, losing Finland to the invader.

Sweden has thus enjoyed 5 more years of peace than Switzerland, which participated in the Napoleonic wars in 1814. As a result of its free market policies, the resourcefulness of its people, and its successful avoidance of war, Sweden had the highest per-capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950, by which time Sweden had become one of the world’s richest countries, behind only the United States and Switzerland, and Denmark (who have since also fallen behind because of high taxes).

But the foundation for future trouble had already been created. In 1932, the Social Democrats rose to power in the face of the Great Depression. And like FDR in America and Adolf Hitler in Germany, they started to expand government power over the economy. Until 1932, government spending had been kept below 10% of GDP in Sweden, but the Social Democrats, under their leader Per Albin Hansson, wanted to change this and remake Sweden into a “folkhem” (“people’s home”), a term Swedish Social Democrats adopted from the Fascists in Italy.

Even in the early 1950s, Sweden was still one of the freest economies in the world, and government spending relative to GDP was in fact below the American level.

But between 1950 and 1976, Sweden experienced an expansion in government spending unprecedented during a period of peace, with government spending to GDP rising from about 20% in 1950 to more than 50% in 1975. Virtually every year, taxes were increased while the welfare state expanded relentlessly, both in the form of a sharp increase in the number of government employees and ever more transfer payment benefits.

During the first 20 years, this relentless government expansion took place seemingly without ill effect, as Sweden benefited from rapid global growth — although Sweden’s growth had already started to slip in relative terms, from well above average to just average. This changed in the 1970s after Olof Palme, from the left wing of the Social Democratic party became Prime Minister. Palme stepped up the socialist transformation in Sweden, rapidly increasing anti-business regulations and sharply increased payroll taxes.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

Some HALACHOS of Humility

Be Normal

I. Average

Often, we are rightly told to strive for greatness. But that doesn’t mean we have to act like we are better than everyone else. If anything, it means we must strive for normalcy in order to achieve greatness. Rav Ya’akov Kamenetsky used to say that it’s a mitzvah to be normal — of course, without compromising on halakhah. Which mitzvah did he mean?

The biblical Chanah prayed that her son Shmuel, who became a great prophet, would be “zera anashim, the seed of man” (1 Sam. 1:11). The Gemara (Berakhos 31b) offers multiple interpretations of this strange phrase. One is that Chanah prayed that her son would be muvla ba-anashim, inconspicuous among men. She asked for a son who is neither tall nor short, neither fat nor skinny, neither smart nor stupid. She wanted an average boy, whom she would dedicate to the service of God.

II. Balance

This request seems strange. Who doesn’t want an extraordinary child? One explanation, given by Rav Ya’akov Reischer (Iyun Ya’akov, ad loc.), focuses on the importance in life of balance. In many places, Rambam adapts Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean in advocating a middle approach to life. Rambam writes (Mishneh TorahHilkhos Dei’os 1:4):

The straight path: This [means adopting] the midpoint temperament of each and every trait that man possesses [within his personality.] This refers to the trait which is equidistant from either of the extremes, without being close to either of them. Therefore, the early Sages instructed a man to evaluate his traits, to calculate them and to direct them along the middle path, so that he will be sound of body.

For example: he should not be wrathful, easily angered; nor be like the dead, without feeling, rather he should [adopt] an intermediate course; i.e., he should display anger only when the matter is serious enough to warrant it, in order to prevent the matter from recurring…

He should not be overly stingy nor spread his money about, but he should give charity according to his capacity and lend to the needy as is fitting. He should not be overly elated and laugh [excessively], nor be sad and depressed in spirit. Rather, he should be quietly happy at all times, with a friendly countenance. The same applies with regard to his other traits.

This path is the path of the wise. Every man whose traits are intermediate and equally balanced can be called a “wise man.”

Adapted from the Touger translation.

The Gemara (Sotah 10a) lists five people who were born with great gifts that served as their downfall. Among them are Shimshon and his strength, Shaul and his tall neck, and others. We think that unusual gifts offer an advantage but those gifts present challenges that must be overcome. The average person, created with balanced features and character, is more set for greatness than the exceptional person.

III. Acting Normal

Moreover, those who achieve greatness recognize their limitations and act with humility. They try to avoid the limelight. Even if they have reached a level where additional religious practices are appropriate, they keep those practices private. The Gemara (Shabbos 10a) says that R. Zeira criticized R. Yirmiyah for stopping his learning Torah to pray. R. Yirmiyah was someone for whom Torah was his occupation, Toraso umnaso, and his learning takes priority over prayer. Rav Eliyahu ben Chaim (Ra’anach; Ha-Nosen Imrei Shefer, Tzav) explains that R. Yirmiyah knew the law but did not want to hold himself up as a great person. He felt that he should act like everyone else.

Similarly, the Gemara (Bava Metzi’a 67b) says that Ravina would eat the fruits from a property whose mortgage he owned, reducing the mortgage accordingly. Tosafos (ad loc., s.v. Ravina) ask how Ravina could do that when the Gemara says that a Torah scholar should avoid the practice. Rabbeinu Tam answers that Ravina did not wish to adopt the mantel of a Torah scholar. He saw himself as a regular Jew and behaved accordingly.

The Mishnah (Berakhos 16b) records a debate whether a groom on his wedding night, who is exempt from reciting Shema (although nowadays we do not follow this), may say the prayer anyway. The Sages say yes while R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that “not everyone who desires to take up the name [of Hashem] may do so.” The Gemara (ibid., 17b) conclude that all agree that you should not appear to act more conspicuously pious than everyone else. The debate only occurs in specific cases where it isn’t clear whether the practice is conspicuous.

IV. Act According to Your Position

Some people, due to their public positions, need to act differently. The Gemara (Shabbos 145b) says that the Torah scholars in Bavel wore special clothes to signify their stature. Rashi explains that otherwise, people would not accord them respect. Their communal positions required acting differently. People in those positions still must maintain balance in their lives but their position requires standing out in certain ways. But balance remains the ideal, the goal for everyone.

This attitude of balance and humility, Rambam (ibid. 1:5) tells us, emerges from the mitzvah to walk in Hashem’s ways, ve-halakhta bi-drakhav. This is the mitzvah to be normal, to meet all religious obligations but in a way that does not stick out, that blends in with people. Exceptionalism breeds arrogance. Through balanced character and practices, we achieve holiness.

This Is How Civil Servants Avenge Those Who Insult Civil Servants…

Israel Seeks 12-year Jail Term for Blogger Accused of Slandering Public Officials

The exceptional indictment contains 120 accusations against Lori Shem-Tov and others; the prosecutors apparently see this as a test case for online shaming

Israel’s state prosecutor is seeking a 12-year prison sentence for blogger Lori Shem-Tov, who is accused of crimes including invasion of privacy and insulting civil servants, among them judges, in online publications.

At one meeting that Shem-Tov’s attorney held to discuss a plea bargain with Tel Aviv District Attorney officials, prosecutors reportedly insisted that she serve at least 10 years in prison. The district attorney’s office denied that report.

The indictment filed in April 2017 against Shem-Tov, along with fellow blogger Moti Leybel and attorney Zvi Zer, is unusual in scope. Covering 231 pages, it includes 120 accusations concerning internet activity. The three are accused of serious offenses of conspiracy to commit various crimes against social welfare, law enforcement and judicial officials; invasion of privacy; sexual harassment; insulting a civil servant; contempt of court; and violating gag orders relating to publicizing the names and images of minors.

Shem-Tov and Leybel are also accused of blackmailing a private lawyer to cut a deal with them, and threatened her that they would continue defaming her if she wouldn’t oblige them.

A Haaretz inquiry revealed that the punishment the prosecution seeks is far more severe than in similar cases in the past. Whistleblower Rafi Rotem, who sought to reveal corruption in the Israel Tax Authority, received a suspended sentence after being convicted of 20 counts of harassing 14 complainants over many years, and 15 counts of insulting a civil servant.

