A clean break with Hollande (A lesson for Piketty)

Over the past week we have had reports of the deteriorating state of public finances in France and particular the drop in tax revenues. It seems like Hollande’s steep tax increases are not bringing in any extra revenue. President Hollande has been hit right in the face by the Laffer curve.

This is from BBC.com (it is not exactly news – the story is six days old):

The French government faces a 14bn-euro black hole in its public finances after overestimating tax income for the last financial year.

French President Francois Hollande has raised income tax, VAT and corporation tax since he was elected two years ago.

The Court of Auditors said receipts from all three taxes amounted to an extra 16bn euros in 2013.

That was a little more than half the government’s forecast of 30bn euros of extra tax income.

The Court of Auditors, which oversees the government’s accounts, said the Elysee Palace’s forecasts of tax revenue in 2013 were so wildly inaccurate that they cast doubt on its forecasts for this year.

It added the forecasts were overly optimistic and based on inaccurate projections.

The figures come a week after French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who was appointed in March following the poor showing of Mr Hollande’s Socialists in municipal elections, appeared to criticise the president’s tax policy by saying that “too much tax kills tax”.

The failed policies of Mr. Hollande have reminded me of an excellent quote from Bernard Connolly’s great book “The Rotten Heart of Europe”:

“Mitterand had spoken of ‘making a clean break with capitalism’. Capital immediately decided to make a clean break with him: funds flowed out of France at a dizzy rate in the days following his triumph”

Yesterday, I finished reading Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the twenty-first century. In the book he is advocating a global tax on capital – indicating a capital gains tax in excess of 80% would be preferable. This is the kind of policies that Mitterrand tried and failed with and that Hollande is now trying again.

What strikes me is that neither Mitterrand nor Hollande had any idea about how economic incentives work. And frankly speaking when I read Piketty’s book then my main take away was exactly the same – Piketty doesn’t seem to understand incentives. It is social planing or engineering rather than economics.

The state of the France economy would be so much better if French policy makers studied the real great French economists – Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat – rather than Thomas Piketty.

About these ads

Sandy is BAD NEWS. The two graph version.

Let me just quote Steve Horwitz’s latest Facebook update:

“It’s a good thing I shaved my head this morning or else I’d be tearing out my peach fuzz with my fingernails thanks to the plethora of broken windows fallacies being bandied about in the media today. If you think Sandy is “good for the economy,” you are hereby remanded to my Econ 100 class (and ordered to read endless Bastiat) and I expect to see you cheering the next disaster that kills people because it boosts the demand for funeral homes and cemeteries.

Disasters, whether natural or social, DESTROY WEALTH AND MAKE US WORSE OFF. Period. End of sentence. There is NO “silver lining.” The economy would be BETTER OFF HAD SANDY NEVER HAPPENED. Got it?”
I got more hair than Steve, but he is spot on. It is unbearable to hear the stories about Sandy being good news for the US economy. Sandy is horrible news – for the the victims and for the US economy. Any other view is bordering idiotic.
Here is the two graph version of Sandy. Sandy is a negative supply shock and not a positive demand shock (that is what the journalists – and some keynesians – apparently fail to understand…). Sandy destroys production resources and disrupts production. That shifts the AS curve to the left (from AS to AS’) and reduces productions (from Y to Y’) and increases prices (from P to P’). That’s not good news. That is BAD NEWS.
But it could be worse! Imagine you have a inflation/price level targeting central bank that targets prices at P. Then it would tighten monetary policy and shift the AD curve to the left (to AD”) – maintaining prices at P and reducing production to Y”. This is what would have happened if Sandy had hit Europe. Yes, the ECB would have tightened monetary policy in reaction to Sandy – just remember what the ECB did in 2011 after the Japanese tsunami.
Update: I decided to add a picture to this post – this guy knew about the “Sandy fallacy”.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,888 other followers

%d bloggers like this: