THE LAST DITCH

The Cyprus bail-out: Unfair, short-sighted and self-defeating | The Economist.

When I compare government to organised crime, people seem to think I am being extreme. But the parallels are exact. They extort protection money (tax) some of which is deployed to punishing lesser criminals, but never very effectively or consistently. Far more is spent on payments to the members of the gang and its "soldiers". They have heavies to enforce their rule. They pretend to be there to preserve order and protect us, but in fact they are parasites upon us. They accept no boundaries to their right to interfere in our lives and do not hesitate to use force to do so. Every so often, they take over our businesses to use them for their own nefarious purposes.

A friend of mine has had money seized from his (perfectly legitimate) Cyprus bank account this morning. It represented some of his (earned and taxed) life savings. Yes, some of the victims of this "one off" tax will be Russian oligarchs and other undesirables, but many will be like my friend and many more will simply be people who chose to retire to Cyprus. For that matter, if oligarch money has been stolen from the Russian people or state, how does that give EU governments the right to steal it in turn?

My friend has instructed his investment advisor to get all of his assets out of "this ****ing continent." He reasons that if the EU can force Cyprus to steal from depositors, they can force other member states and perhaps even countries under EU influence like Monaco and Switzerland to do so. Indeed, if this raid on innocents is tolerated, other governments will probably want to emulate it. Another ethical boundary has been crossed. I wonder how many other investors instructed their advisors to get them out of Europe this morning? 

When I heard his news, I checked my RSS feed of bloggers and other thinkers. Everyone was writing about something else. A "respectable" Western government was behaving like wicked King John in seizing citizens' wealth. No-one thought it important.

Those who are prudent and have savings are despised in Europe. Even "Conservatives" seem to think they are just there to be milked of the proceeds of their life's work in order to cover political arses, prop up failed institutions and protect feckless, reckless individuals from the consequences of their own stupidity. The average European's idea of where wealth comes from is about as accurate as believing that storks deliver babies.

Don't think this is confined to a few high net worth individuals with offshore bank accounts. They said income tax was for the very rich, but now you all pay it. They said inheritance tax would only affect the wealthiest aristocratic estates, but now your children will probably pay it when you die. In demanding ever greater benefits from government at the expense of everyone but themselves, the West's voters have unleashed a beast that will devour them too.

50 responses to “Tell me again how governments differ from gangsters?”

  1. Diogenes Avatar
    Diogenes

    I have less sympathy for your friend. Anyone with bank deposits is taking a risk. The banking sector is inherently insolvent, by dint of low fractional reserve ratios, and as a consequence has needed vast bail-out funds to protect depositors. Said depositors have not directly footed the bill for this largess, society at large has.
    By rights many people’s life savings should have disappeared in 2008.

    Like

  2. Tom Avatar

    I would have less sympathy (he expects none anyway) if the bank had collapsed. That’s the risk he understood and took. If it were not for the moral hazard introduced by regulation and the expectation of bankers that the state will intervene, his loan to his bank in Cyprus (for that, legally, is what a deposit is) would be like any other. But this is the EU stealing taxpayers’ and depositors money to protect a politically-decisive majority of people (not to mention states) who borrowed beyond their means.

    Like

  3. Tom Avatar

    …and I should add that Cyprus (at the EU’s insistence) has reneged on its deposit protection insurance, one of the reasons to choose a Cyprus bank account. There is no reason why Italy’s or Germany’s banks should not do the same in extremis (which is when the “insurance” is needed!)
    Deposit insurance is supposed to stop bank runs. How does that work in the EU now? What price Italy’s banking system? Or France’s? I am all for zero bailout, zero moral hazard banking, but for a state to impose costs to fund an insurance and then refuse to pay out differs how, precisely, from fraud?

    Like

  4. Diogenes Avatar
    Diogenes

    I completely agree these actions are deplorable but they are a consequence of what has gone on before.
    I suspect we will find out on Tuesday that the Cypriot banks have indeed collapsed, other Mediterranean banks may fall too because of this.
    Insurance against bank runs is always going to be a lottery as the banking industry is bigger than the insurance industry(eg AIG). Only states can really make those assurances and when they do you are in the realm of democratic whim which does not respect contract law.

    Like

  5. Tom Avatar

    It was a state "insurance". Bank runs on all institutions thus guaranteed within the EU should be the natural consequence. The EU is morally, and its member states financially, bankrupt and they have resorted to open theft. I don't believe any government ever failed to pay out on such a scheme. Iceland paid, most recently. It is an index of the gangsters' desperation that they have done so.

    Like

  6. Peter Whale Avatar
    Peter Whale

    Tom you are quite correct in your post and your reply to Diogenes. When bankruptcy only applies to the favoured companies, it is theft of the taxpayer. They never bailed out Woolworths, they would not bail out Tesco. Why Northern Rock et al? It is because those companies pay the protection money also in kind and favours to the politicals. It will all end bitterly.

    Like

  7. Diogenes Avatar
    Diogenes

    Why Northern Rock?
    Because it is a bank and the banking industry exists in insolvency. For every pound deposited in the banking system there are 10 claims against it. So a bank run without a bailout will spread like wild fire through the entire industry until everyone has taken a 90% haircut.
    This is of greater consequences than the loss of pick’n’mix.

    Like

  8. Peter Whale Avatar
    Peter Whale

    Hi Diogenes I do not agree with that scenario as the depositors in the bank had the state backed guarantee on their first £75,000. The bond holders and shareholders would have lost out and also the directors and staff would have paid the price for the recklessness of the bank.This would have abruptly ended the slide with other banks doing what Barclays did and shoring themselves up from other financial institutions.Time would have been bought and the financial world would have been in overdrive to save themselves rather than bleed the taxpayer as happend.

    Like

  9. John B Avatar
    John B

    Northern Rock and RBS were bailed out by the Labour Party using taxpayers’ money because they were in Labour constituencies and otherwise would have resulted in job losses, and as for RBS, loss in prestige for Scotland at a time when the Prime Minister was a Scot… among other things I am too polite to say.
    Banks in general have not needed vast bail outs, some were bailed out by stupid politicians thus rewarding bad management, instead of leaving it to the free market to punish it.
    And the real threat to banks is Government debt which Governments insisted they loan as it would be considered as ‘safe’ and thus almost like capital.
    It is not banks which are insolvent, it is every Government in the West.

    Like

  10. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    The British Government is running out of pounds?
    This is a disaster. Where can we get more of them?

    Like

  11. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    If you want tax cuts, vote Labour.
    I think Ed Balls might be one of the greatest politicians this country has ever seen.

    Like

  12. Antisthenes Avatar
    Antisthenes

    I agree with you in principle but as I understand it this is not outright theft as the portion on deposit not paid over is a debt for equity transaction. Bank shares are to be given in lieu of the portion of the deposit withheld. The end result may be that depositors make a profit as the banks will be solvent again and the shares may well go up in value.

    Like

  13. Diogenes Avatar
    Diogenes

    It’s impossible to predict what would have happened had the state not covered all RBS deposits. The run on RBS occurred in spite of the initial limited guarantee you mention, people simply didn’t trust what they were told.
    Barclays was able to shore itself up in the circumstances, but it would have struggled if RBS had been allowed to go under. I suspect there would have been queues outside of every bank in Britain. No amount of financial jiggery pokery would have have compensated for the ensuing drain on liquidity.

    Like

  14. Tom Avatar

    No. It's expressed as a one off tax.

    Like

  15. Tom Avatar

    Be serious. 

    Like

  16. Tom Avatar

    Precisely. The US government literally owes more money than there is in the world and still idiots say there's no problem as they can print more. 

    Like

  17. Tom Avatar

    …and they would not have been in that mess in the first place without the moral jeopardy inherent in "too big to fail"

    Like

  18. Navigator Avatar
    Navigator

    Bravo Tom.
    To my mind, the real issue now, and for the last 5 years, has been the fundamental mistake of the size, role, cost and funding of government – all of which is distorted and fatally flawed in the Western world, underpinned as it is by ideas thought noble after the second World War. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever known, and there is no answer, not least because practically no-one, and certainly not our political masters, is discussing the problem.
    I do not criticise the discussion about banks, and some comments here put them in their proper context, which is no better than shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

    Like

  19. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    So the US government can print money, but they are running out of dollars.
    That doesn’t really make much sense to me.

    Like

  20. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    He kept us out of the Euro, and when you look back on it, life under Brown wasn’t half as bad as life under Cameron and Osborne.
    If he’s going to cut taxes (as he claims) then he gets my vote.

    Like

  21. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4y4ClVhxZi0
    “…those are dollars that we OWN, not owe…”

    Like

  22. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Anyway, to answer the question, it is the purpose for which force is used which is important – governments are potentially rather than necessarily immoral.
    If the governments of Europe are enacting their austerity policy in order to undermine wages and improve the long term position of capitalists at the expense of everyone else, then I would agree that they are immoral.
    If, on the other hand, this is not their aim, then they are simply ignorant.

    Like

  23. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    I think you are correct that it is wrong to steal money out of people’s bank accounts. I know they do it all over any way and call it tax. It is just the cyprus one was unannounced and sneaky and not the regular sort.
    As soon as I heard of it I thought ” Well if I had any money saved in any Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, French or maybe an Italian bank I might think about moving it abroad, or buying gold and silver, or Hmmnnn… jewellery with it (must talk this aspect up ^^ as a form of saving). I wonder if the uk is safe?
    Mark, So difficult to take anything you say at all seriously when it is mostly just mockery. You _know
    Ed Balls is talking about funding a tax cuts out of increased state borrowing, You know increased state borrowing has to be paid for from taxes.

    Like

  24. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    That is a ridiculous thing to say. Of course it doesn’t.

    Like

  25. MickCx Avatar
    MickCx

    You are saying that the end justifies the means.
    To take an extreme example, if there was only one religion, culture, race (etc.) because all people who believed in the others had been killed,sweetness and light would reign-according to that sole creed.
    Does that justify the mass murder? No, of course it doesn’t.
    Tax is theft-pure and simple. It was tolerated because it was usually put to good use for the common weal. That is no longer accepted generally-because increasingly the tax money is used to benefit a small minority of the population disproportionately.
    Indeed, most people view the institutions of the UK as rotten to the core-and only concerned with their own welfare.
    Once that happens, the country becomes ungovernable and revolution brews-which brings us nicely back to Tom Paine and the American revolution!

    Like

  26. Tom Avatar

    I am so glad we have Mark here. If he left, I would now be tempted to invent him (as several of you suspect I already have). There can be no better demonstration of the ethical void at the heart of the British electoral consensus than his lack of any concern as anyone is oppressed and/or robbed, provided he can see some possible benefit to himself in the form of tips and freebies from the gangsters he so degradingly fawns upon.
    What is the male equivalent of “moll” I wonder?

    Like

  27. Pogo Avatar
    Pogo

    Brown only kept us out of the Euro in order to piss Blair off…

    Like

  28. Tomsmith Avatar
    Tomsmith

    Tom, wasn’t your friend compensated for the loss of a proportion of his bank deposit with the equivalent amount in bank shares? While this might be cause for concern it doesn’t mean his assets have been seized. Rather they have been converted into equities.

    Like

  29. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    I don’t think I am saying that “the ends justify the means”.
    I am saying something unrelated – that in order to make a judgement on the morality or otherwise of an action we have to take into consideration the intention of the person performing the act.
    I mean, we don’t consider animals or falling trees to be immoral, do we? Or small children, or mad people — surely in order to be immoral you must make a clear decision to be so — unlike some, I do not believe that ignorance is at the root of all evil – I know from personal experience that people can choose to do things which they know are wrong. I would have a very hard time calling the genuinely ignorant
    evil – no matter the consequences of their actions (though willful ignorance would be a different matter).
    (BTW that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be punishment for “criminal acts” on the grounds of ignorance – people will respond to incentives, even without a deeper moral understanding – though I suppose you could take into consideration their ability to understand rules)
    Now, “the ends justify the means” means that we must perform an immoral act for some greater good. That doesn’t follow at all from the above – it’s an entirely seperate and rather difficult issue – wouldn’t you say?
    I agree that the taxation system is not fit for purpose, that the current political elites are hopeless etc. etc. I would go further than you – the current tax system is not theft – it is gross social vandalism on a mass scale which provides no discernable advantage to anyone.
    As such, I suspect it is the result of ignorance rather than evil… an ignorance with respect to the nature of money, shared by most of the commenters on this blog…