A test case

In the new case involving Shem-Tov and her codefendants, the indictment accuses them of seeking “to harass and invade the privacy” of officials involved in custody battles. Over two years ago, Shem-Tov first targeted Judge Naftali Shilo, former head of the Tel Aviv Family Law Court, who was since promoted to the district court level, after he deprived her of custody of her children despite positive assessments of her that were presented to him. She published articles attacking his behavior and that of social workers dealing with her case.

Although her alleged offenses border on freedom of expression and are considered less than criminal in substance, the state prosecution filed its indictment in district court and not in a magistrate’s court, where the maximum sentence is seven years.

The prosecutors apparently see this as a test case to augment punishment for online shaming. They also sought to keep the accused in custody until the end of proceedings, which until now has been a policy reserved for suspects who pose a danger to public safety.

Just last month the court ordered the release of Shem-Tov, who was arrested in February 2017, after she served 27 months in jail. Leybel and Zer were released after being incarcerated for nine months.

District Court Judge Benny Sagi slapped a gag order on the names of all the complainants in the Shem-Tov case, at the request of the state prosecutor. Some 20 witnesses have testified behind closed doors to date. Shem-Tov had also argued about the way the public defender’s office has represented her, and Judge Sagi discharged her defenders of their duties last week. She is now representing herself and Zer.

The prosecution commented, “The figures mentioned here were not provided by the prosecution. Moreover, we cannot comment on negotiations with defense lawyers.”

From Haaretz, here.

The Mystery of Government Banking

The Official Counterfeiter

By Gary North

March 21, 2007

In a recent report, “The Ultimate Subprime Borrower: Uncle Sam,” I made this observation:

The easy money policy of Greenspan’s Federal Reserve, beginning in the summer of 2000, lured in the suckers: creditors and borrowers. The FED sent a false signal to the credit markets.

I do not want readers to get the impression that the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan was unique in this regard. The primary function of all central banks is to send false signals to borrowers and creditors all the time. Their secondary function is to bail out large commercial banks that suffer bank runs and even face bankruptcy (bank + rupture). Bank runs are the consequence of commercial banks’ implementation of the central bank’s policy of deceiving borrowers and creditors.

This is not taught in money and banking textbooks, with one exception: Murray Rothbard’s 1983 book, The Mystery of Banking. As far as I know, no college or university professor ever assigned this book. It is much too controversial. It explains in detail why central banking rests on the dual assumption that (1) theft through monetary inflation is morally neutral and (2) is often (i.e., all the time) the best monetary policy. Keynesianism, monetarism, and supply-side economics all rest on this dual assumption. They debate only on which rate of theft is wise at any time. You can download the book for free here.

SETTING THE RATE OF INTEREST

In a free market society, the rate of interest is set by means of a competitive capital market in which each individual decides to lend, borrow, or stay out of the credit markets. His decision depends on his subjective assessment of how valuable future income is to him.

Some people are highly future-oriented. Ludwig von Mises called this outlook low time-preference. Other people are highly present-oriented. Mises called this outlook high time-preference. Most people are somewhere in between.

When a person has low time preference, and if he seeks future income, he is willing to lend his capital (money) at a low interest rate. The borrower does not have to offer him a high rate of return to persuade him to forfeit the use of his wealth for a specified period of time.

In contrast, is the high time-preference individual. He wants the use of his money now, so that he can buy consumer goods and services. He wants gratification — maybe not instantly, but soon, very soon. To persuade him to forfeit the use of his money, a borrower must offer him a very high interest rate.

The free market allows high time-preference people, mid-time-preference people, and low time-preference people to come together and make offers and counter-offers to borrow or lend. In other words, they make bids. The capital markets are gigantic auctions for capital. Through these objective bids, the subjective time preferences of acting individuals produce specific rates of interest in specific capital markets.

A rate of interest is, at bottom, the price of obtaining capital for a specific period of time in a specific risk market. It is governed by the subjective time preferences of capital owners and borrowers.

Borrowers possess a crucial capital asset: their likelihood of repayment. This is determined objectively by such factors as their net income, net worth, existing debts, and record of past payments. Modern credit markets have profit-seeking credit-rating services that trace individuals’ past payment performance. They assign an objective number to each individual. Lending institutions use this number to assess individual credit risk.

This is another way of saying that borrowers can capitalize their moral commitment to repay. An objectively good credit rating reflects a morally good commitment to repay. The psalmist wrote 3,000 years ago: “The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again” (Psalm 37:21a).

Banks have long functioned as brokers in the loan markets. Lenders hire bankers to screen candidates for loans. Borrowers go to bankers to obtain money deposited by lenders. This is a legitimate economic function of banks. They capitalize on their specialized information of the credit markets, including borrowers’ likelihood of non-payment.

A rate of interest is ultimately a product of subjective assessments of the relevant discount for time and objective assessments of credit risk.

DECEPTION FOR FUN, PROFIT, AND POWER

Any tampering with any rate of interest by a government agency or a government-licensed, private, profit-seeking agency constitutes a deliberate attempt to use legalized coercion to deceive lenders and borrowers about the prevailing subjective discounts for time and the objective credit risk of borrowers.

Central banks have been licensed by governments and given monopoly control over domestic banking. Politicians assume that central bankers will deceive the public in government-approved ways. This assumption is usually correct. Occasionally, this assumption is incorrect. These occasional departures are called, respectively, mass inflation and recession/depression.

First, a central bank begins its process of deception by hiring economists to decide which economic theory to apply to statistical information. This theory shapes which information is collected.

Second, a central bank hires specialists to collect statistical information on the overall economy. Sometimes, the government supplies this information. Often, this information must be supplied to the government by private individuals or businesses on threat of negative sanctions for refusing to supply it.

Third, other central bank economists interpret the significance for the overall economy of the collected information. They pick and choose in terms of the prevailing economic theory, which includes a theory of the boom-bust cycle.

Fourth, a different group of economists decides whether to buy, sell or hold government debt certificates in order to change the prevailing interest rates or keep them the same. A central bank can buy long-term government debt to lower the capital markets’ long-term rate of interest: bonds and mortgages. Rates will then fall. Or it can buy short-term debt to influence the overnight rate of interest that commercial banks lend to each other. Rates will then fall. It can also sell debt certificates in order to produce the reverse effects. Central banks rarely do this for more than a few weeks.

The underlying presuppositions of central bank deception are these:

  1. The free market is not a reliable agency to allocate capital.
  2. Central bankers have both a legal right and a moral obligation to alter the rate of interest.
  3. An economic boom (expansion of the division of labor) is preferable to whatever conditions the free market would otherwise impose.
  4. An economic bust (contraction of the division of labor) is to be avoided because (a) it may produce bank runs, and (b) incumbent politicians, who officially have the authority to set central bank policy or even revoke its grant of monopoly, fear the political results of an economic bust.
  5. It is preferable to be a central banker, whose career is protected by the government, than to be a commercial banker or an economist who competes in an unhampered market.

Over time, #5 replaces #1, which replaces #2, etc. How much time? This is an empirical question. My guess is about three weeks.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECEPTION

When central banks buy any asset, they create money to buy it. The seller of the debt certificate then spends the newly created money.

The seller of the debt certificate is like an auctioneer. He likes lots of people to show up at his auction. The seller of a promise to pay future money wants to pay a low rate of interest. The more lenders who show up at the auction, each bidding against the other, the better it is for the borrower. Sellers keep saying, “I’ll accept a lower rate.” The borrower thinks, “How much lower?”

When no lenders in the debt market have counterfeited money to buy the debt, there will be no long-term price inflation. Under such conditions, rates do not fall as a result of counterfeit money being used to buy the debt certificates. Every lender forfeits the use of his money during the period of the debt. The borrower spends this money, but the lender would also have spent it. No new purchasing power comes into the market.

A central bank is the government’s officially licensed counterfeiter. So, when a central bank creates new money to buy debt, there is no offsetting reduction of spending, as would otherwise be the case with a non-counterfeiting lender.

Counterfeiting is illegal because governments, central banks, and commercial banks want no competition. What they are really protecting is their government-protected trademark. If anyone could create money, this would destroy the purchasing power of money.