    Like

  30. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    What a bizarre comment.
    We clearly disagree as to what constitutes legitimate property rights – but since my view of legitimate property is at least partially based upon ethical considerations, whereas yours is entirely pragmatic – it seems odd to describe me as representing the ethical void.
    I note that you don’t seem overly concerned about those robbed by real Russian gangsters as long as there is no danger to you.
    For that matter, what should we call someone who submits to being constantly robbed and oppressed?
    Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if you invent the other commenters here as some kind of practical joke on me.

    Like

  31. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    “brings us nicely back to Tom Paine and the American revolution!”….correct, except modern USA is headed in the same direction as Cyprus, they don’t even pretend to bring in an annual budget anymore, congress just spends what it needs.

    Like

  32. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    What is the male equivalent of “moll” I wonder?……..Might I suggest Mug.
    It has a dual purpose, firstly as a contraction of mugger, which pretty much defines the actions of the Cypriot Government. Secondly as a clueless individual in the face of facts, and who can deny that anybody who respects anything that Balls talks about is clueless.

    Like

  33. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    That’s actually pretty amusing!
    Nice one!

    Like

  34. Tom Avatar

    You may choose to describe your lust for state sponsored theft in favour of groups including you as ethical but that doesn't make it so. The group I favour to hold property is that comprised of those who created it, earned it or received it by voluntary gift or inheritance. You may choose to describe that as pragmatic but that does not make it unethical. Your way requires the initiation of force to seize and transfer assets you believe are in the wrong hands. Mine doesn't. 
    I am not relaxed about money stolen from Russian people. I have many Russian friends and care about their interests. I don't delude myself that theft from a group that may include (along with many innocents) some Russian thieves constitutes restorative justice however. Not even the state thieves in this case pretend that. You are just throwing slurs about to support – as always – the gangsters in government. They are taking this money because they want it. 

    Like

  35. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Mark on “Ridiculous” that is a bogus non-reponse so… whateverr.
    I see you bringing supposed laundering Russian gangsters into the equation to make the indefensible sound ok to the ignorant. and try and turn it on Tom, go look up: ”
    l-o-g-i-c-a-l f-a-l-l-a-c-y”

    Like

  36. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Maybe “equivalent” is a bit elastic to use accurately? Is it more like a percentage share of the remaining much reduced worth of the bank?
    Won’t he have to wait and hope it becomes valuable again and until then he can’t get his hands on the original value? Or am I missing something?

    Like

  37. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Yeah ok, you guys have got me.
    Here’s an old video of me laying out my attitude to life
    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=zE41Kd1hrf8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzE41Kd1hrf8

    Like

  38. MickC Avatar
    MickC

    I think you are wrong on this.
    The intention behind the act is, of course, important. But you are conflating two seperate acts.
    The first act, taxation, is taking money by force. The intention is to take the money-the means is force. This must by any normal definition be immoral.
    The next act is to spend that money-the intention being to spend on a “good”.
    The first act is the means, the second act is the end.
    The moral good of the second does not justify the moral bad of the first.
    Given that one wishes to achieve the second, money is needed. It could be raised in other ways. Prior to the nationalisation of hospitals in 1945, I understand many were run by charitable organisations-i.e. people realised the need for them and gave money.
    Anyway, my point remains that I believe you really are saying the end justifies the means. You may possibly be right (obviously I don’t agree)-but I think that a spade should be called a spade.

    Like

  39. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Well yes, if by “ends justify means” you mean certain means might be justified by certain ends then I agree with it – but then I think a sane person would have a hard time not agreeing with that. To disagree would surely mean discarding the idea of the ‘trade-off’ entirely.
    If on the other hand you mean that certain ends justify all means – well in that case I must disagree. I think this is what people normally mean when they use this expression – liquidation of the kulaks etc.
    It normally means that people trust their mind over their heart, which is actually the opposite of my posiion.
    As for tax – I don’t see why it is necessarily any more immoral than any other social system. If, hypothetically, the free market led to the deprivation of some people, and if the free markets rules require force o maintain them – then why is it more moral than taxation?