I once saw a cartoon of a counterfeiter who had a graph on the wall. The line sloping downward and to the right was “value of money.” The line sloping upward and to the right “price of paper.” The upward line had just intersected the downward line. The counterfeiter yells: “Stop the presses!”

In a purely government-run counterfeiting operation, the insulated bureaucrats may not stop the presses this early. Hence, we had the great mass inflations in history, such as Germany, 1919—23, and Hungary, 1945—48.

When central banks issue counterfeited new money, governments spend this money. The new money multiplies through the fractionally reserved commercial banking system. In this sense, the central bank’s holdings of government debt serve as the legal monetary base of the commercial banking system. When the central bank increases the monetary base, commercial banks increase their loans. When the central bank sells assets, commercial banks must decrease their loans.

In the early stages of the boom, the central bank’s purchases of government debt lower the rate of interest, meaning short-term rates, unless the central bank buys bonds. Lower rates send a signal to borrowers: “There is more capital available.” But there isn’t. There is merely more money. At a lower price, a greater quantity is demanded. The level of debt rises. More business projects get started. If the borrowers are consumers, more consumer purchases take place. “Happy days are here again!”

But then prices begin to rise, or else they don’t fall as they otherwise would have. Why? Because the newly counterfeited funds that were lent to borrowers and immediately spent into circulation added to the money supply. On a free market, funds lent could not be spent by the lenders to buy anything.

As prices rise, the boom accelerates. Buyers think, “I had better buy now, before prices rise further.” Sellers think, “I had better hold onto my property; prices are rising.” So, prices continue to rise. But, at some point, they rise so high that new buyers cannot afford to buy any more. Then, like an ocean liner that has hit an iceberg, the economy begins to slow; then it sinks. Capital that had been invested in booming sectors of the economy is revealed to have been invested in items that consumers are no longer willing to buy.

A financial bubble is always fiat-money created. It is created by interest rates that are set below what would have prevailed on a free market. When it pops, and investors lose money, they rarely blame the official counterfeiters: the central bank and the commercial banks.

FLORIDA FOLLIES

Florida was a bubble real estate market for five years. It began reversing in 2006. Here is a recent report, published in Florida Today (March 15). In Brevard County, it’s a buyer’s and renter’s market.

Just ask Sharon Montano, 44, an assembler at DRS. The Palm Bay resident lived with her three teenaged sons in a three-bedroom, $745-a-month unit at Country Garden Apartments until six weeks ago, when she decided to rent a four-bedroom home for $945 a month.

“The boys needed a backyard. They couldn’t play on the grass there. The kitchen (in the apartment) was really small and I hated cooking,” she said. “There are so many restrictions in an apartment, and so much comfort in a house.”

Although he wishes he didn’t, Ken Myers owns 15 rental homes along the central coast of Florida, including five in Brevard County.

Like many home flippers — people who build or buy homes, improve them if need be and then sell them for a profit — Myers made money for three or four years until the new home market softened about a year ago.

“I was trapped into renting,” he said.

To compete in this market, Myers has to keep rents low, negotiate for less than his monthly costs and even offer the first month free.

“I’ve got mortgages for $2,700 a month, and I’m renting a 3,000-square-foot (house) for $1,200. I’m upside down,” Myers said.

He plans to stick it out until the housing market reverses.

He thinks that will be soon.

Florida owners thought so in 1926, too.

This situation has taken place because of Federal Reserve policy, as well as central bank policy in Japan and China, which also have bought U.S. government debt. They created fiat money, bought dollars, and bought T-bills. Rates fell from mid-2000 to mid-2003. Now they have risen. Those who got sucked in are finding that the bubble mentality has begun to fade.

CONCLUSION

There are no free lunches. There is no free money. At some point, a rational counterfeiter shouts, “Stop the presses!”

Bernanke’s FED dramatically slowed the presses, beginning in February 2006. The monetary base from March 15, 2006 to March 14, 2007 was up by 1.8%.

There are winners in the boom phase who become losers in the bust phase. The bust phase is beginning. The losers will soon feel a great deal of pain.

March 21, 2007

From Lewrockwell.com, here.