    Like

  40. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    PS
    I love how my statement that “they are either ignorant or immoral” somehow becomes defending the government…

    Like

  41. MickC Avatar
    MickC

    Well, at least we have agreement that you are saying that the end justifies the means-even if qualified by the severity of the means!
    I think it is generally recognised that trade-offs have to be made-the point is what is the nature of the trade-off.
    Surely, the limit of these trade-offs has been explored and indeed set out often. The idea that there be no taxation without representation being one. The Cyprus proposal was exactly that-taxation by an unelected body (the “Troika”).
    The difficulty I have is that currently there is almost acceptance that a government by the fact of having been elected, can thereafter do what it likes.
    This is extremely dangerous and is why a Bill of Rights is necessary in any democracy.
    And there we are-back to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. The gentlemen of the Enlightment rule-ok!;or rather their ideas should.

    Like

  42. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    I am trying, (in many ways).
    This is pretty far off-topic, but perhaps Tom will allow it, in the ridiculous circumstances we find ourselves in. A comment found on a US site questioning “What is money” and “who owns it”.
    South Texas wrote: “I’m still waiting for the MBA’s to explain to me why we need a federal income tax or any taxes at all if the Fed can simply create money or credit in a computer and call it an asset?
    Also, do I own the money in my pocket? Why the need for laws that make it illegal for me to collect nickels or mostly copper pennies and sell them for scrap?”
    Enjoy.

    Like

  43. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    I think that with respect to politics – the division of powers, limitations on government – you have a point.
    The difficulty I have is that while we are increasingly rejecting the political principles of the 18/19 centuries, which act as the foundation of freedom, at the same time, we adopt economic attitudes which may have been appropriate to that time, but certainly are not appropriate now.

    Like

  44. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    That’s easy –
    1) To stop people spending
    2)Yes – but there are provisos to its use as with many things
    3)Because the government is stupid and makes its money from expensive metal.
    1) and 3) as one means to control the amount of money in circulation.

    Like

  45. Damo Avatar
    Damo

    You’re a fan on MMT ?(Modern Monetary Theory)
    That theory doesn’t seem to understand about supply and demand and besides it comes across as smoke screens and distorted mirrors.

    Like

  46. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    I am.
    What do you mean?

    Like

  47. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Mark on your point 3 and passing on the rest. I concede the State is often mostly stupid, but there are reasons they make coins out of metal.
    Firstly when inflation hadn’t eaten so much into curencies the value of metal in a coin was more like, or even greater, than the value of the metal.
    In the UK historically there were two penny coins that were made of about two pennys worth of copper.
    Secondly metal and alloys are much more durable than most anything else available for the price. There are other reasons also.
    Maybe it would make sense to revalue many currencies, such as the dollar and pound to make the coinage more useful/appropriate?

    Like

  48. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    Indeed it does, if recent reports are to believed Tom’s friend might consider him/herself lucky to retrieve 50% of their deposits. This could get very ugly.
    We should all perhaps reflect on our relationship to governments and banks, neither deserve our reverence or trust. Bank investments worldwide seem to be on a par with the drunken slob outside the bookies, they are very good at losing scads of money. Governments having excelled at providing the worst service for a maximum price have run out of legitimate sources of revenue and have entered into financing using their own printing presses, when this gets too obvious they now feel justified taking private assets.
    I can only conclude that holding “money”(pretty pieces of paper) in a “bank” is beyond foolish.

    Like

  49. MickC Avatar
    MickC

    Sorry, late reply.
    The problem is surely that freedom allows those economic attitudes-once those attitudes are prohibited then there is no freedom.
    The circle is squared, of course, by the “external” power of morality/ethics-an attitude of mind which is not enforced but inherent (in most?).

    Like

Leave a reply to MickC Cancel reply

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar
  2. tom.paine's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar