Categories
Podcast episode

How Wall Street Can Help Democracies Survive w/ Marcos Buscaglia – EP225

Show host Gene Tunny interviews Marcos Buscaglia, former head of the Latin America economics team at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and author of the book “Beyond the ESG Portfolio, How Wall Street Can Help Democracies Survive.” Buscaglia argues that, through their investment choices, many investors have inadvertently been supporting autocratic regimes, and he calls for a change in investment practices. Tune in to this thought-provoking episode to learn more about the ultimate impacts of our investments and how Wall Street can contribute to the survival of democracies.

Please get in touch with us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcast and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP225

  • Introduction to the episode. (0:03)
  • Aligning investments with values and democratic growth. (4:32)
  • Autocratic regimes, EU funding, and corruption in Hungary. (9:41)
  • Investing in emerging markets while avoiding autocratic countries. (22:31)
  • Economic sanctions, autocratic regimes, and investment strategies. (28:06)
  • Economics, democracy, and the role of finance.

Takeaways

  1. Investing in autocratic regimes can inadvertently support and strengthen those regimes.
  2. ESG (environmental, social, governance) investing should also consider whether countries are democratic.
  3. ESG metrics and indices currently do not prioritize democracy as a factor.
  4. There are limited investment options that exclude autocratic countries, but investor demand can drive change in this area.
  5. Sanctions can be an effective tool in limiting financial support to autocratic regimes.

Links relevant to the conversation

Marcos Buscaglia’s book: Beyond the ESG Portfolio: How Wall Street Can Help Democracies Survive

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-ESG-Portfolio-Democracies-Survive/dp/1265115605

Transcript: How Wall Street Can Help Democracies Survive w/ Marcos Buscaglia – EP225

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Marcos Buscaglia  00:03

By the time Russia invaded Ukraine ESG corrected government bond index of JP Morgan, right. Had a bigger share of Russia than then they they equal index that is not corrected by ESG. Let me open up parentheses to, to make to so everyone can understand. You know, a lot of the investments that finance autocrats end up being funnelled to them through funds that track indices.

Gene Tunny  00:40

Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show was to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. My guest this episode is Mark Aasbo. Scalia is the former head of the Latin America economics team at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. And he’s the author of a new book Beyond the ESG portfolio, how Wall Street can help democracies survive, which we talk about in this episode. As I hope you’ll gather from my conversation with Marcos, he’s written a terrific book. It’s one that makes us think carefully about the ultimate impacts of our investments. have investors inadvertently been supporting autocratic regimes worldwide. Marcos argues that they have been and that should change. This is another thought provoking episode. So please get in touch with any comments or reactions, you can find my contact details in the show notes. And you can also find a link to Marcus’s book and other relevant information. Right, I would better get into it. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Marcos for Scalia. Marcus for Scalia, welcome to the programme.

Marcos Buscaglia  02:17

Thank you very much. Thank you for having me, Dean. Of course,

Gene Tunny  02:20

you’ve written a an excellent book, I’ve had a read of your book Beyond the ESG portfolio. How Wall Street can help democracies survive published by McGraw Hill, like us to start off with, could you tell us why did you feel the need to write this book, please? Yeah,

Marcos Buscaglia  02:40

it was it was great that a chance event, I would say, in the sense that I went to a meeting with a client in New York, about the time that Christina Kushner won the, you know, vice presidency, but But you know, she picked the president, the front runner, so she was everybody knew she was going to run the government, that this was the end of 2019. And I went to see this, this very nice client that very smart. And, you know, basically, you know, he argues that, you know, if these guys did the right thing in macro terms in economic terms, you know, they wouldn’t be ready to buy Argentina bonds. And I say, No, this is not right. This is not right, because I knew I suspected what you know, more than I knew, I suspected, you know, that. Christina Kidner will try to undermine democracy in Argentina, at least, you know, checks and balances, particularly not related to her corruption cases, you know, that were going on in courts and will try to undermine democracy in my home country. So I said, this is not right. And, you know, so you know, it was this, like, sort of, you know, small scale Rekha moments in her. And I say, Well, you know, there was something wrong with this. And I wrote a piece that, that the Financial Times blog, beyond breaks was very kind to publish at the beginning of 2020. Before the pandemic, and I got a lot of attention, you know, as so much people, you know, contacted me saying, Yeah, this is not right. For instance, some better roof journalists said, Look, you know, we’re, we’re being jailed. And at the same time, London houses, hold a lot of, you know, Belarusian bonds, but Belarus is, you know, outright autocracy for a long time. There’s no discussion, you know, about that. So, so basically, I say, you know, so So at some point, say, well, maybe I can turn this into a book, because I think this is, you know, this, this may be something important, something that can, you know, change the way we perceive things. Gotcha.

Gene Tunny  04:52

Now, what I’m wondering is, why do you think investors should care about this whether a country democratic mean, obviously, there’s the political reason or it’s the right thing to do. I mean, we want democracies, but they’re investors. So they’re trying to, you know, invest on behalf of clients and they want to get the best returns. I mean, I’d be thinking the things they’re looking at is, well, will we make money on this transaction? Or will this government actually pay its pay? Its its creditors? Will it actually pay the bondholders? So, why is it that this is something that investors should be thinking about? Well,

Marcos Buscaglia  05:37

I think it’s it’s twofold. I mean, there are two reasons. The first is is, you know, to align with your investment with your values, in the same way that you would not invest in companies that use child labour, or that basically, you know, attack one minority or that, you know, pollute, you know, outrageously pollute, you know, the environment, you know, and investors are already doing that, I mean, aligning their, their values with their investments with with the ESG framework, and that’s why we, you know, I put all this view within the ESG framework, you know, because that’s the framework in which, although, as you know, there is a lot of, you know, pushback now, but at least it’s a framework that tried to tries to align, you know, basically values with with with investment decisions, while in the same way that you will do that you will say, Well, you know, what, why would I finance, the finance the availa rules, you know, dictator, you know, or someone that is undermining democracy in his or her country. So, that’s that. So the first reason is to do good, right, to align values with with investment decisions. The second is that, I think that at the end of the day, you you end up doing better, you know, with with investing in democracies, the the empirical evidence on on this is not, there isn’t a lot of empirical evidence to be to be sure, I don’t want to, you know, be, you know, like selling something that is, that is not, you know, a lot of empirical evidence, but, but, look, if you look at what happens with with autocracies, you know, you know, the downsides that you face as an investor are downsides that you don’t face in, in democracies, in which, you know, there’s division of power, there is an independent press, there is an independent judiciary, look at what happened, for instance, we don’t know the litigation stocks in China, you know, a couple of years ago, look at what happened with you know, firms that were expropriated in Oh, no, in Egypt. You know, so there are so many examples of downside risk. And, and there is one thing that I, that there is a little more evidence, you know, that is that at the end of the day, democratic countries end up growing faster than non democratic countries. Of course, you know, there is China, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s, you know, it’s bad, when you put it all together, including China, the evidence suggests that democracy brings more growth, and then you will think, Well, you know, companies that are based in democratic countries, if the country grows faster, should should be doing better, right? It makes it it makes sense. You know, it is common sense to think that so, so again, although I cannot be selling to the people listening to this, you know, look, you’re, you’re for sure don’t going to do better investing in democracies, you know, the, it is reasonable to think that given that democracies tend to grow faster, on average, you know, compared to non democracies, that you would end up doing better. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  08:56

What I think’s interesting about your book is that you give a lot of examples, and you do identify some major financial institutions that are that you or you’re suggesting, are potentially in given the the title of your book. Well, I mean, their actions at the moment aren’t contributing aren’t helping democracies survive and could actually be undermining democracies? Could you explain how that is? I mean, by buying bonds of foreign countries or by investing in those countries, how is that actually undermining democracy in those countries or or supporting the autocracies? Could you give some examples, please?

Marcos Buscaglia  09:41

Yes, of course. You know, at the end of the day, particularly when they’re building their their autocratic regimes, this one of the autocrats build the reputation of being successful, you know, typically they come to power let’s say, let’s say you know the case Since that I’ve started I have not covered, you know, all the autocratic countries, of course, but take the case of, you know, Erdogan in Turkey or Chavez in Venezuela, you know, or, or the commissioners in Argentina, you know, they typically come to power or pull in, you know, in Russia, so they come to power after a period of harsh, you know, economic contraction, and, you know, IMF, typical IMF, you know, austerity programmes, and they come to power and for different reasons, you know, sometimes they’re just lucky, you know, like the cases of Chavez in and occasionally, because commodity prices went up, and they were in the right place at the right time. And, and so, you know, these countries export commodities, namely, oil in Venezuela, and, you know, the cultural goods in Argentina, so, the countries, you know, became wealthier, and they were in power. So for different reasons, but, you know, they consolidate their power, because they’re successful, because they, they come and people say, you know, these guys are successful, but, so, if you’re financing them, you’re helping them to be successful. And, and the market was very happy to finance Venezuela, for instance, when Chavez was clearly undermining, you know, all constitutional checks and balances. Actually, what I’m showing this in the book is that Chavez dismantled, you know, democracy, almost from day one, day one, he called, you know, a constitutional assembly that basically changed the way the institutions of industrial change, work and, you know, forever. And, and, and, and markets, you know, at the same time, we’re, we’re, you know, we’re very happy, you know, you know, taking the bonds that that Chavez redeem, was sent into the market and the VESA, which is the ministry lost one company, so and this has this doesn’t happen in a vacuum in the sense that is not that is people is not aware of what is going on, because you have all these democracy watchers, you know, like, Freedom House, and, and V them and, you know, there are a lot of democracy workers around the world institutions that dedicate themselves to, to, you know, follow up what is going on with democracy. And, and basically, they, they, this, you know, this is this institutions are tracking on real time, you know, what is going on with democracy, and fagging that to the world. And the media also, you know, you know, reflects that. So, it’s not that you’re buying a bond on him off Venezuela or Russia. And you’re totally unaware, you know, that these countries are, you know, sliding into autocracy.

Gene Tunny  12:52

Yeah. Yeah. Good point. Good point. Okay. Now, yeah, what I found interesting is just the the broad range of countries around the world that you that you look at what’s been happening in Hungary, and you, you make the accusation or you identify that the EU has undermined democracy in Hungary? Could you explain that, please, Marcus? Well,

Marcos Buscaglia  13:14

you know, it’s it’s that, you know, Hungary has received for a long time, very important. transfers from the, from the EU, you know, this is part of the typical accession programme, when a country, you know, that is poorer than the average, you know, of the Euro bucks exceeds the European Union, you know, it gets, it gets a lot of money from the European Union, to union to build infrastructure. You know, we have seen that in Spain, for instance, you know, many, you know, some decades ago, and so that happened with Hungary. But the funny fact about Orban is that he speech is an anti Brussels as he called me, you know, speech, you know, he has been bashing the European Union, you know, because European Union puts a lot of constraints on this, of what these countries can do. And at the same time, at the same time that he was bashing the European Union, he was receiving money. Fortunately, you know, very recently, the European Union Fest has changed some rules, and has been withdrawing money, you know, to Hungary, so has not been sending the money to Hungary. So, so, because of violation of some articles, you know, I’m not an expert. Exactly. I don’t remember, you know, I don’t have them on the top of my mind, but it has to buy been violating some articles of the European Union. So, so basically, now, but but in the meantime, you know, it has sent, you know, several percentage points per year of funding a net terms to the to Hungary, the European Union, and, and moreover, there are significant you know, there are there are many indicators, several indications that there was a lot of corruption in this in the contracts for to build infrastructure. funded by the European Union, right? So so so, you know, basically, if you want to put it well, if you want to synthesise this is, you know, there is a band of brothers, you know that, that is managing, you know, Hungary, and these, these guys get all the contracts, you know, we’re almost all the contracts.

Gene Tunny  15:22

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  15:27

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice, we can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world, you can get in touch via our website, http://www.adapteconomics.com.au We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  15:57

Now back to the show. One of the points you make in the book is that you think that ESG so environment, social governance, the this requirement or this, this commitment by companies to pursue ESG goals, you think that is not enough on its own to, to prevent or to or to just stop the investment in countries that are autocracies. So, why is ESG which does have you know, it’s got environment, social governance, why is that not enough on its own?

Marcos Buscaglia  16:36

Let me tell you a couple of things. We went into, you know, several, you know, let’s say books that analyse you know, ESG standards and, and to several metrics of companies that do that, and you don’t find the word democracy there. Sometimes you find human rights, you know, but But basically, it’s not a, it’s not a big component. So basically ESG is not built to, to reflect, you know, democratic values, as it stands now. So again, and again, we look into, you know, the metrics, that that several companies that they dedicate themselves to ESG standards look into. And let me tell you, a very, you know, telling example of why, you know, that you can see that inaction. You know, by the time Russia invaded Ukraine, that that day ESG corrected government bond index of JP Morgan, right, had a bigger share of Russia than then the the equal index that is not corrected by ESC. Let me open our indices to, to make two so everyone can understand, you know, two parenthesis certified indices, a lot of the investments that finance autocrats end up being funnelled to them through funds that track indices, right? Remember, I don’t know if you saw the news, you know, these days, but ETFs have surpassed, you know, active funds in, in, you know, in assets under management, well, ETFs track indices, you know, set let’s say in the, in the stock market, they are the most you know, popular ones on there are the Morgan Stanley MSCI indices in the in the, but there are many, of course, you know, and in the bond in the government bond indices in the market, the JP Morgan ones are the most common ones are out there, there are a lot of, you know, several indices. So, but they they, particularly for emerging markets, the JP Morgan indices are very important, right, so, so these indices, let’s say the dollar ones, the most common ones are called the NB you know, the MB them the global, the MB diversified. And then very more recently, you know, you know, JP Morgan issued, you know, the ESD corrected versions of this, right. So, so, what happens is that the, the banks or institutions that produce these indices, and then there are ETS or active funds that track these indices, what do I mean by this gene? You may know this, but Is that us imagine that you are an investor and institutional investor and you offer your services, you say, Well, look, I will track the JP Morgan in MB index, and you will see how I over outperform it, because I’m very good, you know, that’s, that’s your benchmark. Okay. So, so now, but back to track, so you have these two indices, and the the the weight of Russia in the ESG, corrected version of the JPMorgan MB was higher than the non ESD. Correct. What does what does that mean? That if Jean, if you were tracking the ESG corrected version of the index, you should have had a bigger share of Russian government bonds than in the non ESG corrected one. You know what I mean? So so you will be more apt supposed to Russia, if you were tracking and ESG index by the day Russia invaded Ukraine. Right? I don’t know if this was clear or not. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  20:08

I mean, that’s extraordinary. So if you were, if you were conscious of ESG goals, and you would have been overweight in Russian bonds, more than the market as a whole, do you have any insight into why that was? Why Russia was disproportionately? In that? That index? You

Marcos Buscaglia  20:27

know, I don’t know, because I don’t I don’t have the the exact ways I just read this in, in a report. Yeah. But my take is that, you know, given that, let’s say, you know, they take into account, for instance, whether you should green bonds, right. So, so maybe, you know, some countries didn’t issue green bonds, and also they have a lower share in that index. And that Biden, by construction, you know, mean, that meant that Russia had a bigger way. You know, that’s, that’s, you know, that’s an alternative that I can think about, I can think of, but remember, at the end of the day yesterday, as it doesn’t take into account democracy, it takes into account, you know, other the other issues that say, let me give you another example, let’s say Poland, remember that Poland, up until very recently, when when the government was ousted in the elections, it was sliding towards autocracy, you know, and Poland is the bigger, biggest sovereign issuer of green bonds. Right? All right. So, come on gene, money is fungible. Right? You know, so yes, if you finance, if you finance the Polish government to let’s say, to build wind farms, that’s very nice. We all want that. Right. But money is fungible, maybe some part of that money was diverted towards, you know, you know, the Secret Service or, you know, or to buy a media company, or, or, or even if that wasn’t the case, you know, you free up space in the budget, you know, because you’re, you’re you’re funding the the wind farms, and then you’re, you’re freeing up space in the budget to, to finance, you know, the secret police or whatever, you know, whatever an autocratic government will be doing. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  22:13

absolutely. I think there’s several good examples in the book there. So, you, you talk about adding a D to ESG? So it would be what ESD, GE or Ed SG, or however you want to want to pitch it? What are your recommendations for going about that markets? How would you actually get the D in there? What are their regulations that need to change?

Marcos Buscaglia  22:39

I think, maybe regulations, but I think at the end of the day, it seems investors asking for this to happen. I mean, you know, there are several investors, which already do that, but not in the sense that I know, you know, some friends in the, in the financial industry, that tell me Well, you know, this is this is not gonna be, you know, recorded anywhere, but, you know, many, but some big clients come to us and say, We know, we want to invest in a portfolio of emerging market bonds, but please exclude you know, this, you know, x and y and z because they’re autocratic. Right. So one way more general, so, so I think that at the end of the day, is investors, you know, requirements that will bring the change, and that’s the purpose of the book, you know, to bring awareness that this is happening, you know, so investors can demand, you know, for instance, they index providers to do something, right, are the ESG score providers to do something, you know, so, so my take is that I want to bring awareness. But but other than that, you know, given that that may may take time, I provide some solutions to that, let’s say you can do that in your portfolio, say, Well, you know, I will, I will there are some ways to invest in, in, in, in both in the in the equity world and the fixed income world in to try to exclude some autocratic countries, for instance, or diminish the importance. Yeah, your portfolio.

Gene Tunny  24:07

Is this a way for some fund managers to differentiate themselves to attract new business? So, for those people around the world who are concerned about this, I mean, I think people should be concerned about this. I, I agree with you, do you see any companies or any hedge funds or investors, investment managers, fund managers doing this at the moment? Very

Marcos Buscaglia  24:29

few that I’m aware of, there are a couple of ETFs you know, one that is, is based on exclusion is an Emerging Markets Equity Fund is called I think life and liberty and, and it’s basically the Exclude autocratic countries. And then the the second one is an ex US equity fund, right? And instead of a It’s gruelling, it diminishes the weight compared to the benchmark, you know? Yeah. The benchmark again is is, is, you know, X US equity, you know, benchmark. And they diminish the, you know, the weight of the autocratic countries. So that’s in the ETF world. And then I have been in contact with this company, this is a rather new initiative called Tom. And Tom is, you know, French asset manager, who offers for it to situational investors in this case, not to, you know, not to individuals, and strategy, equity strategy, I think, or liberty or, you know, something like that. So, and again, I think there are a few more, but it’s not widespread, is not widespread.

Gene Tunny  25:45

Gotcha, gotcha. Few more questions. What’s the role of government here? So in your book, you mentioned something that the Trump administration did so in August 25 2017, President Trump imposed financial and economic sanctions on Venezuela, executive order 13 808, but the Venezuelan government and in its state owned companies in this joint public, private ventures from international credit markets, is this a type of thing that needs to be done? more widely? Should governments be actively promoting democracy using these economic weapons?

Marcos Buscaglia  26:28

Well, you know, there is a big discussion about this, you know, some people say that sanctions could have gone too far. And that, you know, they they undermine the standards of living of the locals. But I do think that I’m on the camp that thinks that, you know, yes, sanctions should, should be used. And this is because at the end of the day, as I said, you know, before autocrats even though they’re out to grads, they need the economy to be doing well, you know, unless, you know, it’s a very tight autocracy like North Korea, you know, probably the probably, they don’t, they don’t care what the economy’s were, but, you know, other other autocratic regimes at the end of the day, you know, the economy is not doing well, you know, they’re gonna suffer at some point. So, so my take is that you need to cut them off from from from fresh funds, you know, because in that way, you will undermine the the the autocrat, and, and basically that that would help, you know, the democracy movements inside the country. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  27:32

Do you have any thoughts on how the measures the sanctions, the freezing of bank accounts, assets in foreign countries, all the other restrictions that have been imposed on Putin’s regime? Do you have any insight into how they’ve they’ve gone? I’ve heard that. I mean, they, Russia seems to be, you know, living through it, or they sit? I mean, I’m sure it’s imposed some pain, but I don’t think they’ve been the take I’ve seen is that they haven’t those measures haven’t been as effective as US Treasury, as the US administration. Hope. Do you have any, any views on that?

Marcos Buscaglia  28:08

Well, you know, I’m not an expert again, but but my take of what I’ve been reading about sanctions is that it depends on what you want to achieve with the sanctions, you know, some sanctions are just, and, you know, are not aimed at bringing regime change. They’re just thought to be to make the life of those, the, you know, the, the autocrats and their Aiders and abettors, you know, Marmee several, you know, so, so, so, you should not, you know, measure the success or not in on whether there is regime change, because they were not aim at that, to start with, you know, so So some of the sanctions, you know, came out of the Magnitsky Act in the US, then then became the global Magnitsky Act, and several counties have, you know, copied that, and this, this arc was born out of, you know, the work of, of an American investor, Bill Browder, who, who had a fund or the Hermitage fund in, in Russia, and suddenly, you know, he got into the wrong people. And, and he got sacked, and everybody escaped Russia, except for this lawyer that was representing him. Magnitsky and he was basically illegally taken to jail and he died there. And so, will rather say, Well, you know, I, I will try to make the life of those people that that, you know, made Magnitsky life miserable, miserable myself, you know, so, so, and, and, and so, so, again, so, the sanctions that I was talking about what not that ones were related to the sales and trading of government bonds, you know, so that’s, that’s those are the sanctions that I referenced in borg in the sense that say, Well, you know, maybe, you know, the trading of bonds that are already out there, you can you can prohibit you will be hurting, you know, the, the American or the or the Western, you know, investors, but, you know, let’s, let’s stop them from from getting new bonds, you know, you can do that. And I think that that, that would be good. Although, you know, I take notice, you know, there are two sides on this debate, you know, of, you know, whether sanctions are to match, you know, my side is don’t give out to grads or out to God wannabes, you know, new money for them to look good on the population of their countries. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  30:41

yeah. And just try and around all around this often just try to summarise it all, is this a, is this essentially an enlightened self interest? So even though in the short term, you might be able to get higher yields on these, you know, that’d be paying a higher interest rate on these bonds from autocratic countries? In the long term? This is not a good thing. I mean, obviously, there’s the moral question. But if there’s this spread of these autocratic regimes, and you raised some concerns about populist regimes potentially becoming autocratic, if there’s this spread of them across the world, ultimately, that’s worse, makes us all worse off? If so, is it a matter of enlightened self interest?

Marcos Buscaglia  31:24

I think so. And again, they’re the metrics particularly, there is no very good research on the fixed income side, but there is some research on the equity side that you end up doing better, you know, in investing in democratic countries. So So So, you know, let’s let’s, you know, yesterday was seen in, in X, you know, formerly known as Twitter, the, you know, chart of, you know, the, the s&p against the, I don’t remember what, what Chinese stock market index, you know, well, you would have done so much better investing in the US or for the sake of the example, you know, against, you know, any European or, or democratic country compared to China, right? And, and we’re talking about the darling of the autocracies in economic terms, right? You know, because remember that for any, you know, China in economic terms, you have 10, you know, failed economic autocracies, you know, autocratic regimes, particularly in Africa, of course, but but you’re talking about in economic terms, the darling of the of the autocracies, and even in that case, you know, on the long run, you will not have done any money in China.

Gene Tunny  32:38

Yeah, yeah. Gotcha. Okay. Finally, before we, before we wrap up, but you’re coming to us from Argentina. Argentina, has a new president who has, you know, really made a huge impact on the world stage with his speech in Davos, what are the what are the prospects for, for him getting things under control there? In Argentina? I mean, I know that you’ve had, you know, very high inflation. There are huge issues with with the government budget, aren’t there? I mean, what are the prospects for, for him getting things under control? Do you have any insights into that? Well,

Marcos Buscaglia  33:15

you know, he doesn’t have an easy job. Because the, you know, the imbalances that he inherited are so big, let’s say, utility prices, transport prices are so out of whack compared to the costs, you know, money printing has been, you know, huge in the last four years. You know, the exchange rate was totally misaligned. I mean, you have so much misalignments on the macro side to correct, you know, for to start with, and then, you know, he’s also trying to change, you know, the economic structure of Argentina, which basically, you know, it’s, it’s an economy that closed, you know, to foreign trade, trade many, many decades ago. And then, on top of that, you know, it assembler, and all sorts of regulations and vested interests, you know, that live well, in a country that is important getting poorer than the rest of the population is getting poorer day by day. So he’s trying to disentangle those, you know, benefits, special benefits, and these special interests will fight and they’re fighting. So, so it’s not a it’s not an easy task. It starts particularly he’s, you know, President carrier Malay is in, in a minority government. So, so But basically, you know, he, I think he has, you know, still a fair chance of success because, you know, Argentina has been stagnant for the last 12 years, you know, we have 12 years of stagnation or decline in per capita terms with very high inflation with a very high poverty rate with a lot of immigration now, so So I think that The population said, you know, further up. So basically there is a there is a chance for him to succeed, you know, he’s not guaranteed because you know, the Sisa isn’t a minority government in an in a delicate macro and structural, you know, programme. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  35:19

yeah, gotcha. It’s fascinating because he’s a Libertarian candidate. Well, he was a libertarian. I mean, now he’s got to manage a government and it’s going to be, it’ll be interesting to see. I mean, I’ve seen it as some sort of experiment into how, you know how that sort of approach can go a libertarian approach to government. So we’ll have to, we’ll have to see how that all works out. Okay, Marcus Pascale, it has been terrific. Yeah, I’ll put a link in the show notes to your book and encourage you if you’re listening, I think this the books definitely worth reading. I learned a lot about the global economy and, and, you know, all sorts of interesting, interesting transactions. And so there’s reference to all of you know, major players, Goldman Sachs, for instance, gets gets called out for some of their their actions. So, yeah, it’s been terrific. Any final thoughts before we close? Marcos?

Marcos Buscaglia  36:22

No, no, I mean, again, I think that that my interest is in bringing awareness that this is happening, that sometimes he says it’s happening unwittingly, that you may be financing autocracy in your portfolio, and you don’t realise it so that it’s time to take action that there is a real struggle in the world for democracy. You know, democracy has been sliding. And and I don’t think that we want to be, you know, involuntary complicit with that, you know? Yeah,

Gene Tunny  36:49

absolutely. I mean, it’s the sort of thing I might start asking questions of myself. So the big thing at the moment here in Australia is we’re looking at how can we improve improve disclosures relating to climate change? What what’s the impact on climate change? What are companies doing in terms of mitigation adaptation? Whereas maybe what we need is to have more focus on what the least the banks and the financial businesses what they’re doing with regard to democracy, why we should have maybe we should have more insight into that, I’ll have to think about that. And he’ll probably

Marcos Buscaglia  37:26

meet let me give you a small but important example of that. A little bit over a month before the presidential election in Turkey, the Turkish government issued the first ever green bond, and the market was very happy $2.5 billion dollars. At the same time, another one was spending money like crazy to win reelection, the polls indicated that he would lose the election, but he was spending like crazy giving handouts to everyone. And he won the election. So you may say, Well, you know, maybe the market thinking that they were, you know, contributing to the environment in because it was a green bond. Maybe they contributed to consolidate autocracy in Turkey.

Gene Tunny  38:06

Yeah, yeah. Very possible. Very possible. Yes. Lots to lots to keep an eye on, Marcos, for sure. Look, this has been fascinating. I really enjoyed your insights. totally recommend your book. So well done. And yeah, I look forward to the to seeing your work in the future and hopefully catching up sometime in the future. Thanks so much for your time.

Marcos Buscaglia  38:32

Thank you, Jean. But it was very nice talking to you.

Gene Tunny  38:35

rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

39:22

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Reagan’s Budget Boss David Stockman on Trump’s Economic Policies – EP224

Economics Explored host Gene Tunny speaks with David Stockman, who was President Reagan’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget. Stockman discusses his new book, “Trump’s War on Capitalism,” and shares his frank and fearless commentary on the former president’s economic policies. In his foreword to the book, Robert F. Kennedy Jr wrote, “Stockman has become one of the nation’s most steadfast and eloquent crusaders against the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”

Please get in touch with us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcast and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP224

  • Trump and capitalism. (0:04)
  • Trump’s fiscal and monetary policies. (4:41)
  • Government spending and lockdowns during the Trump presidency. (10:04)
  • Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact. (15:06)
  • COVID-19 response and blame game. (20:05)
  • US economy under Trump, job growth, and performance. (25:51)
  • Economic growth and tax cuts during Trump’s administration. (30:10)
  • Monetary policy and inflation during Trump’s presidency. (36:26)
  • Corruption in US government and military spending. (41:56)
  • Alan Greenspan’s legacy and economic challenges. (49:54)

Takeaways

  1. David Stockman argues that while Trump portrayed himself as a capitalist, his fiscal and monetary policies like large tax cuts, increased spending and pressure on the Fed to keep rates low were reckless and a threat to capitalism.
  2. According to Stockman, the data shows the US economy was not in its strongest position ever pre-COVID, as Trump claimed, with key metrics like GDP growth, job growth and investment lower under Trump compared with some previous presidents.
  3. Stockman believes Trump bears responsibility for the unprecedented pandemic spending and deficits, as he could have resisted lockdowns but instead endorsed huge stimulus packages.
  4. Stockman views Trump as the worst president for sound money policy due to his pressure on the Fed to keep rates low.

Links relevant to the conversation

Amazon page for Trump’s War on Capitalism:

https://www.amazon.com/Trumps-War-Capitalism-David-Stockman/dp/1510779329

William Greider’s famous 1981 Atlantic article “The Education of David Stockman”:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/

Transcript: Reagan’s Budget Boss David Stockman on Trump’s Economic Policies – EP224

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

David Stockman  00:04

He’s campaigned against the Fed, but he wants an easier fed, okay, I want to read the Wall Street doesn’t like totally different I want a Fed that’s proven that pursues sound money policy Trump wants a fed that prints even more money than the flood we already have.

Gene Tunny  00:28

Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. My guest this episode is David Stockman, who was President Reagan’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget. Prior to the Reagan administration, he had served as a congressman. And after he left the administration, he had a career in private equity in business. David has a new book out titled Trump’s war on capitalism, and I was delighted to speak with him about it. David is a frank and fearless commentator, and I was never left wondering what he really thought about the former President’s economic policies. Indeed, David has a long history of Frank commentary. He first became famous for some frank remarks he made in 1981, to journalist William Greider about the Reagan administration’s budget strategy is also tangled with Paul Krugman, among other prominent commentators in the US. I really enjoyed this conversation with David and I hope you do too. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, I think you have to respect his ability to argue his points. And he will demonstrates that ability in this conversation. I get the sense he is incredibly resilient as he’s copped a lot of criticism over the years, he’s had to make a multimillion dollar legal settlement with the SEC. He’s even a defender of criminal charges, they did end up being dropped by the SEC, I should note, all of this is to say that he’s had a very interesting career and life experience. And he’s someone worth hearing from, in my view. Now, David expresses some very thought provoking views in this episode, and I expect you’ll have some thoughts on what he says and you may have some thoughts on some of the things I say. So please get in touch and let me know your own thoughts. My contact details are in the show notes as our links related to the book and about David Righto. We’d better go into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with David Stockman about Trump’s war on capitalism. David Stockman thanks for joining me on the programme.

David Stockman  02:46

Very happy to be with you got a lot to talk about here, I think. Absolutely.

Gene Tunny  02:50

Well, you’ve written a very provocative book a very, very in depth book looking at the policies of the former President Donald Trump and prospects for a new term if the minute is looking very possible that Donald Trump could be in the White House again next year. So your book is called Trump’s war on capitalism. Now, this is, this is interesting because too many of us, Donald Trump is the exemplar of the American capitalist. And yet you argue that he is undertaking a war on capitalism. And even more strongly, well, strongly. You argue that is a clear and present danger to capitalist prosperity. Could you explain David, how do you how can we reconcile these things? I mean, Donald Trump does seem to be the exemplar of a capitalist, but yet he’s a threat to capitalism. How do we reconcile these facts?

David Stockman  03:58

Well, those are great questions. I don’t think really, he’s an exemplar of capitalism. And we can get into that. I think he’s an exemplar of getting lucky when the Fed created so much inflation and asset prices and made debt so cheap that if you were a speculator, in New York City, real estate or elsewhere, you possibly made a lot of book, wealth, but I don’t think it was capitalist genius behind it. That’s the first point. The second point is that his policies were really almost anti capitalist in some common sense notion of conservative economics. To have a healthy capitalist economy. You need three things. One, fiscal rectitude, you can’t be running up the public debt, spending like there’s no tomorrow and having the government grow and mushroom and impinge in every direction on the economy. You can’t have easy money and a central A bank that is flooding the system. With cheap credit and excess liquidity, you can’t have a government that is really anti free market, which is what, you know, trade protectionism is all about. And he’s the biggest protectionist in the White House. You know, since I don’t know Hoover set, and Smoot Hawley in 1931. So all of his policies were really in the wrong direction. Now, I do concede in the book, that the one abiding virtue that Donald Trump has is he’s got all the right enemies, okay. The establishment hates him, The New York Times The Washington Post, CNN, The Washington, what I call you, in a party establishment, the leadership and the long standing careerist of both parties can’t stand him. But basically, it’s because he’s an outsider is because he’s unwilling to conform, and he’s pretty obnoxious, and unpredictable. That’s why they’re against him. The point of the book, though, is none of his power. And his policies were wrong, even if he had the right enemies. And nothing that he did help the economy or addressed, the huge long term problems we have of a runaway public debt of a government is way too big and too costly and too intrusive. And especially at the heart of the matter, a central bank that is out, it’s a rogue Central Bank, it’s out of control. And yet Trump was constantly on their case, demanding even easier money, lower interest rates, even more, you know, of the same that got us into, you know, the huge bubbles and troubles that came from them. So, the point of my book was to say he had a chance he’s got her four year record we can look at it is terrible, it offers nothing in terms of remediation of our great problems and putting us in a different direction for the future. So, you know, don’t waste the opportunity. And you know, that’s about where I come out.

Gene Tunny  07:13

Right. Okay. So you write about what you call the Donald’s reckless fiscal and monetary policy. So we might talk about fiscal first. Now, among other things, you talk about the most grotesque act of fiscal malfeasance in American history. So that was something that Trump was associated with you argue? Are you talking about the the big tax cut the Trump tax cut in 2017? Is that Is that something you see as as reckless,

David Stockman  07:44

and that’s part of it, but I’m looking at the overall picture, and the data, the big top line data on spending and borrowing on the public debt. Now, let’s just take it down to the core metric, which is the public debt. I mean, if you’re running huge deficits and spending, far beyond your willingness or ability to tax, it comes out in the public debt. When Trump became president in round terms, that public debt was about 20 trillion. When he left it was 28. That’s 8 trillion of growth, a trillion of debt, public debt. In four years, you let me ask the question, when did when did we get the first 8 trillion of public debt? And how long did it take us to get there? The answer is in two or three, it took us 216 years 43 presidents to rack up a trillion in debt. He did it in four years. That’s kind of the bottom line. It puts it in perspective, in terms of how big the air was. If we look at other more conventional measures, you get the same picture, the average deficit to GDP and that’s another good ratio, you know, how big is the deficit or surplus relative to the national economy? It will the deficit average two and a half percent of GDP for all the presidents from the early 50s through 2016. The deficit under Trump’s four years average 9% of GDP, almost four times more than it had been the average going back for. If you look at spending, I think that’s important. And again, let’s take the inflation out of the picture and looked at it in inflation adjusted for real terms real spending. Trump average 7% per year during his tenure, for instance, big spending Obama right before him was 2% per year in real terms. Reagan when I was there was 3% per year. In real terms, the average was two and a half. So again, Trump was you know, three times, in some cases four times more In terms of the growth rate of spending then haven’t heard historically. So you know, if when you go through those kinds of measures, and then of course, it all culminated, I just want to put this last point. And in 2020, when he made the huge mistake of shutting down, locking down the economy based on very bad advice from some very bad doctors that worked for the federal government, if he had any principles about, you know, property rights and personal liberty and constitutional due process, he never would have ordered a lockdown to the economy. But in any event, he did that in 2020. And as a result of that, we had just an explosion of spending to bail out the economy that the government had ordered to close. And I’m talking about the 2 trillion worth of stimulus measures that were passed with his urging, you know, with his support in 11 days, I mean, this was an $800 800 page, I mean, Bill that contain 2.2 trillion, where the so called Cares Act, you know, banned unemployment insurance benefits, that checks 200 million households, massive amounts of money to education, health, other institutions. The point is, they passed 2.2 trillion in spending and 11 days, nobody read the 800 pages. And that was just the warm up. He then, you know, insisted on the second stimulus or COVID Relief bill in December that he signed right before he left, that was another 2 trillion. And it paved the way for the last 2 trillion that Biden put on top of it, when he came in, basically to implement an extension of all of the freebies and free stuff and giveaways that Trump had put into place during 2020. Well, the reason I’m dwelling on this is it added up to $6.5 trillion of spending, almost sight unseen in terms of legislative review, and scrutiny, it happened in 12 months, march 2020, to march 2021. And that in itself was equal to 150% of the pre existing budget. In other words, in 12 months, they passed the emergency spending that was 1.5 times bigger than the entire federal budget, defence, Social Security, interest payments, student aid and all the rest of it. This is how far it was out of control. And he was sitting in the Oval Office with a veto pen in his hand, theoretically, but obviously, his stubby little fingers never gotten here, the veto pen, he didn’t veto anywhere in either he waved it on. And so therefore, you have to blame him for the most outrageous edge Regis outbreak of fiscal madness that we’ve ever seen in peacetime or wartime in this country. And when you prove that’s where, you know, that’s where you come out that you know, as his record is undeniable, the facts are all there. Why in the world, the Magga fans and Republicans or the Republican rank and file, want him to have another chance is really beyond me. But I wrote this book test, just in case someone cares about, you know, the reality and about the facts, that if they do put him back in, they’re probably going to put him on the ticket. And if the country puts him back in the Oval Office, there is no, it should be no confusion about what you’re getting, you’re getting a worse, you’re getting a exacerbated case of all the problems that we have already today. Rod,

Gene Tunny  14:05

okay. In terms of that spending, I thought that was interesting. You compare the growth rate of spending under Trump versus other presidents, including Reagan. And I was surprised it was. Yeah, there was that stark difference that’s due to that, that pandemic stimulus is that that, you know, one and a half times the budget that was approved in whatever, 11 days or however many, there was an extraordinary fact you mentioned there. Now, one thing I’d like to ask you about because I’m in Australia, so I’m less familiar with exactly what happened in the States than I am here. I mean, I’ve seen it, you know, I saw all the commentary and but you said that you blame Trump for the lock downs or partly, you blame Trump for the lock downs. i The impression I got was he was king piny against the lock downs. Am I wrong on that? I thought it was done by the states.

David Stockman  15:06

No, but yeah, it’s a great question. But if you go back and look at the calendar, the Tick Tock day by day, week by week, it’s very evident that another reason why Trump is on Fit is that he doesn’t have any principles. He doesn’t have any guiding philosophy, he flies by the seat of his ample britches, and whatever seems to strike is fancy at any moment in time, he goes with me because he’s so damn arrogant, that he doesn’t even begin to understand what he doesn’t know. And basically, when it comes to economics in the world, and governing a $26 trillion economy, he knows very little that maybe he sees basically ignorant. So when when the COVID came along for a few days, he was saying, Well, you know, the flu every year to X number of people, 38,000 50,000 people succumb to the flu one way or another, we’re used to this very, what’s the crisis, six days later, as a result of a lot of pressure that came into the Oval Office led by, you know, his son in law, Jared Kushner, bringing in a couple of scientists who wanted a chance to really exercise some power, I convinced him that it was not only not the flu, but it was something like the Black Plague, and that every all stops had to be pulled out. And that’s on the 16th of March, he gave this speech, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve and turn Dr. Fauci and Dr. Burks and the rest of that crowd of Mal practising doctors loose on the country. And before we know it, the entire economy was on its knees and I got data in the book that lays out how severe this was. Two measures, I think, give you a dramatic a pretty dramatic indication of the hammer that Donald Trump brought down on the US economy and therefore the world economy at the end of the day, on March 16, when he authorised you know, two weeks to flatten the curve and turn the CDC loose on daily economic life. First in the second quarter, when it hit that was ground zero of the lockdown second quarter 2020 GDP in the United States declined at a 34% annualised rate, what does that mean? Well, in the worst recession that we’ve had in the post war period, which is the Great Recession, you know, in 208, the annualised the redonk, fall in GDP was 8% during the worst quarter, okay, the worst quarter was 8%. And in the second quarter of 2020, because of the government ordered lockdown, not some kind of cyclical, you know, tumble of the economy, the government ordered the Trumpler lockdown, GDP declined at a 32% rate just, you know, startling, you know, on precedent. Now, the other measure I use a lot in the book is if you look where it hit the hardest lockdowns, it was obviously in my I call the social interaction venues, restaurants, bars, sports, arenas, gyms, malls and the rest of it. in that arena, that area of the economy in the BLS statistics, Labour department’s statistics is called leisure and hospitality as you know, all those industries are in that grew in April 2020, which is ground zero, the heart of the lockdown hours worked in the leisure and hospitality sectors declined by 56%. Compared to the previous month, half of the employment half of the out and not just headcount answer people but actually hours worked, disappeared. Now how big is a 56% decline in employment in that core sector of the economy? Well, it’s so big that it reduced the actual working level. In other words, the hours work the number of people on the pay pay clock to a level not seen since the spring of 1979. In other words, it rolled back the clock 43 years in terms of the slow and steady and relentless growth that occurred in that sector. Are was wiped out in 30 days and it’s taken years to recover. And we’re still not back to where we were in February 2020. So the lock downs are fading, you know, because as time passes things that seemed pretty bad, right at the moment they were happening suddenly, you know, see maybe not so bad, but the lock downs were dramatic. Yeah, they were, you know, the biggest, you know, Thunderbolts to hit the economy. I think it ever at least in the United States, so, he that was the consequence of Trump. swivelling on a dime from nothing to worry about to the sky is falling. And then And here’s where I really put the pin the tale of the donkey, so to speak. He created this thing called the White House Coronavirus, Task Force. And it met day after day and they had a big press conference. At the end of the day. It was like a reality show from the White House Press Room day after day in which Fauci was up there. Burks was up there, and it Hance Vice President Pence and others. And they just scared the living daylights out of the country, even as all of these orders from the public health departments were being implemented at the urging of the CDC and the White House. So this, this whole lockdown catastrophe, was born, bred and perpetuated from the Oval Office, and I go by the famous aphorism you might not be as an Australian might not be aware of it. But Harry Truman, famous president, you know, at the end of World War after World War Two, and had this had this slogan on his desk that said, the buck stops here. In other words, I am going to take responsibility for what happens? Well, in this case, the buck stops with Trump on the whole disaster of the COVID response to pandemic response to lock downs, the damage that it did to the economy and the costs that were generated in terms of borrowing and deficits and the public debt, you know, all of it, you have to ultimately put on his doorstep. Because if he had stuck to his guns, listen to this, this is unbelievable. If he had stuck to his guns of March 11, when he said, you know, this will be handled in the normal way. We’re used to these, you know, viruses coming along, and we can handle it. If he had stayed with that position. None of this disaster would have happened, right? It wasn’t the virus that caused the economy to plunge into a black hole. It was the lockdowns.

Gene Tunny  23:08

Right, just on the what Trump could have done. I think this is an interesting perspective. And it’s Yeah, I think this is probably this might be the perspective that gets you the most pushback or reaction. I think it’s an interesting proposition. What I’m interested in is whether like, say Trump just said, Okay, we’ll ignore the we think there’s a minor virus. I’m not saying necessarily it is. Let’s say Trump says that. Could he have actually directed the states? Could he have directed? Who was at Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom to open up? Could he have done anything? Did he have the levers to be able to do that? Yes.

David Stockman  23:50

Because they responded, I don’t think they were sitting there in Albany, New York, where Cuomo was where Sacramento and said, hey, you know, this, these reports, we’re getting sound like this is a pretty terrible virus. We’re gonna start systematically closing bars and restaurants and malls. And they were doing that in response to the guidelines, the recommendations, and the pressure from the CDC, which was the federal government, and it was controlled, obviously, by Trump, and the CDC and in turn was responding to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, which was being run by Fauci, which was being run by dance is as delegated by Trump. So it was all coming right out of the oval office there. They wouldn’t. I don’t think and I’ve been in politics since the 1960s in America. So I think maybe my judgement is not totally bad. But I’m absolutely certain that without the imprimatur without the urging without all the hysteria, coming from Fauci in that White House Task Force, these people would have not, they wouldn’t have stuck their neck out and closed down their economy, because every one of them was creating political problems for themselves. It wasn’t you know that this was like some great winning political opportunity. Let’s close down all the gyms and in the state, like they did New Jersey and New York, and let’s shut down the malls and let’s put the restaurants out of business. They’re sitting there saying, Yeah, this would be some real good politics for us and forced that the governors weren’t saying that. They were doing it all ultimately, because they were being pressured. They were being encouraged by the federal government and particularly by the Trump White House.

Gene Tunny  25:51

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  25:57

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with adept economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, www dot adapt economics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  26:26

Now back to the show. crass now about one of the things that President Trump would claim was that he had the greatest economy ever the economy was in the strongest position ever. And then it was the virus that COVID that came along and, and wrecked everything. But you, you actually question that you don’t think that the US economy was the greatest economy ever pre COVID? What What’s your what is your analysis? Show you there? You haven’t What do you conclude there?

David Stockman  27:00

Yeah, good question. I don’t question it myself. The data proves it. In other words, I just did a lot of research and served up the data that comes out of the statistical mills of the US government. And you can measure it seven different ways. And you get the same answer. But let’s start with real growth. After all, that’s the big, you know, summary metric for economic performance and health. And real growth of the economy was grew at 1.5%. During Trump’s four years, the lowest rate of any presidential term, going back to Harry Truman, again, to 1950, the average over that entire period, no, nine presidents 11 business cycles during that period, recessions and recoveries, we had a couple of wars during that period, we had any number of crises. So in other words, what we’re talking about here is the long term trend performance of the US economy from 1954 to 2016. Right before Trump got in it averaged 3.04% Or double the growth that occurred during the Trump period. So you can on that on that summary, you can’t make that statistic go away. That’s that’s the major the whole ball of wax. And his growth rate was half of the norm. It was a third, basically, of the highest performance with Kennedy Johnson was 5%. It was maybe 40% of what I remember during the Reagan period, when the growth rate was 3.5%. So the idea that he kept Tweety and keeps to this very day complaint, you know, talking about the great Magga economy that he brought the greatest economy ever is totally refuted contradicted by the facts. Now that’s one of them. We can look at job growth. And of course, the answer there is pretty interesting. He’s the only president since Herbert Hoover, in which there was no job growth. You’d never know that from listening to Donald Trump’s boisterous speeches, but the fact is, when he took office in January 2017, there were 145 point 5 million jobs, non farm jobs in the US when he left office in January 2021. There were 142.5 in other words, the job shrunk by 3 million jobs during his term nothing like that ever had before every other president, there’s more jobs than when they start, not because of their virtue. Do necessary or are there policy is because a capitalist economy unless it’s really thwarted, tends to expand and grow and create more jobs. Trump was the exception. Now you can say, Well, again, it was the lock downs, and it was the spring of 1920 20 catastrophe. But even if you take that out of the picture, and you look at Trump and pretend his, his administration handed in February 2020, which is, you know, the month before the COVID, the pandemic hit, he averaged 145,000 new jobs a month, in that period, until the eve of the COVID, or pandemic hit to the economy. Obama had 215,000. So he was a third shorter than Obama. And Obama was considered pretty bad. If you look at overall employment growth, even taking the pandemic period out, the growth rate under Trump was about 1.4%. And it average two and a half percent in the decades and decades before. In finally, I think the, the, you know, the bottom line measure of economic health. And, you know, the this standard of living on Main Street, you know, for the broad middle class is really per capita, GDP, real GDP per capita, if it’s rising, that means the living standards are rising. And if it’s not, you have a problem. But the average again, during the 60 years post war was 2.5%. And during Trump’s period, it was 1%. In other words, the growth rate was, you know, barely two fifths of the normal rate on this basic metric, which is real GDP per capita. So when we can look at other things to the savings rate collapsed during his administration, despite the big tax cut, we haven’t gone into in detail yet. But despite that, investment growth was lower during the Trump period, than in any other administration going back again to 1950. So, you know, when you ask the question, Where’s the proof? Is it in the pudding? The answer is no. There’s there’s no proof whatsoever of his boast. You know, about the greatest economy ever. So what I say in the book, is it wasn’t the greatest economy ever. It was really the greatest con job ever. Right.

Gene Tunny  32:47

Okay. So on the tax cut, you mentioned the tax cut before you mentioned that this didn’t. In your view, it didn’t lead to, you know, a, an economic surge or surge in investment. And can you explain what happened with that tax cut? And where did you where did the money go? You talk about that in the book?

David Stockman  33:10

Sure. Well, if you want to look at the tax cut, you have it was clearly skewed to encouraging reinvestment by business, both corporations and, you know, individual proprietors. That’s why the corporate rate went down from 28 and 21. Why they put in the equivalent 20% deduction for unincorporated businesses. Now in Aw that cost 1.7 trillion over the first 10 years in revenue loss. And that was supposed to then, you know, cause a surge of investment. But if I look at the investment rate, by that I mean, real investment in the business sector, in the five years before the tax cut became effective in 2018. It was actually well higher than the growth rate in the next five years after the tax cut took effect. So if you spend $1.7 trillion that you don’t have, because it was all deficit, finance, they didn’t cut spending to pay for the revenue loss, and you get not no gain at all, but actually a worse trend performance in real terms, inflation adjusted terms, then you have to ask, how could you possibly justify that if you were borrowing money for a huge rate of return? You might argue, well, let’s let’s try that. But if the rate of return is even smaller than what was already built in, it’s dubious now where the money went them because clearly, corporations and individual proprietors paid a lot less in taxes. The answer is into a record surge in stock buybacks, and in corporate m&a deals and in other forms of, you know, leverage recaps and so forth other forms of financial engineering that basically flow money to Wall Street and to the top of the economic ladder, because that’s where all the stock is owned. In other words, 93% of the stock in the United States is probably true in Australia as well, I’m not sure. But 93% is owned by the top 10% of households, and bout 48% is owned by the top 1%. So if you have a huge corporate tax cut 1.7 trillion, that produces no gains in investment and therefore, future growth and job creation, but instead ends up being flushed back into Wall Street, you know, in the form of stock buybacks and other financial engineering, which then flows to the very top of the income scale. You know, you’ve got a double bad, okay, you added to the debt that the whole public is going to be paying service charges interest on forever, and you put the money, you took the money out of the economy and Senate, to the top of to the very wealthy and to the most affluent people next. Oh, sense. Raw.

Gene Tunny  36:27

Okay. I’d like to ask you about a go back to this point you made in the book about the Donald’s reckless fiscal and monetary policies being doubly bad. We’ve talked about the fiscal policies, what were his monetary policy? So monetary policy is handled by the Federal Reserve, isn’t it? What’s what’s, what was Trump’s role there?

David Stockman  36:49

Okay, though, that’s, again, another important topic. As far as I’m concerned, the number one, number two, and number three policy problems in the United States today, and the world is the Fed and the other central banks, they’re out of control, they’re printing presses have been running red hot. For decades and decades, one measure that I think is startling, if you take all the central banks of the world and add their balance sheets together, in 20, in the year 2000, it was 3 trillion. Now, why is it important to take the balance sheets, look, because that’s just a measure of how much money they printed? Okay, you know, when they print money, they buy assets and put it on the balance sheet. That’s a good simple metric to measure how much money they’re printing, it was 3 trillion at the turn of the century is 44 trillion today. All right. So in barely two decades, they have, you know, they’ve just flooded the world financial system, you know, with freshly minted credit, that, you know, ultimately created bubbles and inflation of every time. So the question then is, what about Fed policy? Now, given that backdrop, and my point is yes, in nominally, the Fed is independent, and they make their own decisions. But my quarrel with Trump is twofold. One, he made enormous put enormous public pressure on them, you know, practically week after week, to lower interest rates, and to make money even easier than it already was. So he was making the wrong advice. And secondly, he was doing it at a time in the business cycle, when it was desperately important for monetary policy to be normalised. I never agreed with all the huge money printing that Bernanke undertook in 208209 to 10. But you know, people argued it was an emergency, it was a one time thing, and even Bernanke himself, said in 2011, we’re out of the woods now. And we’re going to normalise the balance sheet, and we’re going to shrink it back to something reasonable, because it was 900 billion when the, you know, great financial crisis started struck the Wall Street meltdown in September 208. And by the peak it was 4.4 trillion. And, you know, everybody agreed that it needed to be normalised and interest rates were being held practically to zero for years and years and years, and I document a lot of this in the book, and that they needed to normalise as well, because when you make money dirt cheap, you’re just inviting speculation on Wall Street and you’re inviting Congress to spend money it doesn’t have because it’s so cheap to borrow down in Washington. So it was time for normalisation the Fed was trying to To do that by slowly raising rates, and by getting out of the Qt business and actually our QE business and actually shrinking its balance sheet they had initiated before Trump got through something called Qt quantitative tightening, and they were slowly trying to shrink the balance sheet back, just like Bernanke had promised they would. And Trump was constantly on their case, not to do either. And as a result of that the Fed just kept interest rates at zero. It kept the balance sheet, massively, bloated, still around $4 trillion. And that paved the way for the huge inflationary mourning after that we had in 2020 2021 and up into the present. So it the timing of the cycles screamed out because we were well into the recovery, the longest recovery in history. It was it screamed out for normalisation get back to something that was sustainable. And Trump was pounding the table, you know, day after day, don’t you dare do it. And even you know, leaking to the press that he was investigating whether he could fire Powell or whether he could, you know, clean house at the Fed and so forth. So therefore, when it comes to something as fundamentally important as sound money, Trump is the worst president and I say this advisedly, that we ever had the very worst, you know, far worse than Jimmy Carter far worse than Lyndon Johnson. Far worse, as far as I’ve studied it, than FDR, he may be even William Jennings Bryan if he had been elected president. So you, that’s another big black mark on the record.

Gene Tunny  41:56

Okay. You don’t blame Richard Nixon for taking us out of Bretton Woods. off the gold standard? Yeah,

David Stockman  42:04

no, I do. Yeah. And I’m I don’t know how I missed that one. But he was he was he was even worse than Richard Nixon and Tim was bad enough. Right.

Gene Tunny  42:14

Okay. Okay. That’s a it’s a Yeah, that’s a lot. I think your discussion of the Fed and fed policies, it’s definitely worth reading. So thanks for that. David. One last thing. In the foreword to the book by you’ve got Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He says that you’re a crusader against the corrupt merger of state and corporate power in the US. Is that? Is that? Is that how you see yourself? And like, How bad is it in the States? I mean, you’ll see here the talk about the swamp and you hear about the power of lobbyists and all of that, and, and the corruption. I mean, how bad is it, in your view in the US at the moment?

David Stockman  42:59

I think it’s, I think is terrible, because the two worst things we have going are the military industrial complex, this massively bloated defence budget, and the pretentions of Washington that were the hegemony of the world with bases all over, will forever wars all over it interventions everywhere. That is due to the capture of policy by the military industrial complex, that’s corporate power, merging with government power, that’s the first one. The second one is the Fed is a rogue institution that is basically captive of Wall Street. That’s why they keep you know, printing money like they have been doing for decades now. And, you know, that’s exactly what Robert Kennedy is talking about there as well. Total capture of government institutions, in one case, the national security apparatus, in the second case, the basic Central Bank, by private interests, and it leads to some very, very bad outcomes, both domestically and internationally.

Gene Tunny  44:11

Gotcha. These are things that these are things that Trump himself has been campaigning against, hasn’t he or he made he these are things that he uses in his

David Stockman  44:22

arguments. Yes. And no, that is a good point. He’s not campaigning against the Fed. He’s campaigned against the Fed, but he wants an easier fit, okay. I want to send a Wall Street doesn’t like it’s totally different. I want a Fed that’s proven that pursues sound money, but obviously Trump wants a fed that prints even more money than the flood we already have. When it comes to defence is weird. He talks about America First he talks about, you know, NATO should pay its fair share of the tab and all that. But when he got in, he inherited a defence budget of 600 billion which was already way too big bloated, beyond anywhere. Rational need, and he took it up date other than 50 billion. In other words, he never saw a request from the defence department from, from the generals for money that he didn’t like that he wasn’t ready to embrace lock, stock and barrel. Now, why was that? Well, because Trump fancies himself as the greatest negotiator to ever come down the pike. I guess he learned that in the Queen’s as a real estate developer in his early life. And if he hasn’t, you know, an $850 billion defence budget behind him, even if it’s a big waste unnecessary. He thinks he’s accomplished something. But he’s so wrong. Because when you give the defence department and national security apparatus and all those agencies, all that money, they use it to buy political support. That’s right. You know, they use it, basically to perpetuate their missions, their manpower, their budget levels, and so forth. So, you know, Trump isn’t very smart. To tell you the truth, when it comes to how the world works. You know, he may have been a street smart gambler from Queens and got lucky in the real estate business. But he’s never studied. He’s lazy. He’s uninformed. He’s impetuous. He’s fairly dangerous.

Gene Tunny  46:27

Okay. Brought up Wow, man, this is, yeah, it’s been a real. A really great conversation, David, and very, very forthright. And I expect you’ll get a lot of reactions to your book for sure. I suppose one thing I’d like to ask before I leave. So you’re someone that you’ve, you’ve worked, you’ve been in Congress, you’ve been a representative, and you’ve also you’re a director of the Office of Management and Budget, management and budget in the Reagan administration. Correct. What was what was that? Like? I mean, what I mean, that’s, that’s a celebrated administration. I mean, obviously, one of your most distinguished or famous presidents and, you know, lots of really good people in that administration. What was it like on the ground working in it? Well,

David Stockman  47:18

it was a pretty exciting time, at least an effort was made to try to contain the behemoth that it build up on the banks of the Potomac. And it’s interesting to note that when Reagan was sworn in, in January 1981, I became budget director, the first thing we had to do, because we inherited this mess from Jimmy Carter, was to raise the national debt limit above a trillion dollars for the first time, we didn’t have any choice. But where are we today? Go public debt is 34 trillion. And we were struggling with one and we thought, you know, it was a world was going to come to an end. That’s how far things have drifted. Now, of course, the economy is three times bigger, but the public debt is 34 times bigger. So you know, it’s. And then during that period, we had our ups and downs. But at the end of the day, only some minor progress was made in shrinking the size of the federal budget, we cut taxes deeply. We were going to cut spending to match the tax cuts, the spending cuts didn’t happen, because the Republicans really, were not willing to walk the plank in Congress. And because defence spending, got totally out of control and ate up all the savings that we were getting domestically. So essentially, the fiscal calamity that the country is struggling with still today, and the Trump made infinitely worse, originated in the early 1980s, not by purpose, not by intention. But, you know, by the result of the political and policy battles that occurred in the Reagan era, but the one thing that was different is we had Volcker as chairman of the Fed. Volker was the last of the sound money Fed chairman. And he said, You know, I’m not going to finance the federal deficit. You guys want to run up the ready, then you’re going to fund it honestly, in the bond pits, interest rates are going to go up and it’ll be on your watch. And so he did bring inflation to heal, but he was the last of them and in fact, he was so unpopular with the Republican politicians who ran Reagan You know, by the end Reagan wasn’t with it that much of the last two years. They convinced him to not reappoint Volcker and put it Alan Greenspan instead. And, you know, the rest is history. Greenspan was a disaster.

Gene Tunny  49:53

Yes, I mean, he he certainly is his legacy initially After he retired he was seen as the the maestro, but then the financial crisis and there’s been a big reassessment of Greenspan’s legacy since then for sure, absolutely. I might have to cover that on a future show because it’s Yeah, it is a it’s a you know, there’s a lot of history a lot of to go over there. But then Stockman has been terrific. I really enjoyed talking about your new book. I think it’s an important book. It’s, it’s thought provoking. I expect it will be controversial and will should there should be prominent in the the upcoming debate over the rest of this year. So thanks so much for for participating. I’ll put a link in the show notes to your book. Is there anything you’d like to say to wrap up?

David Stockman  50:47

Well, I think we’ve covered a lot of good ground. But I think the answer is, you know, people really need to look beyond the headlines and what the mainstream media is telling you or what the politicians are boasting about, and get a grasp on the facts because we’ve got some pretty difficult economic times to grapple with as we go forward.

Gene Tunny  51:10

So David Stockman thanks so much for your time, really enjoyed it.

David Stockman  51:14

Very good. Thank you.

Gene Tunny  51:18

rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

52:05

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Nature Tech and the Future of Business w/ Handprint Tech founder Simon Schillebeeckx – EP223

In this episode, host Gene Tunny sits down with Simon Schillebeeckx, co-founder of Handprint, a nature tech startup. Handprint aims to help companies profitably and seamlessly integrate planet-positive actions into business activities. Simon shares examples of companies that have gone above and beyond regulatory requirements to positively contribute to the environment. Among other questions, Gene asks Simon about the scalability of Handprint’s approach and the role of consumers in driving profit-maximizing businesses to make positive contributions. 

Please contact us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcast and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest, Dr Simon Schillebeeckx

Simon is co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Handprint Tech. Published author, former sustainability consultant, TEDx speaker. Strategic Management Professor at Singapore Management University (SMU), specialising in Digital Sustainability. He holds a PhD in Innovation Management from Imperial College London.

What’s covered in EP223

  • [00:01:18] Regenerative economy and business activities.
  • [00:04:33] The concept of Handprint.
  • [00:11:28] Capturing value through sustainability.
  • [00:16:02] A-B testing to determine how consumers respond to sustainability measure.
  • [00:18:30] Linking ads to social impact.
  • [00:23:06] Gamifying sustainability initiatives.
  • [00:26:31] The potential for Handprint.
  • [00:32:45] Plastic pollution and its impact.
  • [00:36:03] Regenerative practices in agriculture.
  • [00:41:28] Trust in carbon crediting.
  • [00:48:49] Large-scale mangrove conservation and afforestation.

Takeaways

  1. According to Simon, companies are increasingly looking to go beyond just reducing their negative environmental impacts and instead create positive impacts through initiatives like planting trees or restoring coral reefs.
  2. Done right, these types of regenerative initiatives have the potential to improve business metrics like sales, click-through rates, and employee engagement. 
  3. Handprint is working to make it easier for companies of all sizes to integrate positive impact actions into their business activities in a profitable way
  4. Handprint offers a marketplace for companies to invest in credible positive impact projects, such as mangrove restoration and carbon sequestration, and provides tools for companies to visualize and capture value from their positive impact initiatives.

Links relevant to the conversation

Handprint Tech website:

https://handprint.tech/

Companies/organisations mentioned by Simon:

https://www.sevencleanseas.com/

https://plasticbank.com/

https://oxcarbon.org/

https://globalmangrove.org/

Transcript: Nature Tech and the Future of Business w/ Handprint Tech founder Simon Schillebeeckx – EP223

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Simon Schillebeeckx  00:03

You could do something in what we define as the regenerative economy by saying, for every 10,000 downloads, so for every 10,000 listeners, I’m going to do something good in the world. And that’s going to be part of how I attract new listeners how I attract new baby customers or attract sponsors. that’s accessible to everyone.

Gene Tunny  00:34

Welcome to the Economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. My guest this episode is Simon syllabics. Founder and Chief vision Officer of handprint a nature tech startup headquartered in Singapore. handprint describes its vision as enabling companies to become part of the new regenerative economy by integrating planet positive actions into business activities in a profitable and seamless why? In our conversation Simon provides some good examples of our companies have gone beyond regulatory requirements and have made a positive contribution to the environment. But How scalable is this approach? To what extent do we need consumers to drive profit maximising businesses to make positive contributions? These are questions I’ve been pondering since my conversation with Simon. And I expect this conversation will get you thinking to. I’ll be very interested in your thoughts on this episode. So please send me a note or a voice message. You can find my contact details in the show notes. Before we get into it, I’d like to note that this episode is brought to you by Lumo coffee, which is a new coffee line from my occasional co host Tim Hughes. This grade one organic specialty coffee from the highlands of Peru is jam packed full of healthy antioxidants. Tim has tweaked the roasting process and lab tests to confirm that his beans have tripled the antioxidants of regular coffee. And I can confirm that Lumo coffee tastes really good too. Until the end of March 2020. For economics, explore listeners can get a one time 20% discount on Luma coffee, go to Lumo coffee.com. And at the checkout use the code explored 2019 explored is all in capital letters and followed by to zero. Check out the show notes for details. So again, Lumo Liu, mo, coffee.com. Friday, we’d better get into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Simon syllabics. Tom and syllabics Welcome to the programme. Hi,

Simon Schillebeeckx  03:19

Gene. Thanks very much for having me. Oh, excellent.

Gene Tunny  03:22

Simon, good to have you. On. You’ve been involved in, you know, a number of issues that, you know, I have great interest in as an economist and one of the things that I’ve come to appreciate, as an economist, over the last, you know, few decades since I started studying economics is just the growing interest in environmental and ecological issues and, and just thinking about, you know, how do we manage the environment? What are the trade offs? What does it mean for economic growth, etc. So I’m really interested in in all of these issues, you founded an organisation, or you’ve co founded an organisation called handprint? Could you tell us, please what is handprint? And what was the path that led you to handprint? Please, Simon? Sure.

Simon Schillebeeckx  04:11

So I think first and foremost, handprint is a scientific concept. That was originally, I think, in 2011, or something proposed by some MIT researchers to quantify and qualify the opposite of a footprint. So footprint is something that most people will be very familiar with. It’s the sum of environmental damage that an organisation or individual does to the wider world, by virtue of its existence, right? That’s kind of a broad definition of footprint. Now handprint as its opposite is the sum of quantified positive of impacts that an individual organisation seeks to create in the world. And so we founded a handprint tech to the full name of the company in in 2019, with a vision to enable companies to create positive impact in the world in a more convenient and accessible way, but also to capture value to capture business value from the creation of this positive impact. And I think, in the past 2030 years of rapidly accelerating interest in sustainability, this ability to capture value from doing good is really where organisations have largely failed. And so this is the gap in the market, I’d say that we are seeking to address.

Gene Tunny  05:59

Gotcha. Okay. So a few questions that come out of that, first, how are companies thinking about this? Because I mean, companies have to, you know, they have to be sustainable financially. And so they, I mean, are they wanting to go beyond they’re wanting to meet certain regulatory requirements? Or are they trying to go beyond the regulatory requirements? How do they think about that? I mean, and also make sure they’re financially sustainable? And then where do you come in? And what sort of like, how do you helped them with that? I’d be interested in, in that Simon, if you.

Simon Schillebeeckx  06:33

So I mean, I would almost think about this in a slightly different way, right? So I don’t see handprint as the opposite of footprint. It’s and when we think about the legacy sustainability approach, which still permeates most companies right now, the focus is really on, how do we reduce our negative impact in the world? Yes. And typically, that comes down to the sustainability paradigm of reduce, reuse, recycle, and the kind of Lansing clatter in sustainability. And so this is the, the framework of under the mindset of most companies, and also the regulatory framework, right? If we see what’s happening in Europe, around the EU taxonomy, if you see GRI reporting or issb, all of these things within the sustainability space, largely the focus is on can we force with norms? Are we going to soft regulation? Can we force companies to better delineate how damaging they are for the world. And I include kind of social in that, although I’m generally more interested in more focused on the environmental, but the focus is really on this kind of delineation of guilt. This is the this is the approach, right. And as a consequence, what comes out of that is a compliance mentality, especially nowadays, where more and more governments are making governments are making these kind of CSR or ESG, regulations mandatory. I will see this in Singapore, we see this in Australia, the European Union, do us all of the publicly listed companies right now almost have a regulatory requirements to report on their sustainability, which really means to report on your negative impact, and then convince us that over time, your negative impact is shrinking. This is the essence of sustainability reporting. So and then if you do this, then we applaud you. And you’re a very good corporate citizen, which is I always like to say the equivalent of applauding your kid for coming home, when when he says, like I only punch the teacher twice today is that that is really the essence of kind of sustainability reporting, how it’s been approached over the last decades. And what comes from that is that the focus because of compliance and because of this, we have to do less bad mentality is that turning that into a strategy for value capture is very difficult. Because it’s not really aligned with a capitalist Grossman’s mentality, it’s always do less, do less, do less rather than do more of something which is much more aligned with kind of capitalism and growth. And so on the one side, that entire ecosystem of sustainability exists and has an incredibly important role to play as we need to move towards a more decarbonized economy. And as we need to reduce waste, and especially reduced poorly treated waste and all of those kinds of things. But on the other hand, on the sides, if companies really want to do something that is going to speak directly to their customers to their employees, enable them to differentiate themselves in the market from their competitors, then doing what The regulator is mandating is not helping. So the entire paradigm of sustainability as it’s been approached over the last 30 years, doesn’t lead to differentiation anymore. Which is also reason why it’s the driver of costs. And what we are advocating is that it is new and emerging paradigm around regeneration, and enabling and asking companies don’t just focus on reducing your negative impact, also really think about creating a positive impact this paradigm is where a lot of differentiation is possible. And so the entire question of how does it align with kind of financial sustainability and so actually resolves itself, because there is evidence that if companies do this, and they do it in the right way, this can actually support the bottom line purely financially, very quickly, because it changes customer behaviour, because it changes employee behaviour, then because it changes, like in the b2b context, the opportunity to engage with new business partners. What

Gene Tunny  11:09

evidence is there, Simon? I mean, have you seen this? I mean, are you able to give any examples of where you’ve had this, they’ve been able to capture this value, or they’ve been able to actually go beyond just this compliance framework, and actually add value or improve things? Sure.

Simon Schillebeeckx  11:28

So the I think the most famous example of the success of this strategy actually comes out of China. And we are not involved in this. But we did write a case study on it. And so very quickly, so what it’s done by Ali pay, and so the one of the Chinese payment ecosystems, and so back in 2016, they started with what is known as and forest, which is a loyalty programme, that gives people points known as energy points, for engaging in specific behaviours, such as taking the bus to work, walking to walking to work, paying your bills with Alipay, rather than getting a paper bill buying vegetarian food, like all of these kinds of nudging behaviours that consumers might want to engage in, they are rewarded with energy points, they can keep those energy points. And if they collect enough of those points, they can convert those points in a virtual tree. And if they keep that tree alive for a long enough period, Alipay will plant an actual tree in various locations in China. Now, this is quite a simple programme. But there are two things that make it really incredible. One is that they’ve, they’ve gamified this point system in such a way that your friends can steal your points, if you don’t claim them early in the morning. Okay, so. And that’s just a really ingenious way of thinking about a loyalty system and adding some kind of social dimension to it. So that makes it so that all of my Chinese students tell me that oh, yeah, I’ve been using this for years. And the first thing I do in the morning, every morning for the last five years is open my payments app and claim my points. And that costs elevate that level of loyalty and kind of stickiness costs Ali pay less than one tree per year, because that is the average number of trees that is planted per user. And, and that means it costs less than $2 to create the most sticky loyalty point system in the world. That also creates an incredible positive reputation for this brand. And has created many followers we have now in the Philippines, you have G cash in Vietnam, there is Momo. They’ve seen this. And they are kind of copying that improving on it. But they’ve seen that this is a way of creating really strong engagement with our users and stickiness. And so that’s kind of retail banking. And we’ve seen similar things coming out of the US you have aspiration, which is a bank card that plants trees, you have tree carts in Germany from exposure, another bank card that plants trees, very simple piece of technology. You’ve got bonsai app in Belgium. And these are really fast growing organisations like aspiration raised at a $320 million valuation before they even had a product, which is insane. So but it demonstrates that, that kind of connection between doing something good and making it really easy, for instance, by integrating it in payments, is really powerful. So that’s, I think, one series of examples coming up similarly from the payments industry, but we have seen and kind of proven in our own work with the different clients that you can actually actually have similar benefits in advertising in E commerce, in peer to peer. remittances. And in, yeah, employee engagement as well. Okay,

Gene Tunny  15:21

so. So you’re talking about e commerce, ad advertising, remittances, and employee engagement? Just want to make sure I understand what you’re talking about here. Are you talking about? Some of your clients have been in those industries?

Simon Schillebeeckx  15:40

And so, so we worked with a large Australian sports brands, and they were interested in figuring out, do people really care about this? And so yes, we plan trees in Australia, with every sale, but isn’t something that actually is going to move the needle for us. And so what we did was together with Google, we did a B testing on their store said, Send 50% of your customers to the original store, send 50% randomly to the store, where we integrate two things. One is a plug in in the checkout that says, if you buy this product, we plant a tree in Australia. And one is a tree counter on the landing page, where it says this is how many trees have been planted so far. So we did this for two weeks, then in Google the analysis via Google optimise of okay, what is the effect actually on sales, and the effect was a 16% increase in revenue, and a 16% increase in cart conversion. Now, of course, increasing revenue is great. But increasing cart conversion in E commerce is a massive business advantage. Because globally, the average cart abandonment rate in E commerce is at 4%. Yeah, which means that all of this kind of product has basically been put in limbo and creates inventory and storage issues. So if you can reduce this, you can reduce overhead costs and inventory costs and management costs substantially. At the same time, you’re reducing this, you’re increasing revenue, because you’re selling more product. So everybody happy. So you solve a critical problem in the E commerce world around product, this that kind of abandoned in the cart and stuck in limbo, while increasing sales. That’s a massive business argument. So even if you don’t care at all about anything that relates to sustainability, or that relates to tree planting, or coral restoration in the Great Barrier Reef, if you don’t care, but you only care about we want to sell more actually doing this might work for you as a business. So that’s the E commerce example. In advertising, what we did is we partnered with T IDs, which is an ad tech company, to enable companies so advertisers to link their ad that they’re putting on phones and on websites, typically on the big publishers like the big newspapers, and so it will have ads in between articles, and that will be put there by teats. So that’s one company that kind of dominated that market globally. And so what they’ve enabled is to link a visual an ad to creative whether it’s a video or a static image, underneath, they put this little message that says, for instance, this ad plans trees, or this ad provides to elderly people. And so we did this with Uber Eats in Japan. And they were supporting access to food for elderly people that aligned with what Uber Eats, of course, stands for it makes sense. And then after that campaign, we did a comparison teams did the work to kind of see what has been the effects of this campaign, on how people perceive the brand. And we saw a 9% increase in brand recognition and positive brand recall, which is substantial effect. We also saw, I think it’s a 32% increase in click through rate on the ad. That’s massive. Yeah, it’s about 50%. Higher than industry average, we also saw higher app completion rates when it was video. So people actually spend time watching the full AD rather than scrolling through it. So these are the target outcomes for any advertising campaign. And if you can enhance those by saying for every 1000 clicks, or for every 10,000 impressions, we’re going to do this good thing. And credibly communicate that within the ad unit itself. You can actually improve your ad performance. So that’s, again, the this is an example of how do we link the business performance to the the sustainability or the impact impact performance in a seamless way. And if you can do this, then the only thing you have to kind of tweak is, what is the financial amount of money that you’re actually linked? Getting to your KPI, whether it’s your number of impressions or your number of sales are so in such a way that there’s a net benefit for the company, because the benefit for the for nature is going to happen anyway when there is a sufficient engagement. So that’s yet another example, from one of our clients with like, how we’ve been able to show that there is real business value in doing this.

Gene Tunny  20:23

Yeah, absolutely. Okay. That’s those are those are really good examples. Just a clarification on that example, for e commerce, you mentioned there was an A and, and B, C, did some A B testing. I’m trying to remember was one of them. You had the counter on the homepage, and then elsewhere, it was it was when they were checking out? Is that what it was? Is there? No,

Simon Schillebeeckx  20:49

the eighth the eighth site was just the original website without any spring integration, the B site was the counter on the landing page and plugin in the checkout. Oh,

Gene Tunny  21:00

yeah. And so that boosted the sales that Yep. Okay. Great. Yeah. Just wanted to make sure I understood that. That’s terrific. And what about one of the things you mentioned was employee engagement, are you finding that these types of initiatives improve the employee engagement, morale, productivity, even,

Simon Schillebeeckx  21:20

we can’t really say much about productivity. This is this requires much longer measurement. But what we’ve seen with companies that have used one of our systems, which is in a voucher redemption system, it’s very simple. Again, if you can get lots of employee engagement software, has some kind of points system behind it. And then after a while, you collect points, and then you can use those points to buy vouchers. And that could be a voucher for your local supermarket or for a sports brand, or it can be an impact voucher. And so we are providing these impact vouchers. And so what we see in many of the partnerships we have with large scale employee engagement software, is that firstly, people actually buy these vouchers. So there is something that some people not everyone, of course, say like, Okay, this is interesting, I find this a better way of spending my points my voucher money than whenever a discount voucher for the local supermarket. But what we also see is that some of our clients come to us directly and say, We want to use these vouchers, let’s say for Christmas. So we’re gonna give our employees this, this thing we even had, this is a bit left field, but it’s a funny thing. We even are in the discussion, I can’t name the company. And this company is known for throwing big parties where the staff there’s to drink more than a little bit. And so they were thinking like it, so we want to do something around impact. They want to do something on coral restoration. But they want to see like, how do we make it part of our corporate culture. And I propose the idea about next time you do a party, why not say we plant we’re going to restore a coral for every bottle of champagne that’s been drunk. And they’re like, this is great. Like, everyone’s gonna love that. And it resonates with what they’re doing. And it makes it fun. It makes it gamified. And then it kind of lets drink for nature, whatever you want to turn that into a story. But it isn’t something that speaks to people and it gets people involved in this. And I think this is really what’s missing. For a lot of the especially large multinationals where you have dedicated teams working on sustainability, building all these strategies, trying to make all of these things happen at a very large scale. But it stays very far away from the lived experience of the vast majority of employees. Right? So in reality, there are very few employees. Even in a large company, let’s say like, like an Amazon or an apple, there’s very few people that are actively involved with a sustainability strategy. And what this impact vouchers, for instance, can accomplish is If a company wants to find out who are the people that actually care about this in the company, because they’ve got 30,000 employees. And not only the people in the sustainability team really care about this, there might be people in marketing and operations in whatever like in any other department, but it’s not easy for the company to really find out, like who are the people that really care. And so by giving them vouchers in this way for a year, like every month, you get a new voucher, and then you’ll see some people will never redeemed the vouchers because they don’t necessarily care. But some people will and will ask questions. And so and what we’ve seen with some of our clients is that the reason why they’re doing this is because it helps them identify potential change makers across departments. And that is where they see a little value. Because then they say the next time we have to roll out a bigger sustainability initiative that might actually face some internal opposition. We know the people that are going to be champions. We can bring them in early on across departments. We can say this is To plan we can engage them, we can educate them. And then we can hopefully in the future, if there is resistance, lower this kind of resistance. So there’s a lot of ways in which these tools can be used creatively, to achieve specific employee goals. And get, that’s what we’re trying to facilitate.

Gene Tunny  25:20

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  25:25

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice, we can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  25:55

Now back to the show. And Simon, how wide an application? Do you see your this philosophy, the philosophy of handprint what you can do for companies? How wide an application Do you see it as having? Is it just for some companies? Or some sectors? Or do I how wide a scope Do you think this? What what’s the potential here,

Simon Schillebeeckx  26:20

I still believe the potential is, is massive. Because on the one side, there is an genuine need. Right? So we are facing climate change that we just had. I don’t know if you’ve seen the recent report coming out that 2023, what was the hottest year on record, we ended December on 1.78 degrees. That’s bad news, we are experiencing a significant decline in biodiversity and regulator regulators have put a lot of policy in place to start addressing these things. And so companies will have to jump on board. But I think the real potential for this is not interestingly maybe is not with the big oil companies, or the big steel companies or even the big transportation companies, because they have more important things to do. The reality is that if you’re in the business of making things, moving things or mining things, your focus should be on doing so while creating significantly less environmental damage. This is the key thing you need to decarbonize, you need to reduce your water consumption, all of those things, but for the vast majority of people in the developed world, and so think about this, like Singapore, Hong Kong, Europe, US, Australia as well, although Australia has more mining industry, of course. But for the vast majority of people, we don’t work for companies that make things move things are mining things. That’s about 70% of global GDP, is in the service sector is in digital is in NGOs. And the reality is that the classic approach to sustainability has almost nothing to do with those businesses. Because if you don’t have a big footprint, big negative impact, you’re kind of left out of the entire sustainability movement. And I think the potential for handprints and our approach is really winning those companies that want to do something more that want to turn this into a competitive advantage and a differentiating factor. And that realise that if all we’re going to do is reduce our negative impact, it’s basically too easy. And so we’re going to do something else that’s going to create more value for us, but also more value for the planet. And so I think that potential is massive. And with a bit of luck, and a lot of hard work. This could be a multi billion dollar business easily. Hmm,

Gene Tunny  28:59

yeah. Yeah. It sounds like to an extent you’re being led by consumers, are you the consumer preferences are important? And to what extent are there differences between older and younger consumers? Have you? Are you looking at that sort of thing?

Simon Schillebeeckx  29:16

Yeah, we’re looking at this. I mean, we’re looking mainly at research that others are doing about this. We haven’t really done much of our own research specifically on this. But the main trends that we’re seeing is that one, there is an assumption that the younger generation, the Gen Z, and millennials care more about this than the boomers and, and so, and, actually, most of the recent research doesn’t support that. Right. Secondly, there’s an assumption that most of the awareness about these issues is especially prevalent in markets such as Australia and Europe, with the US kind of trailing and In Asia and the rest of the world far behind. And this is also really incorrect. Now, Australia is very advanced. But the best research we’ve seen on this shows that China, and that awareness in China is higher than anywhere else. So it’s a massive thing in China, it’s not yet a massive thing in say, Indonesia or India, or other kinds of Asian countries, Japan is also rapidly rising Europe, you have very strong awareness. And in the US, it’s it’s kind of split according to political affiliation, as we may expect, but in most of these regions, we see a growing consumer awareness across all levels. I think there was a recent was in BCG, I think it was BCG report that kind of found that, on average, based on all the research they did globally, consumers are willing to pay 11 to 12%, more for more kind of sustainable, positive, responsible products. But companies charge like 26 to 35% more for these kinds of products. And that’s really where the big problem is. So if we companies can reduce that, identify the additional margin they’re trying to make, or reduce the cost base for these most more sustainable, sustainably produced products and services, then I think we can really quickly hit that pivot, where suddenly, it makes a lot of sense for many people to adopt these other products. And then we can see very radical shifts, and handprints for many small companies, even if you’re in let’s say, you’re an eco small ecommerce store, you don’t really have the opportunity to say we’re going to fix our supply chains. And we’re going to force our suppliers to only use organic cotton. I mean, you can try but you don’t have the market power. But you can do something simple at the end of the funnel. Namely, we’re going to plant a tree, restore coral, do X remove plastic from the ocean for every transaction, and turn that into a story. And I think the fact that every company no matter how small and what they are doing, can do this makes it potentially very appealing, and hopefully very scalable.

Gene Tunny  32:24

Yeah, you just reminded me when you said remove plastic from the ocean. One of the issues that my producer Joshi suggested I have a cover on the show is the Great Pacific Garbage, plastic garbage patch, or whatever it is. So yeah, just just reminded that is a that is a big issue. And yeah, no,

Simon Schillebeeckx  32:45

and I think we underestimate that issue. Because it’s, I mean, it’s not as much in our face, especially living in Singapore or in Australia. We don’t see plastic pollution that much. But if you go to India, you go to Indonesia, you go to Vietnam, you go to Thailand, it’s everywhere. And it’s a massive issue. And this the Great Pacific vortex, or it’s been described as a giant toilet that doesn’t flush, is is a massive threat to ecosystems, right? So we did, we did, researchers in the UK, in 2021, did a piece of research on plastic pollution, and found microplastics in the blood band, between the baby and a mother and unborn baby. So it is what is the word,

Gene Tunny  33:37

the umbilical cord in

Simon Schillebeeckx  33:39

the umbilical cord. So we have plastics in the umbilical cord. That is the extent of our pollution that our kids right now, even in a country like the UK, where you have very good waste management, but our kids are born already intoxicated with the pollution we bring to this world. And that is shocking. Right? So there are people who argued as a consequence of that study that this is a new species. Because fundamentally, This species has is born with plastic as part of its constitution. And so that is very scary. And so I think this problem which companies like seven clean seas here in Singapore, plastic bank, from from Canada, are addressing at massive scale is really worth solving. And it shouldn’t only be the companies like Coca Cola and Swire group and Pepsi that are largely responsible for much of that plastic pollution. They shouldn’t be the only ones that have to take responsibility. It is a collective responsibility. And so governments need to take they need to put the policy frameworks in place, but everyone can contribute to this by supporting cleanups and this kind of work.

Gene Tunny  34:53

I’ll have to look those companies up. Was it seven clean seas in Singapore and then plastic bank in Canada. You Got a good one? Okay. We’re getting. Yeah, that’s been fascinating. Simon, we’ll get getting getting closer. Just got a couple more questions. Sure. You mentioned this regeneration and enabling No, you’ve got this idea of Is it a regenerative economy? How does that compare with a what people are calling a circular economy? Yeah,

Simon Schillebeeckx  35:20

that’s a good question. So there’s a lot of debates and and on some of our LinkedIn profiles with my CEO, Matias and I, there are many discussions with, let’s say, I’d say regeneration purists that fundamentally don’t believe that you can have regeneration within a growth oriented capitalist system. So we don’t kind of follow that belief system or that narrative. But so the idea of regeneration is really about can we create an economy that is not extractive where we don’t extract natural resources from the planet and pollutes as a consequence, but where the production processes themselves and business models around them, fundamentally lead to a positive net impact on the world. And so it aligns very closely with circular economy. When we think about the application of kind of regenerative practices to manufacturing and agriculture, right, so you have regenerative agriculture, which is kind of the big thing, you have circular economy, which is fundamentally an approach to how do we reconceptualize the supply chains of more or less complex products. But again, that is a very small part of the global economy. So if you want to get everyone involved, if you want to get your local accounting firm informed, or your local podcast host, you cannot do anything about circular economy, because this is not your business. But you could do something in what we define as the regenerative economy by saying, for every 10,000 downloads, so for every 10,000 listeners, I’m going to do something good in the world. And that’s going to be part of how I attract new listeners, how I attract new, maybe customers or attract sponsors, that’s accessible to everyone. And so I think this is really why I prefer the idea of a regenerative economy, because it’s not as exclusive as a circular economy, where only really manufacturing companies can play a big part in. Okay,

Gene Tunny  37:38

that’s a, I like that as a, as a concept is an idea. But how would I go about it? So say, there were, you know, I’m the accounting firm, and I say, I look for every extra, you know, for every extra 10 clients, I’ll I’ll plant a tree or I don’t know, whatever the metric is, or what makes sense or I’ll, or role invest in regeneration of a forest? How would I actually go about that? Are there are there marketplaces or portals that you trust to be able to identify offsets or projects that regeneration projects that I can invest in?

38:20

Yeah, handprint. Okay,

Gene Tunny  38:22

that’s what you do.

Simon Schillebeeckx  38:23

We exactly have such a marketplace for credible, positive impact in the world where you can buy units of impacts across a wide variety of types, whether it’s trees, or ocean, plastic cleanup, like seven clean seas and plastic bank are both accessible through the handprint marketplace. You can plant trees, you can restore corals in the Great Barrier Reef, you can, you can support cleanup projects in Australia, for instance, as well. So we work with all these nonprofits, we bring them into our digital ecosystem. And we facilitate funding flows from companies to them, that is the essence of what we do. And then we create a tools for companies to demonstrate visualise and capture value from doing this. So that is our business. So if you’re looking for a place to do this, then you can comprehend print, there’s others as well, of course, but I’d recommend out print. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  39:17

I don’t want you to give names of any of your competitors have necessarily I’ll look them up and, and check it out just occurred to me that because I know that those sort of things are out there, but I wasn’t sure what the what the names of them of them are, but I’ll definitely check out handprint and put a link in the GBR the Great Barrier Reef, of course, is something that that’s, I mean, I’m in Brisbane and Australia and I mean, the reef is north of us, but it’s not that far north. And you know, I used to live in in Townsville, which is you know, the reef was reasonably accessible. So yep. That’s, that’s terrific. And what validation is there Simon how Do you know that these are worthwhile projects like, because there’s a lot of concern about some of these offsets, and just how robust they are that I think there are a lot of concerns about, you know, a bit of dodgy behaviour there? How do you make sure that you’re looking at, you know, legitimate, legitimate projects?

Simon Schillebeeckx  40:21

Sure. I mean, this is probably the most complex part of our work and handprint is in the onboarding, the sourcing the identification of the right partners. And then the, the system that we’ve developed is one in which we collect a lot of data. And from the all of our impact partners, we have a strong economic alignment model, where we basically allow new projects to come on on the handprint platform after they go through the necessary KYC, which is a pretty lengthy and rigorous process. And then they can launch a small projects, like maybe five to $20,000. If that gets funded, then we’ll see how they report on their progress and what kind of data they provide. And if they do a good job, they can get a bigger, bigger project, and so on. So we built this kind of trust by design. So which is a very different system than the let’s say, the system of what you’re referring to with offsets like the carbon crediting system. So the carbon crediting system is a system where you have trust by centralised authority, right, so you have got a group like like Vera, or gold standards, these are the most famous ones that sets the standards for how you can quantify and earn carbon credits. And then you have a variety of authorities auditors that go and verify that this all has been well done. And this should create more trust, because you have this third party verification, and you have this centralised authorities that are doing this. Now the reality is what we’ve seen is that many of these standards become outdated as more digital technology becomes available. And that’s been the issue with Vera. And then the centralised authorities that do this validation have a very perverse incentive system. And the reason why they have a perverse incentive system is because they’re validating that, yes, this is indeed a real project, but they’re also the ones selling it. Which means in most cases that their interest is in justifying that the that let’s say the carbon sequestration is real, and then maximising the price difference. And this creates this issue where then this was a finding of this UN commission report, we wrote in 2019, that up to 80% of the price that somebody or company pays for a carbon credit doesn’t reach the local communities. So it’s typically between 60 and 80% of the of the money that goes to intermediaries. So the question is, do we want to pay, let’s say, on a $20, or carbon credits, do we really want to pay $16, to the intermediaries to guarantee that it’s trustworthy? And in some cases, you might say, yes, that’s fair. In many cases, I think that’s not fair. Now, the specific reason within the carbon crediting system, in particular, why it’s so important that you have all of these layers of trust, is because companies buy carbon credits to compensate for pollution. It’s basically it’s a pollution rights. They say, like we’re polluting this much, we want to be able to make claims that we’re carbon neutral, or that we’re on track. And as a consequence, we buy these carbon credits as offsets. And I guess my perspective on this and handprints perspective isn’t and this is that this is required because we’ve invented this really complex concept of an organisational carbon footprint. And we are attributing responsibility, based on blame and based on guiltiness. In the environmental space, we make the big guilty parties in charge of solving the problem, rather than saying no, this is a universal problem, and everybody should be kind of contributing to this. And we should put everyone in charge of this. And so yeah, we’re advocating for a real kind of radical mindset shift there where the idea that should be that companies should contribute to, let’s say, nature restoration and not based on how much damage they’re doing to the planet, but on how valuable they are on or on how much profit they make, or how much revenue they make, we need a different distribution mechanism. And if you have a different distribution mechanism, then the whole problem that we currently have on carbon credits, and offsetting just doesn’t matter anymore. Because you still need to invest in nature restoration and doing good things for the world. But it’s not about oh, we are going to calculate our carbon emissions, and then just buy just enough so that we can make claims about this. There is so much money going into this space, that is, I think, not very well spent. Because that money could be much better spent on actually doing something in 2022, we spent $154 billion on sustainability reporting. And there is no evidence that sustainability reporting leads to improve sustainability performance. This is one of the sensible one of the few sensible arguments of many of the ESG haters that they have, like there is there’s just no evidence, right? We see that. I mean, some of the most polluting companies on Earth score very high on ESG metrics, because they’re very good at reporting, but it doesn’t mean they’re actually doing something good for the world. So yeah, we’re revving this quite radical perspective. And we are actually working on a on a thought piece on this called Nature integrity, which we will hopefully published in the next two months, where we’re delineated kind of expanding on this perspective, and, yeah, hopefully, we’ll happy to send it to you when it’s when it’s done. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  46:41

absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I’ll be keen to have a look at that. Right. Assam has been, there’s been great. I’m learning a lot, particularly about the oil, you know, what, what companies are doing what you know, what the different players are, and who’s doing interesting things. So, so that’s, that’s really good. Right. Before we finish up, I’m keen to learn about global mangrove trust. So yeah, we’ve got quite a lot of mangroves here in, in Australia, in Queensland in particular. So what is the global mangrove trust and what’s been your involvement in it?

Simon Schillebeeckx  47:18

So global mangrove trust was a nonprofit, Ryan and I, so Ryan’s also one of my co founders at handprint, which is a nonprofit, we founded about a year and a half before we set up handprint to initially specifically work with a Myanmar based Norwegian nonprofit that was restoring mangroves in the Bay of Bengal. And over the last five years, it’s evolved into a ecosystem coordinator for mangrove restoration and mangrove conservation worldwide. And so our mission is to put a conservation easements on every mangrove in the world and restore mangroves to their maybe, like 1980s 1970s level of occurrence across across the world, which would be very valuable for carbon sequestration, ecosystem protection, flood protection and fish in the ocean, like mangroves offer so many benefits that they’re one of the most important ecosystems on the planet. And so but we are a small NGO, my involvement now is I’m a non Executive Director. We’ve got a very talented team of people in Europe and and, and Asia, that are kind of leading this work. And our main kind of concrete projects are in Indonesia at the moment. So where we work on large scale mangrove conservation and afforestation. Together with local reforestation partners, and then we’ve developed together with Oxford University, a new carbon accrediting agency that certifies the creation or the issuance of carbon credits, based on state of the art, digital MRV as a monitoring, reporting and validation, using satellite based intelligence and machine learning, and yet, the key vision of ox carbon, which is the certification agency out of Oxford, is to certify high quality projects but have a certification approach that’s much more scalable, and much more cost effective and can be deployed much more rapidly than the existing kind of incumbent certifiers like a Vera and, and gold and gold standard. Because these are fundamentally analogue organised as Asians in a digital age, and so they struggle with the adoption of the what we consider to be the much more scientifically rigorous approaches to measure carbon sequestration and, and state changing forests at scale. And so we are yet we’re working on those kinds of things.

Gene Tunny  50:24

Gotcha. Okay. I’ll put links in the show notes regarding that, and ox carbon and global mangrove trust. And okay, Simon, where can we find more about what you’re doing at handprint?

Simon Schillebeeckx  50:40

So most of the information you’ll find on handprint dot tech, that’s our website, also on my LinkedIn profile, so And on our CEOs LinkedIn profile, Matias was Oh, no. So we are pretty active on LinkedIn. And so that’s where a lot of our conversations are taking place. And otherwise, we have a YouTube channel, and Prindle tech, which is not super active, but there are now and then there’s some videos being posted of talks we do in podcasts that are also appearing on YouTube. And then yeah, I’ve done a few other podcasts as well. So if people want to learn a bit more, they can google my name, if they figure out how to spell it. And just put it into in Spotify or wherever you listen to your podcasts and probably be able to find quite a few more terrific. Okay,

Gene Tunny  51:33

Simon, anything else before we wrap up any, anything you think we missed? Or that that’s an important point that we should go over?

Simon Schillebeeckx  51:41

The final point might be that we are launching a public fundraising campaign on we funder in the US. So if you’re in the US, or you’re have a US bank account, and you want to put a couple of dollars into the next or the first nature tech unicorn, let’s come to the US, then I recommend you go to WWE founder.com/and. Bring the tech and yeah, make a reservation to contribute to the to the project. Okay,

Gene Tunny  52:13

well, good luck with that. Yeah, that’d be terrific. If we had an interview with a founder of a of a unicorn. Before they were a unicorn, that’d be that’d be terrific. Nature Tech, I was wondering what the term was, you know, because we’ve got med tech and fintech and all that. So it’s nature tech. So that’s, that answers that question for me. Yeah. Okay. Simon zorbax. That’s been terrific. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation. Thanks so much for your time.

Simon Schillebeeckx  52:43

Thanks so much for having me gene. It was a pleasure

Gene Tunny  52:47

rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

53:34

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

The Limits of Fiscal Policy: Insights from Tony Makin, Alex Robson & others – EP222

This episode on the limits of fiscal policy features highlights from host Gene Tunny’s past conversations with the late Australian economist Professor Tony Makin and former OECD Ambassador Alex Robson. In the discussions, Tony Makin provides a balanced and insightful analysis of Australia’s fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, critiquing programs like JobKeeper while recognizing some justification. He and Alex Robson discuss the importance of considering the open economy impacts of fiscal stimulus and the long-term burdens of debt. The episode looks to validate Makin’s warnings about the limits of discretionary fiscal policy through subsequent evidence and events. Gene summarizes the JobKeeper evaluation results and what happened in the Australian housing market following the pandemic fiscal stimulus. 

Please contact us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcast and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP222

  • Fiscal policy limits and its impacts: introduction (0:03)
  • Economic stimulus measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. (9:36)
  • JobKeeper program design and targeting. (15:44)
  • JobKeeper program’s effectiveness and infrastructure spending challenges. (21:31)
  • Keynesian economics and infrastructure spending. (27:50)
  • Fiscal policy and its impact on the economy. (33:13)
  • Fiscal policy and its unintended consequences. (40:12)
  • The economic impact of public debt with Tony Makin and Alex Robson. (48:31)
  • Fiscal policy and its impact on the economy: wrap up. (53:39)

Takeaways

  1. Fiscal stimulus packages must be carefully designed and limited in size to avoid unintended consequences.
  2. The nature of the workforce is important to consider when implementing fiscal policy, as not all workers can easily transfer to different industries.
  3. The burden of public debt, including interest payments, can have long-term impacts on national income and economic growth.
  4. The effectiveness of fiscal policy in an open economy is influenced by factors such as capital mobility and exchange rates.
  5. Tony Makin was a leading advocate for sensible fiscal policy in Australia, and his contributions to the field are greatly missed.

Episodes the highlights are clipped from

EP119: What Tony Makin taught us about macroeconomics – Economics Explored 
A Fiscal Vaccine for COVID-19 with Tony Makin – new podcast episode | Queensland Economy Watch

Links relevant to the conversation

Fiscal policy papers by Tony Makin:

The Effectiveness of Federal Fiscal Policy: A Review

(PDF) Australia’s Competitiveness: Reversing the Slide 

 A Fiscal Vaccine for COVID-19

Treasury analysis of JobKeeper:

Independent Evaluation of the JobKeeper Payment Final Report | Treasury.gov.au

The employment effects of JobKeeper receipt | Treasury.gov.au  

News regarding unintended consequences of fiscal stimulus:

Building company collapses into liquidation days before Christmas, impacting four Guzman Y Gomez sites

Transcript: The Limits of Fiscal Policy: Insights from Tony Makin, Alex Robson & others – EP222

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Tony Makin  00:03

For instance, baristas who’ve lost their jobs are not necessarily going to be one want to be out there on the road as a construction worker, financial sector employees and not wanting to be perhaps putting paint bets and ceilings. So the the nature of the workforce is important. We can’t just treat the labour force as this homogenous entity where people can transfer across to any sort of industry at whim.

Gene Tunny  00:39

Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, in this episode, I’m going to talk about the limits of fiscal policy. So that’s the use of government spending and taxation to influence the economy. So to try to smooth out the business cycle or to respond to some big shock, like the pandemic or the financial crisis. During the pandemic, in particular, we saw heavy use of fiscal policy by governments around the world. While some stimulus may have been warranted, we’re starting to really see some of the adverse consequences of fiscal stimulus packages in different countries. So you could argue that are a good part of the inflation that we’ve seen in the last couple of years that was due to the, you know, these massive fiscal policy responses that occurred that, that injected all of this additional money into household and business bank accounts, and we ended up with too much money chasing too few goods, which is that that classic explanation of inflation. We’ve also seen high public debts. So big increase in debt worldwide. And then we’ve got the growing burden of interest payments on government budgets. We’ve also seen impacts like what you’d call crowding out, we’ve seen supply side impacts, or constraints really starting to, to bite, particularly in the building industry. So some of these, these unintended consequences, you could say, maybe they should have been foreseen, they’re really starting to have an impact, particularly here in Australia, we’ve seen an impact on the building industry on its costs, and that’s affecting firm viability. So there’s all this extra demand, and there’s only so much supply out there. And, you know, supply can only respond in, it can’t respond automatically or instantly, to to this additional demand. So we’ve seen a big increase in in costs in that sector, and then that’s having all sorts of adverse impacts and you know, builders are closing down and then the people who are getting their houses built, they’re badly impacted, too. So that’s, that’s one of the things we’re seeing here in Australia that I’m going to talk about. Early in the pandemic, Professor Tony Macon of Griffith University in Australia. So Tony was based on the Gold Coast, which is south of Brisbane, where I am so early in the pandemic tiny warned about the adverse consequences of fiscal stimulus in Episode 41 of the podcast. So in one of the earlier episodes of this show, in June 2020, I spoke with Tony about his analysis of Australia’s fiscal response to the pandemic. He prepared that for the Centre for independent studies, which is a think tank in Sydney. So the CIS it’s one that I’m an adjunct Fellow at and I’ve had a lot to do with over the years. I’m gonna play some clips from that conversation I had with Tony, in, you know what turned out to be one of the early Months of the pandemic. So, I mean, things started going, going crazy. And when was it March 2020. So that’s a, it’s just a few months after, after that. We had a big a major fiscal policy response by the end of March in Australia, if I remember. And so we’re starting to see some of the, you know, the less desirable features of that already in in June when I spoke with Tony. Okay, so I’m going to play some clips from that conversation to illustrate some really important points about the limits of fiscal policy. So I’m not saying that activist fiscal policy is everywhere and always bad. I think what I want to say is that you’ve really got to be careful with it, you’ve got to think about, well, what’s going to be the ongoing impact on your interest payments? Could could there be any crowding out? Could there be unintended consequences? Could you actually be destabilising the economy in the future? You may be trying to stabilise it now, but could you actually make things worse than they otherwise would be in in the future? So they’re the types of considerations I think are important with with fiscal policy? Okay, one thing I have to say is that tiny Macon is sadly, no longer with us. He died unexpectedly in November 2021. So, in addition to playing some highlights from my fiscal policy conversation with Tony, I’m also going to play some highlights from my conversation about Tony’s legacy that I had with Alex Robson in Episode 119, from December 2021. So I think they’re worth that’s worth sticking around. For. Alex is a you know, he’s a former collaborator with Tony, he wrote some papers with him. And he’s also Australia’s former ambassador to the OECD in Paris, which is really top job in economics. Yeah, so Alex, Alex is a great person to hear from and he has a lot of excellent observations about about Tony. Okay, let’s play the first clip, which it features Tony’s critique of the massive job keeper, payroll subsidy programme that we have in Australia. I think that much of Tony’s critique has been supported by the facts. So new evidence, or what we’ve learned about how Job keeper rolled out and, you know, the impacts that it had. And also, I think that the review of the programme that my old deputy secretary in the treasury, Nigel Ray, so Nigel did a review of it. Last year, I think that that review that brings out some of these, well, that’s supportive of some of the criticisms that that that Tony made, although, of course, it’s it’s going to be measured. And you know, Nigel, is not someone who’s going to come out and say, Look, this is, you know, this is terrible, you really stuff this up, he’s going to be very measured about it all. There’s also a treasury research paper that’s relevant here. And I’ll have more to say about them after I play the clip. Tony, I’d like to ask about the Australian response, I thought you made some really great observations about the different elements of the response. So there was the job keeper programme, the payroll subsidy programme. And then there were there were cash handouts. And there’s also some bringing forward of infrastructure spending. You made some really insightful remarks regarding the efficacy regarding the merits of the different elements of the Australian Government response. And I think there are lessons that can apply to responses across the world, would you be able to take us through what those those insights and lessons that you made workplace turning?

Tony Makin  09:36

Yeah, well, I made a distinction between fiscal responses that were targeting the aggregate supply side of the economy, and, in the paper, endorse those in principle and in particular, we’re talking about job Keeper which I think is a great innovation. We’ve not seen a scheme like like that, before, it’s not original to Australia, Australia copied what was happening in the UK and New Zealand and one or two other European economies. And the innovation was to see firms as a source of employment. Correct. And to alleviate the pressure on firms and their employees in particular, by providing a direct subsidy to the firm. So it was a supply side initiative, more than a demand side initiative, it was helping aggregate supply, it wasn’t an element that he was sought to increase CRI or it was increasing G, of course, but it was it was it was aimed at the firm’s production. So that was an innovation. And I think there’s a prototype there for future fiscal responses in heaven. Let’s hope we don’t have similar sorts of crises. But it’s it’s a preferred means as opposed to the aggregate demand side response. And a, we’re in the form of two cash transfers or cash handouts, as we saw in response to the GFC trying to in the Keynesian ways stimulate spending, and the purpose of stimulating the spending is to enhance employment. So it’s a roundabout way of trying to enhance employment. I think it has the features of a of a subsidy to retailers in effect, because they’re the ones that they’ve been at most. And in any case, if there is spending and evidence shows that such handouts tend to be largely saved, but if they are spent, they are spent on imports. And they’re funded by borrowing from overseas, which has to be paid in the future. So there were two responses there that were trying to sustain employment one was the direct one to Job keeper. Good marks for that one. And then there was another one on top of that, which was the cash handouts, which was a roundabout way of of sustaining employment when there was another policy in place for that purpose.

Gene Tunny  12:24

Yep. So this job keeper, it was originally costed at one 30 billion, it turns out all it it may only cost 70 billion, there was a forecasting error. But that’s that’s, that’s tangential to our discussion. You did know that while job keeper is more justifiable than other stimulus or emergency measures, there are still concerns with the design of job keeper. Could you take us through some of those please, Tony,

Tony Makin  12:57

our look, the key one is the industry is involved. The questions about casuals being paid more on job teper than they were otherwise earning. So they’re being paid more not to work than to work. I think that’s the key floor with the with the programme. And hopefully that will be fixed when the Treasury completes its review very soon. I guess it’s also questions about eligibility and the the the rule that was there for downturn in, in sales, some of those aspects of it could be possibly fine tuned, but I think it is a useful prototype that can be improved.

Gene Tunny  13:49

Yep. If they if they did it again, I’m sure they would better targeted, and they might target it to the industries that are most affected, such as hospitality, tourism, retail, possibly not professional services, which, you know, appear to be, well not as badly affected as some other sectors. So the the key lesson is that this needs to be better targeted. The problem was from what I can tell this was developed within a week, possibly under a week when at toward the end of March, when they realised that they needed something like this because all of the employer groups were coming to the the government ministers and telling them we need this or we’re going to have to sack millions of people. So I think that’s what drove it. It was done very quickly.

Tony Makin  14:43

Yes. And also the alternative was to put enormous pressure on the on the Employment Benefits Scheme. people queuing up for benefits that would have been a major headache as well. Absolutely.

Gene Tunny  14:56

I think one of the great points you made in the paper was Sir. Regarding the cash handouts, we want to get people out spending, but the public health advice is saying actually stay home, we don’t want you to go out. So I thought that was a really interesting point. And actually, yes, that’s right. So the goal of these emergency measures should be to sustain businesses to keep people in employment during this challenging time. It’s not necessarily, though, and the way to do that is not necessarily to give people money to go out and, and spend on new flat screen TVs, which are imported. So that’s, I think that’s a good point that you’ve made. Okay, so that was Tony on job keeper, which was the payroll subsidy programme we had in Australia. And yep, Tony was, Tony was right about the some of the problems with that programme. Um, overall, I mean, I think that was a very balanced assessment of Tony’s he did recognise that to an extent, it could have been justifiable if it was better targeted. So he wasn’t ruling it out completely. He just had the had some concerns about the design. So I think that was a very, you know, measured, balanced assessment of job keeper from tiny, and another measured and balanced assessment of job caper came from Nigel Ray, who, as I mentioned, was my boss in the treasury. So really, really great public servant, Nigel. And, yep, I think he’s written a great report on job keeper. In the independent evaluation of the job keeper payment final report, he prepared that for the Treasury, I’ll put a link in the show notes. It was broadly supportive of the programme. But Nigel, you know, he had to acknowledge there are some serious issues with it with the design of it. And so what did he conclude? Let’s, let’s go through it. So one of the major conclusions was that a more flexible policy designed during the first phase of job keeper. So I think that was the first six months. A lot of the detail is, it’s hard for me to remember at this stage, but I think that he’s talking about the first six months of the programme. They rolled it out for six months, and then they had another six months of it. A more flexible policy designed during the first phase of job keeper would have enabled an earlier move from prospective to retrospective eligibility thresholds. For example, After three months, this would have allowed better targeting of payments beyond the initial three months and lower the costs of the programme. Okay, so what he’s, what he’s talking about there is that when it was rolled out, basically, you know, accountants would apply for their clients that apply to the ATO, and the accountants would be asking their clients, okay, well, what do you think’s gonna happen to your turnover over the next six months, so when whatever the whatever it was, maybe was quarterly basis, and, you know, you’d think, Oh, well, we’re gonna have this major pandemic. So yeah, we think we’re gonna get smashed. And so there are a lot of, you know, firms that applied for job keeper and got this job keep it like this very generous, turned out wage subsidy, that, you know, they really didn’t end up needing and they didn’t have that turnover reduction that they were forecasting and that they, you know, they’re they advise the ATO that they would, they would have, but there was no way for the ATO to claw that, to claw that back. So, yeah, what Nigel’s getting out there is that you could have designed it in a way that limited the fiscal cost by actually seeing, you know, what happened to the businesses like after a few months and then adjusting the payments after that. So I think that’s what he’s getting out there. It relied a lot on what businesses and their accountants were forecasting would be the impact of the pandemic on their, their turnover. And for many businesses that didn’t actually they didn’t experience the big revenue reductions or the turnover reductions that that they were forecasting, you needed to forecast a particular percentage reduction in in your turnover. I can’t remember off the top my head if I can find it. I’ll put it in the show notes. Righto. So and the second major finding from Nigel regarding job keeper he noted that a tiered payment structure One that is proportionate to previous earnings is better targeted than a flat payment. And this is getting at that concern that Tony had that there were quite a few part time. People, part time employees who may have maybe they were working a couple of days a week in, in a business and they, you know, they were earning an award wage that wasn’t much more than the national minimum wage. Suddenly, because of this payment for a job keeper was that it was more gee, it must have been at sort of trying to approximate a might have been a full time wage for a person roughly on minimum wage or something like that. I can’t remember exactly. But it was much higher, then, you know, some it’ll be more money than someone be would be earning if they’re only working a couple of days a week, part time. And so the idea was, let’s make this simple. Let’s get this out to the people who need it. Let’s not worry too much about trying to make it more targeted, because we don’t have time to do that. And what it meant is that you had and this is the point time he’s making you had many part time people actually earning more with job keeper, then they would have learned otherwise. So yeah, that was a really poorly designed part of job keeper. Also relevant regarding job keeper is a recent Treasury research paper and this came out. So this came out late on Friday, the 22nd of December, okay, so the Friday before Christmas 2023. And Peter Tula, who’s my colleague at the CIS, so Peter is the chief economist at CIS. He tweeted on the Friday that the fact that Treasury releases it late on Friday 22nd December suggests that it embarrasses somebody. So Peter was suggesting that this paper from the Treasury by Natasha Bradshaw, Nathan Deutsche and Lachlan vos, or vas, it’s titled The employment effects of job paper receipt, Peter suggesting it must be embarrassing someone. So what does it what’s embarrassing about it? So the main findings from it. So I’ll put a link in the show notes, you can check out what they’ve done. They’ve done some clever things with a, you know, a data set on businesses that where they can try to infer what’s actually going on, it’s rather clever paper. So check that out. Our findings suggest that at its height in early 2020, job keep it directly preserved between 300,000 to 700,000. Jobs. Right. Okay. So that’s, that’s reasonable. I mean, that’s, you know, if that if it was 700,000. And, you know, that could have pushed the unemployment rate up to near 10% or something, they’ve got an estimate of what then what that would have been, and put that in the show notes. So, you know, that’s a, that’s a big deal. But then if it’s only 300,000, well, okay, is that, you know, how effective was that? So I guess, maybe that’s something you could, you could say, justifies the cost of the programme, which was in the order of $100 billion or so that’s, you know, that’s something you could argue about. So, you know, I’d say somewhere between 300,000 to 700,000 jobs, that compares with around three and a half million employees covered by the scheme at its peak. So I think when the government was rolling it out, initially, it it was suggesting it could save something around, you know, 700,000 jobs or so. If it actually is about 300,000, then well, that makes you wonder, you know, was that good value for money? So maybe that’s something that they’re embarrassed about? I’m not sure. I mean, you could say Oh, well, hundreds of 1000s of jobs, maybe it was worth it. That would be their their argument. What could be the potentially embarrassing bit about the paper is a finding that is in the footnote. It’s a one of the footnotes. And this finding is it’s on page two suggestive evidence. That job keeper receipt made casual workers less likely to be employed over a year later. So they found suggestive evidence that job keeper receipt made casual workers less likely to be employed over a year later. So the effects are far smaller and less statistically significant than the positive effects found during early 2020. But are not implausible they could reflect income effects on labour force participation given job keep a lead to some workers having substantially higher incomes than they otherwise would have. Okay. So this is that point about these, you know, these part time workers getting all of this additional, additional cash so many, many casual workers would only be working part time, they would be, you know, they could be working in a bar or at a cafe, and they’re getting much more money than they would have expected. So they’ve got all this extra money in their bank accounts. And so what they do a year later, is, you know, for many of them, they go, okay, but there’s extra cash, maybe I don’t need to work as many hours at the bar or the cafe, I’m going to spend more time on my studies or, or on a hobby, or I’m going to go overseas. So that’s what they’re, they’re driving out there. So this is really illustrative of how you can have these unintended consequences with fiscal policy. So maybe that’s what’s what’s embarrassing about the paper. So check it out. I think it’s a good paper, it illustrates a neat little econometric technique that I might talk about in a future episode. Okay, so that’s, that’s plenty on job keeper, the payroll subsidy programme and the the challenges or the problems you have when you don’t design a programme properly, of course, they had to do it very quickly. Next time, let’s hope they have a much better design, if there is a next time hope there isn’t a next time. If there is it needs to be better designed. The second clip that I want to play from my chat with Tony is about infrastructure spending. So with job keeping, we were talking about this payroll subsidy and you know, often, often the fiscal stimulus comes in the form of cash payments to households or businesses with the payroll subsidy programme, which then had to be paid to the employees. Some fiscal stimulus comes in the form of infrastructure spending, public works, that sort of thing. And I think Tony’s right there, that can also be problematic, you’ve really got to think about that. And that is the topic of this second clip from tiny, so I will play that now.

Tony Makin  27:50

infrastructure spending can be beneficial. And it has lasting benefits. And what it does not do is deteriorate the government balance sheet, as does the spending on cash handouts and other forms of consumption related government stimulus. What infrastructure does is it creates an asset there on the government’s balance sheet that matches the borrowing, it still has to be funded by borrowing, we started with a budget deficit. So all of his extra spending has to be funded by borrowing. And so there’s an asset there, so the balance sheet won’t deteriorate, to the extent otherwise. But again, it needs to be quality spending, it needs to pass certain tests, the crude Keynesian idea would be again, just to spend on anything. And being holes in the ground, as you mentioned earlier, is a form of crude Keynesianism, which, which could well be sort of portrayed as a form of infrastructure spending if it’s working on the road somewhere. But the point about infrastructure spending is it does have to pass the test where the benefits the present value of the benefits of the project, exceed the costs. And one other point to make about infrastructure spending. And this is one feature of government spending, the Keynes instanced in his work originally right back in the 1930s, but he talked about Public Works, which is effectively what we call infrastructure today. But the difference between then and now when they talk about boosting infrastructure spending is that the nature of the workforce has changed dramatically. I mean, people these days, have certain skills. It’s a highly variegated work workforce, people doing different things. And the assumption in Keynes’s theory was you increase spending on public works, then you have workers easily transferred from jobs that they’ve lost places of employment where they used to be in factories and other areas of unskilled work and they can easily be transferred to, you know, working on the road, so to speak. But these days, that seems far fetched, because for instance, baristas who’ve lost their jobs are not necessarily going to be one want to be out there on the road as a construction worker, financial sector employees, and not wanting to be perhaps putting pink bats in ceilings. So the the nature of the workforce is important. We can’t just treat the labour force as this homogenous entity where people can transfer across to any sort of industry at work. And there’s also I mean, there’s, there’s information costs there. There’s transactions costs, which which make the whole process a little bit trickier than than it sounds in terms of increasing employment.

Gene Tunny  31:08

Yeah, it’s not like it was in the 30s when you could get a whole bunch of unskilled or semi skilled workers, unemployed workers and have them carve out a walking track in the national park or something like that. Exactly. Right. Yeah, yeah. Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  31:37

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with adept economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, www dot adapt economics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  32:06

Now back to the show. Okay, so another really balanced and insightful clip from tiny. And one of the things Tony was talking about in this clip is Keynesianism, so the ideas associated with John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, and there’s a particular I guess, a school of thought or there’s a crude Keynesianism often in the way that you know, some, some economists or well, not not many economists, I think most economists recognise the the limits of fiscal policies, the problem with too much discretionary policy with Hey, you got to be careful with it. But there are there still are some we could say crude Keynesians and in in politics, too, there are some people with these these crude Keynesian ideas and they become quite popular during times of crises. And you know, Tony was someone in Australia who was always, always pushing back against that crude Keynesian view and trying to explain what are the what are the potential offsetting impacts, you know, how can interest rates respond, exchange rate, what’s the response to fiscal stimulus and particularly in an open economy like Australia’s Okay, so I’ll play the next highlight in which Tony covers that. So,

Tony Makin  33:42

in the open economy, where you introduce capital flows, exports imports, exchange rates, and emphasising in particular the exchange rate, then you can have a counter model to crude Keynesianism and the best known approach is the so called Mundell Fleming model, which is which features in intermediate macro economics textbooks. And it really just builds upon the IS LM model that Hicks invented by introducing capital flows and exchange rates and net exports. So, listeners may well be familiar with with that model, but simply says that if you increase government spending, you’re going to increase the budget deficit there’s going to be more spending in the economy, but that for a given money supply is going to tend to push up domestic interest rates relative to foreign interest rates and that will induce capital inflow foreigners will be flooding into buy these bonds that are paying a slightly higher interest rate than in their own countries, and that capital inflow will appreciate the currencies. And we’re talking about a floating exchange rate here. And that appreciation will worsen competitiveness because in the short run, price levels are fixed. So a nominal appreciation will translate to a real appreciation. And that loss of competitiveness will crowd out net exports. And this is exactly what we saw. Post GFC. And I’ve written written on this. It’s part of the Treasury external paper. But the exchange rate appreciated massively. As the fiscal stimulus was being rolled out and just look at the national accounts, and you’ll see that the swing variable, there was net exports that went down due due to the loss of competitiveness. That’s, that’s one open economy perspective. And I think that model has been borne out empirically, with reference to Australia’s previous experience, post GFC.

Gene Tunny  36:10

Yeah, so I’ll put a link to that paper of yours, which I think was in agenda. And you also wrote a paper for the minerals Council. One thing which was what one thing that’s really interesting, tiny is that your original minerals Council paper was criticised by the Treasury Secretary, Dr. Martin Parkinson, my old boss at the time. But then a couple of years later, you wrote a paper for the Treasury under the new secretary, John Fraser, essentially, almost refuting what Dr. Pockets and wrote in that rather extraordinary refutation of your minerals Council paper.

Tony Makin  36:58

Yes, yes. It’s quite curious and evidence that economists disagree, even heads of treasury disagree and their economic thinking. So yes, Martin Parkinson issued a press release criticising my minerals Council paper, which was mostly about Australia’s competitiveness. It was not focused, essentially on fiscal policy. That was a part of it. But that’s what caught the criticism from Treasury. And then subsequent to that, when John Fraser Parkinson, successor became Treasury head, he commissioned me to write a paper for Treasury, and that is available from their website, Treasury, external paper where I elaborated on the aspects in the minerals Council paper about fiscal policy and and raise some of these issues about accounting models to to crude Keynesianism. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  37:58

It’s interesting, because I mean, we both worked for Treasury it at different times, though. And I remember the traditional Treasury view is that we have to be careful about fiscal policy because it could end up being destabilising is the open economy impacts that you’ve mentioned, there’s also the problem that you don’t know whether you’re intervening at the right time. The problem that, you know, the stimulus might come on when the economy is recovering anyway. And then it’s, you know, it’s not really necessary. So there are these lags involved. What happened, I think, during the GFC, or the global financial crisis, was that the Treasury people thought, and you know, the, the politicians Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, they thought, well, we’ve got this huge shock coming from overseas, we’ve got to do something. So we’re just going to throw as much money at the problem as we can to save the economy. That seems to be the logic and know all of those old concerns about discretionary fiscal policy, what we call discretionary fiscal policy, as distinct from automatic stabilisers such as unemployment benefits, which increase during recessions or the fact that your tax revenues fall during recessions. That all view that discretionary fiscal policy is insensible. That was just thrown out the window. And we’re seeing it again now. So what do you do you have any views on why treasury? The Treasury line on fiscal policy has changed, Tony?

Tony Makin  39:35

Well, I think it’s become crude, Keynesian. And there’s another example that you hadn’t mentioned, and it was the response to the Asian financial crisis, which was also a major, a cataclysmic event at the time in terms of what happened to asset prices and, and we by then had been heavily dependent on the Asia Pacific For our for our trade, not so with the GFC. Because our trade with North North America, the North Atlantic region was minimal compared to Asia. And yet the responses were completely different. In the first instance, there was virtually no fiscal response, there was a strong monetary response, which allowed the exchange rate to stay at a highly depreciated level, which, which soars through that crisis, we didn’t experience a recession that time. And that was what was happening with the global financial crisis, the exchange rate collapse, not as much as it did during the Asian financial crisis. But the government of the day then panicked, reflecting the panic in the US, and by that time, interestingly, the International Monetary Fund had a change course. And it’s thinking it has traditionally been influenced by Chicago economists and had always highlighted in my time working there highlighted problems with activist fiscal policy, including the lags problem that you’ve you’ve mentioned, but there had been this major reversal of thinking at those levels. And the Australian government here, panicked as a consequence of the crisis where we did not where it should not have given that the banking system here didn’t collapse in the same way as it did. In the United States. I fully endorse the the underwriting of the system or the banking system at the time, but the fiscal stimulus was, was completely over the top in my view.

Gene Tunny  41:46

Okay, I really loved that clip of my chat with Tony about fiscal stimulus, I think the comparison he makes or the contrast he makes between how Australia responded to the Asian financial crisis, which as he knows, was a huge deal. Particularly in in Southeast Asia. I mean, it had huge impacts on a major Well, an important economy to the north of us, Indonesia, which, you know, country I’ve had a little bit to do with, particularly with their finance ministry. And it led to effectively to the overthrow of the Suharto regime that they had there. So huge, huge impacts in that region. And yet, Australia responded differently, as Tony was explaining, but by the time of the financial crisis, the thinking in in Treasury, and and also it was a government of a different political persuasion, too. So that may have had something to do with the response. Right. Okay. So we’ve talked about crude Keynesianism. The other thing? Oh, yes, one. One thing I want to mention here is that I’ve been talking about how there are these unintended consequences of fiscal policy that that we can see. And I think that was particularly the case with, with one of the packages that was part of the pandemic response here, which was home builder, which was this home builder grant to two people who were, you know, building or renovating a home. So they had a home builder grant there was about, I think it was two and a half billion dollars. I’ve got that in my notes. And it’s ended up having these, you know, a really adverse impact on the building sector now. So there was a really crisp report from this was on news.com.au. This was on Christmas Eve, Kassar building group collapses into liquidation receivership owing $3.7 million, Guzman and Gomez. So jiwaji sites impacted. And so it’s a nice little as well, you know, it’s not nice, but it’s a good illustration of these unintended consequences. So I’ll just read some, I’ll put it in the show notes. And I’ll just read. I’ll just read some of the main points because I think it does illustrate, you know, what can go wrong if you’re not thinking through what the consequences of your policies can be. So ASIC is the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. So that regulates companies here in Australia. So ASIC insolvencies, statistics show 2213 building companies collapsed during the 20 to 23. financial year, there was a 72% increase on the previous 12 months. The alarming trend has been blamed on a perfect storm of factors including fixed price contracts, escalating costs, supply chain disruptions and tradie shortages. So tradie that’s the what we call tradespersons here in Australia. I’m not sure if you use that term in other countries, if you’re in the state So the UK, for example, the previous Morison government’s home builder grant, which was introduced in June 2020, handed out $2.52 billion to owner occupiers who wanted to build a substantially renovated home it turbocharged the sector, more than 130,000 Customers signed on to the programme with many trainees agreeing to the work under fixed price contracts, it soon became unsustainable as prices began to soar. Okay, so there was this crowding out. And you know, the, the builders or the tradies, they were relying on supply, you know, whether, you know, they may, they may have had to subcontract to other trainees, or they may have been, you know, they may need to purchase the supplies, so plumbing supplies or timber, and they may have been thinking, Oh, well, we’ll just quote based on the prices at the moment. And then suddenly, there’s this additional demand a huge amount of additional demand, and their prices increase for all those input costs. And they’ve signed these contracts to do the work at a particular rate. And these jobs are no longer viable for them. And so now what we’re seeing is we’re seeing these these building companies and collapsing, they’re just going into, into receivership liquidation administration. Yep. So bad results from that. So I’ll put a link in the show notes to that really important piece of information there. This is my final clip from Tony, from my conversation with Tony that had in June 2020. It relates to the ongoing burden of the debt. So those interest payments that, you know, that takes money out of your budget, that’s money that you can’t spend on health and education, for example, and this is something that I think it’s not sufficiently appreciated by decision makers during times of crisis. Okay, so I think, you know, there’s, there’s this need to respond, there’s this, there’s this panic, we think this is, this is the big issue we’re going to deal with. Okay. Sure. Except I accept that. But I think decision makers really have to think more about the long term implications. Okay, because, you know, this, this crisis will pass, presumably, I mean, you don’t want to be, too, you know, obviously, we need to be realistic. But generally, these things will pass, we’ll get to the the other side of it. And I suppose we, we probably should have expected that we would get over this pandemic. I mean, it has been, it has been dreadful, and you know, lots of people have died from it. So I’m not willing to downplay it. But we should have thought that yep, there will be life after the pandemic, and there will be this ongoing burden. Okay. So let’s play the next clip, the final clip from Tony on debt. What do you see as the the problem with this is this buildup of debt isn’t there, and there’s the problem, we have to pay for it, or we have to service that debt and a lot of that money is going to go overseas. You’ve also mentioned the impact on economic growth. What evidence is there regarding the impact on economic performance and growth of a buildup of public debt, which is in Australia is easily going to exceed $1 trillion within a few years?

Tony Makin  48:31

Yes, well, there’s certainly going to be the impact on national income because there’ll be a pure drain from national income of the public interest paid abroad, and we’re talking about 10s of billions there that will just be subtracted from national income to service to service the debt that we will have and that that drain will likely exceed. If it’s a trillion dollar debt, it’s likely to be about eight times the foreign aid budget and a multiple of, of what’s spent on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, and a host of other other government programmes. So there’s going to be a direct impact there. But there’s been a number of elaborate econometric studies done. And you’ll find them in the literature. I won’t instance all the authors, but the IMF has done work on this. I’ve actually done had a paper published with a PhD student of mine, looking at Asian economies, and there seems to be a consensus empirically, that a 10% increase in public debt. Other things are saying well, contract, GDP growth, that’s conventionally defined GDP by point two of a percent. So that might not sound much but new compound that through it can be quite significant. After a few years.

Gene Tunny  49:55

What would be the mechanism there tiny would it be the fact that too due to service this debt, you might have to have taxes higher than otherwise. And these taxes, haven’t they lead to an efficiency loss. There’s an efficiency loss with taxation, because you’re discouraging people from working or investing. Could that be one of the mechanisms?

Tony Makin  50:15

Yeah, absolutely. The interest rate is going to play a play a role as well. But the there’s going to be a deadweight losses of the future taxes are going to harm future income. There’s no question about that. But also, there’s other studies have shown that the the the interest rate will will increase by seven basis points, or 1% increase in the public debt to GDP ratio tends to in these studies show that the interest rate tends to go up by about five basis points or up to five basis points. But the mechanism through tax is important, but also, through expectations, if you’ve got this big debt overhang, public debt overhang that’s going to affect expectations. And we can invoke Ricardo there in terms of what what he said for for households having to attend to to save more, but also firms and it’s not something that Ricardo instance, I think it’s important that investment investment is likely to be weak due to the uncertainty that business has about future tax liabilities in the face of an enormous public debt. And then lastly, there’s the impact on future generations that Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of the United States instance, and that the the future generations are going to have to pay for the repayment of the massive debt that’s that’s arisen due to the fiscal response. Yep.

Gene Tunny  52:02

Okay, so that was really interesting from tiny there. Now, some of that was the point he was making about expectations and what you call Ricardian equivalence, I think we’ll have to cover that in a future episode, because there’s a big controversy about that, and to what extent that actually, that actually happens. So, yeah, we’ll we’ll cover that in a future episode. The other stuff, you know, the, I think it’s the other points are really undeniable, really about the the interest burden of the debt and what that does the budget. So I think that’s, that’s well said, from tiny Okay, so that’s, that’s it from my conversation with Tony. What I’d like to do now is I like to play some clips from Alex Robson, who I mentioned before, Alex is out of the amazing Korea. He was an economic adviser to former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been Australia’s ambassador to the OECD in Paris. And like me, he hails from Townsville in North Queensland. So yeah, I was really glad to catch up with Alex. Well, I wasn’t glad because it was a terrible event. But it was good that I could catch up with Alex after Tony’s passing to discuss Tony’s legacy. So here’s Alex on tinies legacy.

Alex Robson  53:38

I mean, in a closed economy, the assumption is you’ve got no capital inflows or outflows. And so the exchange rate then doesn’t really matter. So what Mondale and Fleming showed in the 60s Was that actually, if you just change that assumption, and then allow for the exchange rate to change, and capital inflows and outflows to occur, and that has been impacted by by imports and exports. And so with policy, say, for fiscal policy, you get this leakage into and out of exports and imports. And so if your sales are up, for example, boosting government spending or reducing taxes that will then have effects on interest rates, exchange rates and exports, so and then an open economy like Australia, that obviously matters quite a bit. And so the critical thing lever there that that changes, or you know, a lot of those predictions of the standard sort of pump priming model, we think about your government goes out and spends more money and has these multiplier effects and so on is this assumption of capital mobility and how it affects the exchange rate. And once you have that, you get a completely different predictions about the effectiveness of these different policy instruments. So and and Tony was always really good at just constantly reminding people of this and and I think it’s the tend to be something which was taught. It’s been taught, obviously, in universities for a long time, but it didn’t seem to quite make it into the, into the policymakers sort of calculus in in in Canberra. And so that was just one of Tony’s big things was just to remind people and of that. And I think, you know, I mean, we saw that during the GFC. With respect to exports, we saw it with respect to the exchange rate, there were big changes going on. And the point is that, you know, Australia is affected by everything else that’s going on in the world. And that’s why places like the OECD and IMF are always talking about coordinating fiscal policy, because, you know, otherwise, you get these leakages across across countries, and you may not get the impacts that you’re trying to achieve.

Gene Tunny  55:50

Okay, and here’s the second clip from Alex. So my conversation with Alex, I

Alex Robson  55:56

mean, thinking about, he had a good mix of very good technical economic skills. I mean, he wasn’t a heavily mathematical person, but he did use those tools when he needed them. And, but also very much an applied focus to policy questions of the day that that mattered. And it wasn’t something where he, you know, there’d be a policy issue. And so I’m now going to think about that. It was, you know, he’d been thinking about these things for a long time. And then when they tended to come up again, and again, he was ready with the arguments that he divided, quite a lot of thought to. So it was wasn’t like he was sort of chasing these different policies. She was, I think he just spent a career thinking about the big macro topics. And they just come back again and again, in Australia. And and it was we were fortunate, I think, to have him as a voice during these tumultuous times in the big macro debates of the 90s. And then during the GFC. And then more recently, as well, yeah, I think, yeah, thinking about his career, it was a good mix of contributions to the academic literature, technical skills, but then also translating that into policy commentary and advice that really stood him apart from a lot of economists today.

Gene Tunny  57:10

Okay, so we’ve come to the end of the episode. I think that the experience of many economies over the last couple of years has provided validation for the criticisms of fiscal policy of activist fiscal policy that came from economists such as the late Tony makin. The takeaway from this episode is that fiscal stimulus packages need to be very carefully designed and limited in their size, if you are going to implement them. There’s a legitimate argument that they’re best avoided altogether, but I would reserve the right to use them in some cases. And even Tony did suggest that there may have been justification was something like Job keeper, but a more targeted in better designed version of it. Okay, so, to wrap up, it’s really pleased me to be able to go back into the archives and to to find these great highlights from my conversation with tiny, tiny making. He was the leading advocate for sensible fiscal policy and Australia for for many years, and he is sorely missed. Thanks for listening. rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

59:20

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Free Markets & Limited Government: Lessons from the Founding Fathers for Today  – EP218

The economic philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers was centred around individual rights, limited government intervention, and a largely free market. In EP218 of Economics Explored, host Gene Tunny interviews John Nantz about his book, “Rediscovering Republicanism.” John discusses the insights of the United States Founding Fathers, such as Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, and how their ideas on limited federal power and local governance are still relevant today. John argues that the country needs to remember these insights and explore how we can apply them to our current situation. Gene asks John, among other questions, how the Founding Fathers tried to reconcile their beliefs with the slavery that existed in the Southern states.
Please contact us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest John Nantz

John Nantz is a Stanford-educated, McKinsey-trained strategy consultant and author of Rediscovering Republicanism. Through his book, John re-introduces Americans, particularly younger ones, to the inspiring founding values and ideas of their country. Also, based on his book, John started a highly popular TikTok series on American history that has earned over 4 million views. 

What’s covered in EP218

  • Rediscovering Republicanism’s founding vision and values. (0:03)
  • Rediscovering American republicanism and its values. (2:25)
  • US history and political system. (7:21)
  • US Constitution and citizen power. (10:23)
  • The economic vision of the US Founding Fathers. (15:01)
  • The Founding Fathers’ views on slavery and the Constitution. (20:04)
  • Slavery and political representation in the US Constitution. (25:04)
  • US government role and individual rights. (30:05)
  • Federalism, welfare programs, and state roles. (36:22)
  • Poverty, government role, and healthcare in the US. (40:44)
  • Healthcare and retirement systems in Australia and the US. (48:05)

Takeaways

  • The founders of the United States had a vision of limited central government power, with a focus on individual rights, state governments, and civil society taking on more responsibility for problem-solving.
  • The current state of the United States has deviated from this vision, with a significant expansion of federal government power and involvement in various areas such as social welfare and education.
  • John Nantz argues for a rediscovery of republicanism and a return to the original vision of the founders, with a focus on individual rights, competitive federalism, and a reduced role for the federal government in areas such as welfare programs. The author suggests that this approach could lead to better outcomes and more innovation in addressing complex social issues.

Links relevant to the conversation

Amazon page for John’s book Rediscovering Republicanism:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Rediscovering-Republicanism-Renewing-America-Founding/dp/0761872337

Transcript: Free Markets & Limited Government: Lessons from the Founding Fathers for Today  – EP218

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

John Nantz  00:03

And that was exactly how the Founders intended it was that we wanted these local organisations to take responsibility for lots of stuff. There’s lots of important things that the central government shouldn’t be doing, because not competent to do it. So these are insights that they had, that we clearly have lost. And so that you know if that’s part of the book is trying to refresh people’s memory and help them rediscover them, and then talk about how we might apply those those ideas and concepts to our current situation.

Gene Tunny  00:37

Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, and welcome to the show. In this episode, I chat with John Nance about his book rediscovering republicanism, renewing America with our founding vision and values. It’s about Republicanism as a political idea rather than about the Republican political party. John argues that the United States has forgotten or overlooked the insights of its founders. He argues that his founders like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, they had insights on governance that are still relevant today. John tells us that the Founders intended for the federal government to have limited power, with state and local governments, community groups and citizens themselves taking on more responsibility for problem solving. John is a Stanford educated McKinsey trained strategy consultant. Based on his book, he started a highly popular Tik Tok series on American history that has earned over 4 million views. As always, if you have thoughts on this episode, or other episodes, or ideas for future episodes, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. Let me know if you think a return to traditional Republicanism with a limited role for the federal government is desirable or feasible. Right. Oh, let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy my conversation with John Nance on rediscovering republicanism. John, Nancy, welcome to the programme.

John Nantz  02:24

Bing, thank you. This is great, it’s good to Good to see you. Appreciate you having me on and appreciate you getting up a little early in Australia to do this.

Gene Tunny  02:32

Oh, of course. It’s good to connect. And you’re joining us from Austin in Texas. And you’re you’re currently running a boutique advisory firm Redwood advisors. Before we get into it. Could you tell us a bit about Redwood advisors and what you do there, John? Yeah, sure.

John Nantz  02:48

Happy to tell you a bit about it. So. So I started my professional career at McKinsey and Company went to undergrad at Stanford did some time in McKinsey. It’s a big consulting firm, and actually left the firm to write the book we’re talking about today, and ended up getting a few clients when I was writing the book. And, you know, because when you’re writing a book, you’ve got a little bit of free time and not a tonne of money. So ended up doing some work independently, really loved it, and had an offer to go back to McKinsey but decided to strike out on my own and it’s worked out. And so I have a small boutique firm here in Austin, Texas focused on a lot of strategic planning work.

Gene Tunny  03:26

Excellent strategic planning for corporates, for businesses that this sort of thing you do a

John Nantz  03:32

lot of private sector, some social sectors. So we’ve done projects with companies, your listeners may be familiar with, like lifts, and National Geographic and NASA education, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the D’Aleo foundation, so it’s a good mix of private sector and social sector. And yeah, it definitely definitely keeps me busy and in stimulated, so.

Gene Tunny  03:57

Very good. Okay. It might might come back to that a bit later. That’s interesting. You mentioned Ray Dalio. I mean, obviously, you know, huge name and someone who, you know, economists obviously keep an eye on for, for all of his, you know, his interesting analysis over the years, so that’s terrific. Okay. So as you mentioned, John, you, you wrote this book, rediscovering republicanism, renewing America, with our founding vision and values to kick off with what do you mean by republicanism? This is something different from the current Republican Party. Is it the values of that party or what are you talking about here? Yeah,

John Nantz  04:38

it’s a great question. So and obviously talking to someone from Australia. If it’s just the Republican Party, United States, it’s a little less interesting. So yeah, the book, the book was really focused on Republicanism kind of as a as a political idea, not not certainly not a political party. And if you look at republics, you know, you go back to ancient Greece, you go up back to ancient Rome. These are sort of the first examples of republics. Obviously, there’s some differences in terms of how you define them. You know, some city states in Greece would qualify as direct democracies, where people actually get together and vote on laws themselves. But pretty quickly things turn into republics, where people would basically vote on elected officials to go represent them and to make laws. And that’s kind of the definition of a republic versus democracy is you elect this sort of middle layer of elected representatives to represent you hence the word like Republic. So when I use that word, rediscovering republicanism, you know, there’s this you know, kind of after the, during the Enlightenment era, you think Montesquieu, and some other Locke, etc, there was this rediscovery of, of Republican theory, going back to kind of ancient Rome and Cicero, but at the time, you know, 1600 1700s, the world was largely ruled by kings. It was a monarchical time. But people had this thought of, well, could we start republics? Could we start them and the United States was one of the first countries to do that. It was the first written constitution, actually, there was a slight predecessor in Corsica, actually, I think technically can take credit for having the oldest written constitution. But the United States is obviously largest, you know, first written constitution of note in 1787. When that got done so United States kind of kicked off this Republican push, obviously Australia, New Zealand, most of the anglophile Anglophone world has Republic’s India has a republic. So we live in a Republican age. And that’s kind of the way that I’m using that term. And when I say rediscovering republicanism, at least in the United States, you know, things have changed a lot from when the country was started. And I think we have forgotten or overlooked a lot of the insights that the founders of this country had in mind when they put together our political regime. And so my book is when it says rediscovering, what I’m kind of arguing is I think we need to go back and take a look and understand a bit better, why the country was set up the way it was set up. And, and I also further argue that we should we would benefit from reapplying those insights and recommendations to to today.

Gene Tunny  07:20

Okay, well, we’ll get into that. I just want to just mentioned zoning is a bit of trivia. So Australia, I’d say yes, effectively, we are a republic, although, legally we’re not we had a referendum 24 years ago to determine whether we should become a republic because we’re still technically a constitutional monarchy, even though we’ve severed any real legal connection with the United Kingdom. There’s no appeals to the Privy Council as There once was. And our laws don’t have to get passed by an imperial Parliament or anything like that. We’ve were completely independent in that regard. But legally, we’re still we still have a governor general who represents the king. So yeah, it’s anyway. That’s the domestic political issues. Yeah. You wouldn’t be aware of or wouldn’t. It’s just, it’s just a real oddity. Okay. Sure. I’d like to ask you about the these founders. So you’re talking about Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Madison, what are these insights? What are those insights that those founders had? And if I’ve left any, any important founder out, please let me know.

John Nantz  08:31

Yeah, no, that’s, you hit a lot of the big names. So when they start in the, you know, at least the United States, there was a very, very challenging and complex situation because the United States had basically declared independence from England, United Kingdom 1775 7017 76 period, there obviously, was a war. We call it the Revolutionary War. I’m not sure what the English call it, but I’d argue would love to know what they call it, but it was the 90s. We call it the Revolutionary War. And that wrapped up in 1783. And we had something the governing political document was the Articles of Confederation. And basically, how that worked was each state in the United States that was 13 at the time was pretty much its own government. So the analogy would almost be we almost it was almost like a combination of NATO and the European Union trade bloc. So it’s actually honestly a good analogy is modern day Europe. Actually. Each of the states had their own nine had their own navies. All of them had their own armies. So we have 13 different armies in the United States. So and I people don’t know this, it’s a fascinating period of history. fascinating period of American history. People just kind of, you know, glossed over it because it’s complicated, but it’s it’s absolutely fascinating. That’s 17 Three. Well, it turned out that that was a very fraught situation because the different states hates as states will do start to compete with each other, they started taxing each other’s trade. They wouldn’t let trade merchants go through their ports to get other states. There was not unified policy with foreign powers. So England wasn’t. England had agreed to leave certain forts on the borders of the United States, but didn’t it didn’t didn’t really have an army to enforce those provisions. So the English were just like, well, we’re not going to leave. And you’ve got Spain is on the Mississippi River with New Orleans and is is is blocking the export of farm goods. So there’s and then you have actual local domestic rebellions called Shay’s Rebellion. So you have these farmers rising up and saying, We don’t want to pay our taxes to the Massachusetts government, you know, and we have guns, you know, if you want to come to get the money coming taken. So this is a very challenging situation. And so, in 1787, a lot of the founders of the country that people that you were just mentioning, were like, Okay, this is not a stable equilibrium, this is going to devolve into European squabbling, or we’re going to be taken over by a foreign power, the English will come back. We have to, we have to rethink this. And so it’s it’s very interesting situation where you have these, these men, who has spent seven plus years of their lives revolting from the United Kingdom, fighting a war against central authority, because of how corrupt think they they view the English as at the time getting together and saying, we actually need more central power to hold us together. And so that was the really rich situation that the founding fathers of the United States and Philadelphia in 1787 found themselves is we just fought a war we lost 10s of 1000s of men against this will be called a foreign despotic power that was called Becoming corrupt. And now we’re getting together to basically create a new one. That is a very, very tight rope to navigate. And so that’s kind of what they were trying to do. So I think what that basically meant was, we needed to have a centralised power that could deal with foreign affairs, that could create a consistent set of laws in the country. Eliminate, you know, interest, state taxes, or kind of getting rid of a lot of the things that clearly weren’t working in that 7377 period, while at the same time not letting the government get out of bounds, because what the founders believed was that what the exam but the English example showed, is, if you have no restraints on the government, it’s just going to keep growing and growing and growing and growing. That’s just the nature of government. So they were trying to thread that needle. And so the three things that I talked about a lot in the book is the kind of bulwarks of this political order, or the first was really very strong individual rights. So the government, you know, it’s interesting, if you look at the language of the 18th century, and you guys may, I don’t, not sure where you all are now in the in, in Australia, but at least the United States, the citizens were called the subjects of the king, which is, if you actually slow down for a second, you think about that, that’s actually a really interesting turn of phrase, because basically, we are subject to the king, the king has the power, and we are subject to it, it’s very clear the power dynamic there. So they want to do is they want to make each citizen in the United States at least, is really the raison de Jatra of our political polity. We’re not a collective, we’re not at the beck and call of a king or an aristocracy. Each citizen really is their own little centre of political power, right, and the government is here to serve them, not the other way around it, the people are not the subjects of the king, the king, the government is really the subjects of the people. That’s why the Constitution is the first start, you know, the first phrase is we the people. So we the people come together to create a government to serve us. So it’s a huge inversion of the historical relationship. So he basically had and then, of course, you have the bill of rights in the United States, which were the first 10 that came out on free speech and establishment of religion, basically saying, if the government forgets what it’s supposed to do, it’s not supposed to do these things. Right? These are out of bounds. And then in the Constitution itself, there’s this listing of the powers of the federal government, what the Congress can do, the president can do, etc. All of that was intended to support a regime where the government had pretty limited powers. And the citizens had come at this open ended, right open ended ability to sort of do what they want. So that was political idea. Number one is let’s put the citizen as the primary political power in our country, not the government. The second was state governments. So like I was saying, originally, in the United States, we had these state governments, the 13th, were really their own countries enlarged in the election. So the United States those what happened is those 13. The concept is called federalism. But the federal government doesn’t have doesn’t have all the power in the United States. And I think this is common in the Anglophone world. These these subsidiary government, governments provinces is done. I don’t know what term is used in the United Kingdom. But that’s another term I think, in Canada, they use the word province Anyways, these provincial governments or state governments actually have a lot of power. So United States, they have the police power, they have the education power. So you know, there’s local laws that they can enforce that the federal government actually can’t election law, for example, it’s a state law is the state prerogative in the United States. So the states got their own power, which was separate from the federal government. And that was intended to sort of like make sure that the federal government didn’t get too big. And then the third thing was the civil society. And this was a sort of a softer, more tacit thing. But it was absolutely critical to how the founders looked at the world, which was, we don’t want government to be the problem solver for every social problem. Like that idea, which is endemic now. Yeah, is would is totally foreign to them. Right. You know, Benjamin Franklin, you know, started the first public library, quote, public, it was a private library, right formed by the citizens of Philadelphia didn’t need the government managing it. Same thing with fire departments. Same thing with toll roads, in the United States, all of this stuff was done, sometimes locally, with the citizens working amongst themselves, sometimes by the local or state governments. So that was the third one was they assumed that and that’s where the indigent like help for the poor. You know, we we’ve had that in our country since the 1600s. But the federal government hasn’t didn’t get involved until the 1960s in the United States. And that was exactly how the Founders intended it was that we wanted these local organisations to take responsibility for lots of stuff. There’s lots of important things that the central government shouldn’t be doing, because not competent to do it. So these are insights that they had, that we clearly have lost. And so you know, that’s part of the book is trying to refresh people’s memory and help them rediscover them. And then talk about how we might apply those those ideas and concepts to our current situation.

Gene Tunny  17:35

So what I liked about your, your book, you talk about the economic vision that they had, they had a vision of a particular type of economy and people within that economy, you talked about self reliance, but it’s broader than that, isn’t it? I mean, in the concepts that you were talking about in their book, we could you could you explain what the economic vision, the economic vision of the founders was pleased, John.

John Nantz  18:03

Yeah. And I know that’s, that’s of interest to you. And a lot of your listeners, this is this is this is this economics perspective. So, you know, to give a sense of how important this was to them. A lot of people don’t know this, but actually, in the Constitution, there’s a fair amount of language around intellectual property rights, which is kind of fascinating. You’re like, wow, I mean, it’s not a very long document. But they actually took the time to articulate rules around or guidelines in terms of, okay, if you create something, how long can you patent it? Can you have rights to that, etc. That is a huge tell about how they expected things to play out how they wanted them to play out. So the founders were sort of setting up this system, that they their vision was they would have, you know, independent, free, you know, individuals making largely free choices, working together. To, at least in those times, many people were working on their farms, so obviously run their farms independently, but they had manufacturing firms, traders, all these people doing, all these folks will be working independently, to build wealth to create income for themselves and their families. They’ll be working together collaboratively, sometimes in the economic realm, sometimes in the social realm to sort of solve social problems, but they will be doing this sort of in these voluntary civic society. This is what Tocqueville who visit United States, this was the most remarkable thing he thought he found about the United States was all these civil associations that were solving various problems. So that yeah, I don’t know if that answers your question. But, you know, obviously, the Constitution is a political document. It’s kind of how things should be working politically. But embedded in that is this vision. It’s a political system that was intended to support and for Oster, a very largely free market. I mean, we didn’t have regulations in this country. I think the first regulation, I could get this wrong, but it was there, there was like a little bit of federal regulation in the 1820s. Regarding like smallpox, but you didn’t even really see the first thing, the concept of a federal regulation, even the concept, federal even existed until the 1850s 1960s, the federal government ran for 80 years, that tells you how not involved they expected the federal government to be. They didn’t even think it was something they didn’t have the idea of doing it, that they assumed all of this would be done, either at the individual level or the state level. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  20:43

How did the Founding Fathers reconcile this? The belief in, in limited government or in or in freedom in rights? How do I reconcile with the slavery that existed in the southern states?

John Nantz  20:59

It’s great question. It’s a very fraught question. It’s very interesting. And obviously, there’s, there’s a lot of this is kind of a hot topic in the United States. There were basically what, here’s how I would characterise and of course, each person had their own perspective. Right? So I’m characterising a group. But obviously, each person has their own view on it. But I’m broadly This is I think, correct. He looked at the people who were there at 1787. In the room, the broad consensus was, this is not the future. This is not in line with our values. So there was a pretty clear, I mean, you couldn’t have gone through the Revolutionary War with, you know, no taxation without representation, right. And you think, Well, how does that apply to slavery. And by the way, if you, you know, you can read books on this, Bernard Bailyn has some, the ideological origins of the American Revolution is Pulitzer Prize winner and fantastic. It was not lost on these people, that the ideology of the revolution did not support the philosophical underpinnings of slavery, that was not lost that intelligent people. So you have that you also have the reality of slavery, which is that you have the majority of southern wealth in slaves, you have, I think, at that point, almost a million slaves. So which is a good portion of the country back to a bigger portion of the country at that time, then then now and a bigger portion of the country then then, actually, during the Civil War, because the Civil War, the North actually grew more? So you had this practical consideration? You had this this IDI, you know, idea. And so what they did is they tried to come up with some compromises. So So one thing is the word slavery is not in the Constitution, which is a very important thing, they knew the word could have been the reversions of the Constitution, drafts that included it, and they took it out, because they didn’t want the word in the documents. And I think that’s a huge important tell. They had this compromise on the three fifths compromise. You can argue that both ways, but I think again, you kind of see them struggling with how do we deal with this. Very importantly, black people don’t know this. The Constitution actually included a provision allowing the elimination of slave imports in the 1800s, early 1800s, I think of 1805 1806, I might be getting that wrong, but it’s during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency. So the Constitution actually predicted we’re going to ban the import of slaves, which they actually did. So the second that day came around the United States embargo, the slave trade in the early 1800s. So we didn’t actually import slaves. So you can kind of see where all this is going. Everyone is sort of like, and then here’s the other interesting thing is that that time, a lot of people thought that slavery would just sort of go away, that it would sort of not be, it wouldn’t be economically efficient, right? That actually slaves would be more of a burden than a boon. And that this is actually what they believed. And there was some good evidence for that at the time that it actually wasn’t that productive to pay for and feed slaves relative to what they could produce. The cotton gin and all that stuff. What really changed the dynamic is an early 1800s, Eli Whitney came up with a cotton gin, which allowed the very efficient This is an economic point, by the way that a lot of political historians don’t understand. But it’s fundamental to what actually happened. Eli Whitney creates the content, I forget when I think it’s in the early 1800s, which massively increases the productivity of cotton production, meaning you can kind of go out and get all the stuff that’s in these cotton balls out using just running it through a machine as opposed to doing it by hand. So we’re not talking about 20%. We’re talking about multiples more efficient. At the same time, cotton demand is skyrocketing. And no one wants to go outside and if you’ve been to Mississippi, but like you’d have to pay someone a lot of money to do that. That created a massive demand for slaves and that’s where you see the price of slaves United States starts to skyrocket. As they can produce cotton, which then can be sold into the, into the global market. That is what made slavery last. And that’s I think what led to the war, because 10% of African Americans or I should say blacks in the South were free. By the beginning of the Civil War, people don’t know this, but Manumission was actually not uncommon. And there are some parts of Virginia 15 20% Were already freed before the Civil War. So the founders thought this was kind of going to go away, it was a little bit naive. But that was their belief. They didn’t think it was. They didn’t think it was moral. They weren’t proud of it, they wouldn’t have they won’t even say the word. And just it technological and historical things intervened, and it took a civil war to figure that out wrong.

Gene Tunny  25:43

And what was the three fifths compromise? Is this? I mean, it sounds ghastly, is this actually counting a slave as three fifths of a, of a person for the purposes of, of some calculation? What what’s the what’s it about there? John, please? Yeah, it’s

John Nantz  26:01

no, it’s a good, good. Yeah, good question. So. So obviously, slaves can’t vote. So it’s very interesting, because it’s the southern slave people. Let me actually, I hope you don’t mind. Let me go back really quickly to the Constitution. In the debates, there were some people from some of the southern states, particularly South Carolina, I think your guys made Pickney, who basically said, if we are not allowed to have slavery, we are out. So I want to be really clear about that. It was not. And it kind of makes sense. When you look at their economy, it makes sense why those people would not support that. And so basically, hope you don’t mind. But let’s just quickly go back, I wanted to wrestle this one down, which is that the South would have would not want to join the Constitution is there is a very simple, so if you’re from the north of Europe, in New York, or Pennsylvania, or whatever, where they didn’t have a lot of slaves, they didn’t support slavery, the South would have just started their own country. So we would have had the Civil War, but 80 years before, so the compromise was required to get all 13 States in. Okay, so let me just, that’s a nice segue into the three fifths compromise, you had to have a compromise, or the states would have just left, I mean, you know, that it said South Carolina was not going to be in for that. So the three fifths compromise was basically, slaves largely couldn’t vote. But the South was still like, Yeah, but they’re people, we feel like they should get some representation. So the compromise was three fifths. So when we’re deciding how to allocate in our country, the House of Representatives, which is by population, a slave would count as three fifths of a person. So if I have 10 slaves, that would count that would be worth six white voters. And that’s how we decide how many representatives a certain state would get. Now, each state also gets two senators. There’s a very, you know, you can argue this both ways, like some people say, Oh, that’s, you know, some people who they say, hey, well, you’re kind of acknowledging they’re a person. That’s good, right? So some people say there’s an abolitionist, anti slavery part of the three fifths because you’re kind of conceding their person. And then of course, other people say the opposite of, yeah, but you know, you’re giving slavery more political power, and you know, etc. So you can argue both ways.

Gene Tunny  28:21

Yeah. Okay. I was just interested in what that what that was. Exactly.

John Nantz  28:25

Yeah. So it gave the slave states more political representation. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  28:29

Okay. Yeah. Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  28:38

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with adept economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, www dot adapt economics.com.au We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  29:07

Now back to the show. Okay, so, you would argue in favour of rediscovering the rediscovering republicanism, the original vision, the values of the founding fathers? How would you apply this today? I mean, look, you’ve got them in the we’re in a different economy, aren’t we? We’ve got an industrialised society, more people living in urban areas. We don’t have the same I mean, there’s organised religions just fallen off a cliff. I mean, more so in Australia than in the United States. We’ve got a massive welfare state we’ve got money in events intervention everywhere. How would you go about it or what are you I suppose what do you see as the the worst areas or where would you apply this vision for as to how do you how would you see this applaud today, John?

John Nantz  30:04

Yeah, no? Great, great, great question. So what I would say is, you know, even at the founding period, the the federal government, the central, our central government had a lot to do. They were completely in charge of military National Defence, they were completely in charge of Foreign Affairs. They were completely in charge of intellectual property law. They were completely in charge of any legal disputes across state lines. This is the founding, by the way, this isn’t reason this is like at the beginning. So when we say, and I think it was an important insight, which is the founders didn’t say we shouldn’t have any central political power the the federal government constitution, the whole reason it exists is to stand up a federal power. A lot of people in United States don’t understand that. Okay. So it’s not about whether it should exist or not, it’s about what it should do. And I think that’s where we were, we got off, at least in our country, and I think a lot of countries across the developed world, particularly in the Anglophone world, we all we all actually have pretty similar traditions, we may think we’re really different. But, you know, compare yourself to China, right? Compare yourself to Russia, and I think we can realise, okay, there’s a lot of commonality among the English speaking peoples of the world. I think what we did in the United States is we just really index on on central power. You know, it depends on what country you’re talking about. But for us, it was really the Great Depression, we have would be called the New Deal in the United States, which just led to this massive profusion of federal power. We, the federal government get into the economy in a really big way. We had the creation of Social Security. We had Works Progress Administration, which employed millions of people to like do various projects across the country, regulatory state, social welfare. So the federal government, at least in our country, and I think in a lot across the world, took on responsibility for helping the the indigent among us, the people who are economically, in challenging circumstances. Wow. Right. That’s a massive amount. And they’re still doing national defence, and they’re still doing Foreign Affairs. And I would argue we’re not doing it that well. At least I’m just gonna say the United States in the last 50 years, I don’t think is a high is not a high point of American governance, right, you can look at, you know, the wars we fought in, I’m not sure those were the smartest wars, or poverty rate, really, isn’t that great. We have a massive homelessness problem, our education really hasn’t gotten better. So, you know, we we made this change. It sounded good. And then, of course, in my book, I talk about the evidence, I say, look, I think if you look at the evidence, it’s hard to say that this was a positive experiment, right, we ran an experiment, and things really didn’t get a tonne better in a lot of areas. So in the book, what I’m saying is, let’s rediscover some of those insights and apply them. And so we go back to those three things, the individual rights, the federalism or subsidiary of like using more local governments, and then civil society. So I quickly tick through through each if you like, individual rights. I think the most salient example there is, is retirement. We’ve got Social Security, we’ve got Medicare. In our country, I’m sure you all have similar programmes in Australia, if not even

Gene Tunny  33:14

more comprehensive, and more expansive. Yeah. Yeah. So

John Nantz  33:18

you guys have more expansive. We’ve had conversations in the United States about, you know, setting up individual accounts, you know, we’ve completely socialised your retirement income and healthcare, meaning you pay in some payroll taxes, and then the government promises to give you some money and to take your healthcare when you’re older. Which is one way to do it, I think a more American way to do it would be to give people individual accounts. So when they save money, it goes into an account with their name on it, that they get to have some influence and control over with a backstop. So if you run out of money, right, or if you are too low, or you need help topping off your healthcare premiums, the government’s there for you. But let’s at least give people an opportunity to kind of manage their own affairs. It’s a much more American way to do it. Right. I’m not saying it’s how every country should do it. The United States, I mean, people here like to take care of their own stuff. So this having a big social insurance model, which we kind of got stuck on, and it’s quite the narcotic. We’ve been on this since the 1930s. It’s hard to get off. But in my book, I think we should I argue we should. And I think there’s really good reasons to do that. And I think that would be a huge step towards getting back to a citizen first approach to life in the in the united states. States. The federal government, United States got into education, they’ve gone to social welfare. It’s gotten into a tonne of stuff. It’s kind of crazy. The idea that these people could manage all of this stuff simultaneously. It’s just horses completely far completely far fetched. So in the book, I basically argue some of these, some of these powers should go back to the state governments, we have 15. United States, I don’t know how many you guys have in Australia. But, you know, like homelessness, we’re not gonna figure it out in Washington DC, we’re just not, we may not figure it out, we may not figure it out anywhere. But I would prefer we have 50 Different states trying things. And to see what works, and some states are going to be more conservative, some states are gonna be more liberal, some states are going to have more law and order, some people are gonna be more permissive, fine, run all the experiments. It’s just like science 150 experiments get results you can learn from each other. Right? The centralised model is very, it’s actually not always nonscientific. It’s like, let’s just have some smart people come up with an idea. And that’s how it’s gonna be one way. That’s not science. Right? That’s philosopher Kane. That’s like, that’s like Plato, the, you know, going back to that way of looking at the world. So with these types of complex things, I just think we’re gonna get better results. If we let 50 different experiments. And let’s add Australia, let’s add Canada. I mean, we can learn from you guys. You can learn from us, these are global issues, and figure out what works and decentralise that. So that’s kind of like saying the book is let’s get the federal government out of some of these social issues, these kind of social welfare, domestic issues, and let the state governments take the lead.

Gene Tunny  36:21

Yeah, yeah. So you’ve got this vision of competitive federalism. And look, I? Yeah, I think there’s a there’s a good point there. There’s some good points there. Particularly, you see a state like California where it’s, I don’t know if you’d call it a failed state, but that it obviously is not the power that it once was. It said, it’s got some problems, and you’ve got people leaving California and going to places like Florida or Texas. So yeah, I am

John Nantz  36:51

one of those people. I lived in San Francisco and I moved to Austin, seven years ago. You’re looking at one of those refugees. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  36:58

yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. And that’s why

John Nantz  37:02

I love federalism, right? Because, you know, at least at least on some issues, I get to choose the regime I live under, you know, and I don’t mind that California does it that way. And they, if they want a top tax rate of 14%, and they want very lacks homeless rules, and they want all this stuff. There’s an argument for that. And there’s also an argument for no income tax, which we have in Texas, and law and order, you know, like, you can’t sleep and set up tents on the sidewalks in this state. We got we have we have places for you. We have camps, but it’s not downtown. Yeah. And, you know, and that’s just, that’s just how we do it. So, you know, I think it’s good. And we can learn from each other.

Gene Tunny  37:48

I’m wondering, John, with your, your idea of having the federal government get out of some of these areas? And I mean, I’m just thinking, I mean, what else needs? Have you thought about what else needs to happen? I mean, if I look at it, I think I mean, you talk about civil society. Now, you’d have to have a big increase or a big boost in civil society or in, you know, welfare philanthropy from, from the private sector to be able to fill that gap, because it’s going to be huge, was presumably when Lyndon Johnson introduced the Great Society. I mean, that was one of the periods where you had like FDR, but then you also had Johnson, who brought in a lot of the new welfare programmes, and then that’s right. Presumably, he was mean, I think, was he concerned about poor, the poor living in the Appalachians? Or there was some, you know, really remote areas of the states where people were living in really poor conditions. So it’s generally concerned about poverty. I’m just wondering, have you thought about, you know, how would this, how would this work? What else needs to happen? If you if the federal government suddenly I mean, what are you talking about? You’re talking about cutting the welfare programmes? I mean, how, what happens in that circumstance? You know,

John Nantz  39:10

I so it’s a great, it’s a good question. So I’m on welfare. I actually think just I think sending it to the States. I think there probably is a state role there. states in the United States had been had been involved in indigent programmes since the 1800s. So state governments have had a role here for a long time. What’s new is the federal government getting involved. That’s what’s relatively new. And it’s funny now, West Virginia is one of those conservative states in the country, which you were talking about women and Johnson referring to Appalachia, and they’re still quite poor. And the reason is, if you if you visit, is that they’ve seen the impacts of these programmes that for decades and you create dependency and you create a lack of work and you you know, federal government has a really hard time, right monitoring anything And so, yeah, it’s, that’s a whole thing we could go down. But there are a lot of things that are not helpful for people in the long run that that I think federal programmes are really not very good at determining like, are you an addict? Like if you’re an addict, there is a very big difference between someone who lost a job at a steel plant or a car plant and someone who is addicted to alcohol or opioids or whatever. And if you’re sitting both of them the check, right, which is what the federal government basically does, right? That’s kind of what they’re in the check distribution business in this country. That’s great for the person who’s down on their down on their luck, right? It’s really not good for the person, you’re you’re now literally paying someone to stay in the addiction cycle. And this is happening to millions people. I mean, you know, so there’s a finesse required. Poverty is so funny, because it’s conceptually really simple. It’s like, oh, here’s this person, they haven’t they don’t have enough money. Easy definition. The solution is really complicated. And it’s heterogeneous. It completely depends on the person, right. And people who in as part of my book, I cite people who spent decades working on this issue, and the one thing that’s consistent when you listen and learn and spend time with people who’ve worked with poor people, is able to tell you how complex it is. So and that is one thing that federal government is really bad at. And laws are really bad at because laws are, by definition, treating multiple cases the same way. That’s what law is about. That’s what they are trying to get at in my book is I think there’s something in that I think, I hope my book is making a contribution to this conversation, because what I’m arguing the book is, there’s something inherent, right? It’s not that we have bad people or that people are not competent. It’s the idea that somehow you’re going to pass laws that are going to create these formal bureaucratic programmes that are going to successfully tackle complex problems, like poverty is inherently a very questionable assumption. Yeah, right. Yeah. So that’s why I’m saying poverty, you push down to the states. They can work with social sector institutions, they can be much more innovative. And there’s a lot of evidence to support that. Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s I don’t think we get government completely out. I don’t. Yeah, I don’t personally support that. But I do. I think the state governments, I’d love to see them play a much bigger role, I think they’re gonna be a lot smarter, I think they’re gonna be a lot more creative. I think they’re gonna be able to handle diversity of cars a lot better. You know, that sorry, we’re having as a country, and I think we might get there. I gotta be honest. I’m actually, next 50 years, I think it’s possible that that some of the things I’ve talked about this book will will happen. Okay.

Gene Tunny  42:46

Finally, I’d like to ask you about healthcare, John. So I mean, one of the things like, from an Australian perspective, we look at the US and, and a lot of a lot of us over here would probably think, oh, we’d actually rather live in Australia with with the single payer or the socialised medicine, or whatever you want to call it, then in the US, because I mean, we we looks like we get better outcomes in terms of life expectancy. Now, I mean, this is not to necessarily be negative about what’s what’s happened in the States. But how do you see the role of government in in healthcare and you had the Obamacare now that didn’t really replicate what we’ve got here in Australia or the UK, but it moved to your way from where you were? And how do you see the role the federal government in in health care, given that if you look at other countries, it looks like there might be public support for that, or that looks like something that may be beneficial? How do you how do you think about health care in your framework?

John Nantz  43:53

Yeah, that’s a good it’s a good question. So yeah, I mean, look, the United States is a bit of an outlier in terms of how we do this with with a private market, really playing playing a leading role. What I would say on healthcare that I think might be interesting to your listeners is, there’s the way that I think about and this I think, helps kind of understand what’s going on the United States. You can there’s the consumption and provision of medical care and you can socialise or privatise either. So almost imagine a little bit of Punnett square. So I’ve got the provision, which is like supplying it, I can have private practices and all this stuff or I can have a nationalised socialised system, which you have in the UK, you sounds like you guys have in Australia. And then the consumption can actually also be privatised, or socialised meaning, the amount that’s provided to the to the citizen can be controlled or it could just be like, hey, the government’s gonna provide it but you can consume as much as you want. So you can privatise demand. In India, in a lot of developing countries, we have private supply and pry I have it consumption, meaning we have it. That’s true. That’s right. The government doesn’t have much involvement there. They do among among all people, and he have some insurance companies but they actually have a lot of self pay. So it’s almost like a it’s like an actual market. Would you see there is typical market dynamics is actually relatively low cost, actually decently high quality. Then you have you guys UK, socialised consumption, socialised provision, the doctors are paid by the government. And and there’s waitlists meaning Yeah, hey, this is how many surgeries we’re going to do. And you just get in line and you wait until your spot opens up. So it’s socialised consumption. We have a very weird thing where we socialised the consumption. But we privatised the provision. So we socialised a lot of people’s consumption. So they’re gonna buy a lot of it. But then we actually privatise the doctors are still for profit companies. Yeah, well, that’s gonna get you guess what that’s gonna get you that’s gonna get you really expensive. You’re gonna spend a tonne of money because I still have a bottom line as a hospital or a physician group. But my consumers don’t care. Well, that’s where you get the United States where we have 8090 $20,000 per capita. And like you said, accurately, we don’t have better life expectancy. We just don’t. That’s the evidence. So I don’t get a tonne of I don’t get into this a tonne in the book. But I think to the extent that we can, if we’re going to privatise the provision, if we can do something to incentivize, we probably I think that’s not a stable equilibrium. I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think it’s stable. You’re either gonna go socialise or you’re gonna go privatise, you can’t have the middle because in the middle, it gets super, super expensive, which is what we have. You either have market forces, controlling demand, like you have in India and China, and some other developing countries, which actually has some benefits to it, or you go full social. That actually does make sense. There’s an argument for that. So I think we’re in a bit of an unstable equilibrium. Switzerland has a model similar to this where they have private insurance companies, and then they basically help people pay for their insurance. That’s probably where America is going to land. Honestly, this is in the Obamacare in the ACA like world, where we base is you take take Medicare, for example, with the United States, it’s our programme for old age 65. And up. The portion of the party that’s growing the most is Medicare Advantage, which is private insurance companies getting people’s premiums and supplying them as opposed to Medicare, which is the government programme. And Medicare Advantage is almost up to 50%. So what we’re finding is American seniors are choosing the for profit insurance company, just apply their care. And it’s completely voluntary. Ron? Yeah. So look, healthcare is super complicated. I work at it from a business perspective. I wish I could tell you where it’s going. I can’t. But yeah, I don’t think what we have now is sustainable.

Gene Tunny  48:05

Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I mean, I don’t have the answers, either. I just, I’m just interested in how, in how you do things over there. And yeah, well, I mean, I mean, there’s like one point that john cochran made, or John was at a, an event, he came over to Australia for a reserve bank conference, and I interviewed him at an event in Sydney recently, and the point that he made was that if you want to, you know, the US still has the best treatment of the world. I mean, you have to be able to if you’ve got the insurance, and you can get the best cancer treatment, best treatment for anything in the world. So there are some great things about the American system and, and you don’t have to wait as you might do if you go have to go to a public hospital here in Australia. That’s one of the issues of the cueing. So yeah, look, there are some the pros and cons with each system. So yeah, just thought I’d better clarify that this has been great.

John Nantz  48:57

I love Yeah, well, and I love the question. And I would just say Do you mind if I can I know you’re trying to get your heads up? I was just gonna say that. It is really interesting. Because one way to look at this and this is an economics perspective is the US when you look at profit pools. So when you look at where our drug companies and medical device and technology companies making money, the US is I think two thirds of the profit pool not revenue profit pool, right? Yeah. Two thirds. So here’s what’s interesting is if we did socialise and the political will go down massively because the government would buy everything, you would absolutely see a reduction. i There’s no i I don’t know. I’d love to see this argue the other way. But I’m I’m pretty confident. Yeah. Just based on basic economics, that the province will drop that much, you would see a substantial reduction in drug development medical device, because what’s happening now is the United States mark is basically subsidising r&d. Yeah. What’s the what’s the developed world globally? People in Australia are benefiting from if we socialised and our market shrunk and was more competitive. We took our cost per capita from 18 to 12, which we could absolutely do. Right? There’d be a lot less money and all those things. And so knee replacements, you know, weight loss, drugs, diabetes, drugs, all the stuff that we all love with the pace that it would slow. So there’s a huge benefit globally. So the way that we’re doing it, I’m just not sure we’re seeing the benefit.

Gene Tunny  50:26

Yeah, personally, I think that’s a good point. And that’s the point that Russ Roberts has made, if I recall correctly on econ talk, so very, very good point. Yeah. Okay. I just might clarify a couple of things, John, because just so I don’t give you the wrong impression of what we do over here in Australia. So yeah, we do have, we’ve got a Medicare system, which covers a lot of, you know, the whole population, which means you can go to the doctor and get a lot of that, that primary care paid for. We’ve got state hos state hospital systems are a public public hospitals, which will, you know, provide the free health care for people, but we also have a private system, you can get private insurance, and then you can go to a private hospital if you want to. But, I mean, there’s a heavy reliance on the the public healthcare system in Australia, and Medicare does pay for a lot of basic services. So health care, primary health care, and also, you know, AI tests and things like that for, for the whole population. So, you know, we definitely do things different. The other thing is retirement. We’ve got, we do have those individual accounts, like you’re talking about, but we still have the back, we’ve got a backstop of the pensions, the age pension system, but the fact is that most people can arrange their affairs so that they get either the full pension or part pension, right, you need to accumulate a lot in your individual retirement account not to actually get access to the pension. So we introduced individual retirement accounts, compulsory, super, but we haven’t actually, we haven’t really tried to avoid the problem that they were trying to, to avoid.

John Nantz  52:05

Yeah, bit of what you guys are ahead of us there. You guys are ahead of us there. Yeah. It’s so funny, because I’m like, sometimes I’m like, Yeah, I feel like we’re really, the United States is really behind the ball in a lot of ways. It’s like, you guys are doing it. Sweden is doing it. The United Kingdom is doing it. I mean, I would argue more left wing countries in general, right. But when you look at the actual policy, it’s like not really, right. I mean, you guys have these, we don’t have that. We have 401k, as you all know, stuff. But yeah, we don’t have it in our government system. And the thing is, Gene two is like this stuff is going to take decades to play out, you know, so it’s like, you guys got it set up. But you have to get this really high threshold. You know, very few people are there. You know, but let’s, you know, give it 2030 4050 years, you know, saying And and I think it’ll start to work.

Gene Tunny  52:51

Yeah. All right. John. Nance, thanks so much for the conversation on your book rediscovering republicanism, I really found that really enlightening. And I really like how you’ve thought a lot about these issues and the, the, you know, the founding vision and the values and how that could be applied in the modern context. I think that’s, that’s terrific. And I really enjoyed the conversation. So thanks so much, John. Thanks,

John Nantz  53:17

Jen. Really appreciate it. Thank you for the time.

Gene Tunny  53:19

Thank you. rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

54:09

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian dash productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

The Future of Coffee: Climate Change & Rising Prices w/ Raihaan Esat, International Coffee Traders  – EP217

Quality coffee will be much more expensive in the future, partly due to climate change, according to International Coffee Traders’ Raihaan Esat. Show host Gene Tunny and co-host Tim Hughes are joined by Raihaan in this episode. They delve into the global coffee market, discussing how Raihaan sources coffee beans from various countries and the factors that affect coffee prices. They also explore the impact of climate change on the coffee market. Take advantage of this deep dive into the fascinating world of coffee.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP217

  • [00:01:51] The impacts of climate change on the coffee market.
  • [00:06:52] Sourcing coffee from farms.
  • [00:07:31] Commercialized coffee farming.
  • [00:12:51] Farming practices and coffee flavor.
  • [00:18:34] Cafe Feminino and empowerment.
  • [00:19:23] Coffee cooperative communities.
  • [00:26:05] Quality differences in coffee sourcing.
  • [00:27:58] Specialty coffee.
  • [00:31:28] Antioxidants and coffee benefits.
  • [00:35:15] Coffee and sustainability.
  • [00:42:03] Coffee production and pricing.
  • [00:42:23] Coffee supply chain logistics and financing.
  • [00:45:21] Shelf life of green coffee.
  • [00:47:13] Coffee demand and market trends worldwide. 
  • [00:49:45] Emerging coffee markets.
  • [00:51:33] Climate change and coffee production.
  • [00:56:03] The future of coffee.
  • [01:00:07] Exploring coffee variations.

Takeaways

  • The biggest problem for coffee roasters is controlling costs and accessing good quality green coffee: the right coffee at the right price.  [00:05:57
  • Supply and demand determine the price of coffee at the end of the day. [00:36:42
  • High-quality coffee is going to get more expensive as supply is affected by climate change [00:53:26
  • You should spend some time learning how to craft a nice cup of coffee just like you would learn how to make great pasta or a steak or a dessert. [00:58:59]

Links relevant to the conversation

Coffee Commune and International Coffee Traders:

https://www.coffeecommune.com.au/

https://www.coffeecommune.com.au/international-coffee-traders/

Tim’s new coffee brand Lumo Coffee, “Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee”:

https://lumocoffee.com/

Cafe Feminino:

https://www.cafefemenino.com/

Aquiares estate in Costa Rica:

https://www.aquiares.com/

https://www.instagram.com/aquiarescoffee/?hl=en

Arturo’s Adept Economics website article on coffee:

https://adepteconomics.com.au/coffees-economic-contribution-in-australia/

Transcript: The Future of Coffee: Climate Change & Rising Prices w/ Raihaan Esat, International Coffee Traders  – EP217

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to clear up any confusion left behind by an otter in a rush. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Raihaan Esat  0:03  

We see countries that never used to produce coffee starting to produce coffee, or traditionally weren’t coffee growing countries, because the climate now is starting to move in a range that is suitable for coffee production. So maybe they were too cold or too high in altitude to be sustainable for coffee production. But as the climate is generally warming up suddenly that, that geography of that area now is suitable for coffee production.

Gene Tunny  0:36  

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode. Please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, and welcome to the show. This episode is all about the coffee market. My occasional co host Tim Hughes and I are joined by coffee guru, Raihaan Esat, from International Coffee Traders which is based at Phillip Di Bella’s Coffee Commune here in Brisbane. Over the last 15 years, Rai has gone from starting as a part-time Barista to winning Australia’s most prestigious coffee industry award. The Hall of Fame Award at this year’s Golden Bean Australasia competition. Stay tuned for a deep dive into the coffee market thanks to Rai. We explore how Rai sources coffee beans from farms in Brazil, Peru, Ethiopia and other countries. And we talk about demand and supply factors that affect coffee prices. Rai gives us some deep insights into the impacts of climate change on the coffee market. He explains why he thinks high quality coffee is going to become much more expensive in the future. Let me know if you have any feedback on this episode. Are there any aspects of the global coffee market you’d like us to explore more deeply in a future episode? Please let me know. My contact details are in the show notes. Righto, I hope you enjoy our conversation with Rai from International Coffee Traders.

Raihaan Esat from International Coffee Traders, welcome to the programme.

Raihaan Esat  2:25  

It’s fantastic to be here. I’m really excited.

Gene Tunny  2:28  

Excellent Rai, we’ve got Tim as well. Tim, good to be with you again on another Economics Explored podcast episode.

Tim Hughes  2:36  

Yeah, always a pleasure, Gene. Good to be here.

Gene Tunny  2:38  

Yes. So we’re at the Coffee Commune which is this amazing venue in Brisbane. It’s on Abbotsford Road at Bowen Hills. And actually Rai, would you be able to explain what is the Coffee Commune and you know, what’s your role here, please?

Raihaan Esat  2:54  

Sure thing, from a high standpoint, I guess the Coffee Commune is like a village. It’s a village of many businesses all working together collaboratively, to help advance each other to accelerate each other’s potential. The Coffee Commune provides a lot of services around that. But it basically provides just the resources and access that, and educational opportunities that allows these businesses to really thrive. So it’s all based around coffee, coffee production, hospitality, and education.

Gene Tunny  3:26  

Gotcha. So when I come in here, I mean, our first introduction to Coffee Commune, well, I was, I gave a talk here last year I think, I was on a panel. And that was in the area, there’s a cafe restaurant or you know, an area where you have functions. And but you’ve also got, you actually do roasting here, don’t you? There’s a roasting part of the operation. You’ve got these big German, are they German machines?

Raihaan Esat  3:47 

They’re Italian.

Gene Tunny 3:51

They’re Italian okay. Yeah, for some reason I thought they were German.

Raihaan Esat  3:57  

There’s a lot of German bits and pieces in them, but they’re mostly Italian.

Gene Tunny  4:04  

Gotcha. And you’ve also got these silos full of raw coffee beans, green coffee beans.

Raihaan Esat  4:09  

Yeah, see, it would take me two hours to tell you everything that the Coffee Commune does. But in a nutshell, it’s solving the three biggest problems that are facing people in the coffee industry at the moment. And that’s access to resources, knowledge and education, and standing out from a crowd. So you know, within the scope of that, the Coffee Commune provides services and support to help people accelerate their business. If I can give you a very quick example, if you want to start a coffee brand, you generally need education, support and resources. Instead of buying your own and setting up your own facility to do that. You can come in and use the resources here. It’s like We Work for coffee.

Gene Tunny  4:50  

Yeah, and this is what Tim’s done. I mean, Tim, we can chat about your brand later, but you’ve set up Lumo Coffee using the resources here at the Coffee Commune which is pretty amazing. So we can talk about that.

Tim Hughes  5:00  

Uh, yeah, that’s right. I mean without these guys, Lumo Coffee wouldn’t be a thing. So, yeah, I’m uh I guess one of the graduates of this village.

Raihaan Esat  5:12  

Tim is one of the startups. Yeah, we have 75 Coffee Roasters all producing coffee here at the Commune. About 20 of them are startups, including Tim as one of them. And within that scope, I have two functions. Mine, first of all, is to import green coffee from farms directly and bring it into Australia and sell to coffee roasters. The second part is to introduce people to the commune, and grow the family.

Gene Tunny  5:38  

Gotcha. So is that what you’re the business you’re part of? International Coffee Traders, can you tell us a bit about that please Rai?

Raihaan Esat  5:45  

Yeah, so if I go deeper into International Coffee Traders, it’s, it’s a resource and for the for the coffee industry, for the coffee roasters in particular. The biggest problem for coffee roasters is controlling costs, accessing good quality green coffee, the right coffee at the right price. You have to start with a raw product, then roast it and then turn it into coffee drinks. That’s what coffee roasters do. So the raw product is what I specialise in. Sourcing that from farms, overseas countries like Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, all the classic coffee growing regions. I source coffee from there, depending on what my clients want.

Gene Tunny  6:28  

Okay, so what does this sourcing look like? Are you hopping on a plane? Or have you got agents over there who help you out? How do you? How do you identify the right farms? Or how does it all work? That’s what’s that’s what’s fascinating me, are there, are the wholesalers? I mean I imagine there are wholesalers like how do you how does it all work? How does it get from the farm to Abbotsford Road in Brisbane, Australia? And, you know, farms in Peru or Brazil or wherever?

Raihaan Esat  6:55  

Yeah the coffee world is huge. And it’s so diverse. Country to country is very different. Each country has their own models of how you can buy from them. For example, in Ethiopia, up until very recently, you had to buy from something called the ECX, the Ethiopian Commodities Exchange, you couldn’t actually go to a coffee farmer directly and say, I want to buy your coffee. The coffee farmer had to sell their coffee to the ECX and the ECX then on sells to people like me. That’s Ethiopia is an example. Compare that with Brazil, which is highly commercialised, very, very well established and has huge, huge farms that are the size of small countries sometimes. You, there’s there’s one farm that Phil visited a few years ago, they have an airport landing strip on their farm. They have a dairy on their farm, you know, they’re massive. And you can go directly to the farm and say, Mr. Coffee farmer, I want to buy your coffee, and they will sell it to you directly. And then there’s infinite shades of grey in between. So in terms of contacting traditionally, yes, you had to go over there and visit the farms to make contact. But this is now 2023 borderline 2024. Everyone is on WhatsApp. Everyone’s on email. Everyone’s on Instagram. So it’s easy to connect with a coffee farmer literally on Facebook now and say, Hey, looks like you’re doing interesting stuff, can we, can we connect? Send me some samples? Let’s talk give me a guided tour of your farm on online basically.

Gene Tunny  8:32  

Yep and what criteria do you use to choose the suppliers? The farmers?

Raihaan Esat  8:38  

Yeah, so I’m really led by my clients. So for example, if a client of mine comes to me and says, I want a coffee with an organic certification, or Rainforest Alliance certification, which protects native rainforest as well, and it must taste sweet, fruity and vibrant. Those are my criteria to then go hunting. Traditionally, the client may have been using Colombian coffee. And roasters tend to play it safe, they tend to like, I was buying Colombian coffee so I was, I want to stick with Colombian coffee. But my job is to kind of challenge that a little bit and go, Hey, there’s also great options in Ecuador, or in Peru or in Guatemala, which may taste very similar for better value or better, better on the seasonal scale of freshness. They might be in season compared to the coffee that you’re using is out of season. So there’s a lot of, it’s a global perspective we have to take to try to find the right coffee at the right price.

Tim Hughes  9:43  

Yeah, it’s interesting because with so I remember seeing somewhere that coffee was the second most traded commodity in the world. Is that right?

Raihaan Esat  9:51  

Yeah, that gets floated around quite a lot. A lot of people sort of throw that stat out and say I’d say it’s the second most traded commodity in the world after oil. So coffee is traded on an exchange on a commodities exchange. And you can literally buy and sell futures on coffee, if you wanted to, you could jump on one of these trading platforms and buy and sell coffee. The difference between say coffee and foreign currency or any of the other others is that someone actually has to take delivery of coffee. It’s a physical product, it’s an agricultural product. So while it’s traded, there’s a lot of paper being pushed around. And then eventually, that coffee has to land up in someone’s warehouse. But it is very, very, very heavily traded. Especially because it seems sometimes as a bit of a safe haven when currencies are moving around a bit or interest rates are moving around a little bit. You know, how speculators work? Sometimes they’ll move investments from gold to foreign currency, depending on what seems to be the safer option at the time. Coffee is one of them.

Gene Tunny  10:56  

Yeah, so you’ll have speculators who they won’t ever actually want to take delivery of the coffee. Right. But they’re jumping into the market to try and pick up some plays.

Raihaan Esat  11:05  

Some plays on the movements.

Gene Tunny  11:09  

Yeah, yeah, gotcha. And what’s happening? I’m interested in the different countries, are there different flavour profiles for different countries? Or does it depend on the farm I mean I imagine it depends on climatic conditions on the soils, etc.

Raihaan Esat  11:24  

So I’m gonna make the wine analogy here, coffee is a bit like wine, where you have these broad characterizations based on country, you know, roughly New Zealand wine tastes a certain way, and French wine tastes a certain way. Similarly, with coffee, there are broad categorizations. But then within each category, within each country, there’s infinite amount of variables and agricultural practices that can then modify the flavour. So a practical example of Brazilian coffee generally, at a commodity level, tastes quite nutty. It’s, it’s mild, it’s mellow. It’s quite nutty. It’s coffee that tastes like coffee. And then you go to Ethiopia and the standard coffee that comes out of Ethiopia generally is quite vibrant, and lively, and sometimes has some fruit notes to it. So those are the broad categorizations. And every country has its own rough, sort of flavour profile. And that is somewhat dependent on the terrain, the variety, the commercial varieties that are grown there, and then the general farming practices. So I think the geography and the farming practices and the genetics are fairly self explanatory. But the farming practices can have such a huge impact on the flavour of the coffee as well. For example, in countries like Rwanda and Burundi, these sort of central African countries, up until very late recently, it was completely illegal to process your coffee using the what’s called a dry process. All the coffee had to be washed. And there’s a lot of stuff online, you can look up if you want to go deeper into that, what washed coffee is and what dry coffee is, but it was mandated by the government, that your coffee if you produced it had to be washed. Whereas you go to a country like Yemen, which is in the middle of the desert, but produces coffee, they have no water, so they cannot do washed coffee, they have to do all of their coffee as dry coffee. And that’s that’s a post harvest practice that has a massive influence on the flavour of the coffee. That’s that comes out at the end.

Gene Tunny  13:44  

Gotcha, but one other thing. What’s the difference? There are Arabica beans, and there are Robusta beans. Is that right? There’s a difference?

Raihaan Esat  13:54  

Yeah, I guess. They they both taste like coffee to some degree. But they’re like two different species. It’s like comparing an apple and a pear. They are slightly different species. And there’s a number of these sort of genetic families or species that exist within coffee. Arabica is very well known because of the marketing machine always says, drink Arabica. 100% Arabica, it is better than Robusta. Robusta generally is a little bit harsher, a little bit more bitter, has a lot more caffeine in it, and grows at a different altitude. But having said that, I’ve tasted some Arabicas that are so poorly processed, or so poorly created at the farm, I guess, that they taste worse than Robustas so quality of post production at the farm level does have a massive impact on the quality of flavour as well.

Tim Hughes  14:50  

Actually on that note, because I know there are three processes in having a great cup of coffee so the farming and the sourcing is one like how that part of the the process is done, and then the roasting is obviously really significant as to how it’s roasted and the temperatures and the time, and then how it’s made at the final stage. So if only one of those three stages isn’t done well, then the whole thing can be, well sort of fall apart a little bit.

Raihaan Esat  15:20  

Yeah, it’s like, the best analogy I can make is like, like a professional chef. Sourcing Green Coffee is like sourcing a great steak, or a great piece of ingredients that you’re gonna then transform into a delicious dish. That’s the roasting component of coffee. That’s where the chef takes a really amazing ingredient, turns it into something delicious. And then service at the end in the cafe is like the plating the final touch. They all matter, you can have the best chef make the best dish. If they don’t present it well. It just lacks something. So at any step in the process, whether it’s farming, whether it’s roasting, or whether it’s production in the cafe, it can all fall over and be butchered. So each each step in the chain is equally important. And each one is a craft. It’s a skill. It’s something that adds value to the coffee as it progresses along the chain.

Gene Tunny  16:16  

Yeah. You mentioned was it Rainforest Alliance Certification?

Raihaan Esat  16:22  

Yeah, so there’s a few different certifications that exist in the coffee industry for different reasons. Some are on sustainability, some are on farming practices, some are ethical standards. Rainforest Alliance, for example, mandates that a coffee farm should allocate a certain proportion of their farm to regenerating rainforest. For example, in Costa Rica, some of the coffee farms, the coffee farm that we deal with is a amazing coffee farm and community called Aquiares Estate. They are a community, people live on the farm, and they dedicate a lot of time to, to looking after the native rainforest. That is part of the ecosystem of their farm. It’s really, really an amazing community and encourage everyone to go and look up Aquiares Estate. They’re on Instagram there, they put up a lot of pictures of what they do. Their coffee is stunning.

Gene Tunny  17:19  

I’ll put a link in the show notes here for sure. Yeah, that sounds sounds sounds great. And I know that Tim your coffee is coming from, is your coffee coming from a community of women in Peru somewhere.

Tim Hughes  17:31  

The decaf is. So we’ve got the three coffees. Two of them are actually the same bean but a different roast. So that’s, and they all happen to be from Peru so that the caffeinated bean Luma Sol, as we’ve called it, we have a dark roast and a lighter roast. And so that is from a different place to the decaf. So the decaf, the one you’re mentioning, is the Cafe Femenino Decaf. And so I mean, Rai you’ve got more information on that, I know. But basically, it’s a co op of female farmers who, a lot of the profits go back into the community and libraries and schools. And it’s a fascinating, it’s a really, yeah, same Cafe Femenino. If we put it in the show notes, and if people could check it out, because it’s just one of those things, there seems to be in coffee, a lot of intent and purpose to do the right thing. And and Cafe Femenino was a really good example of that. Have you got anything to add to that, Rai?

Raihaan Esat  18:34  

Yeah. So this is an example of how some countries have structures in coffee that are not as simple as you might think. It’s not as easy as just going to a farmer and saying, I want to buy your coffee, for example, some of these farms at Cafe Femenino in Peru, they’re very small. They don’t actually have the resources to process their own coffee. So they grow coffee on the land that they have in their backyard, for example, or they may have a couple of acres of land and they’re producing coffee. But what they do is all the women producers in that area, then collect their coffee together and take it to a central processing plant where the fruit is removed from the seed, the coffee gets dried out and it all gets graded, the defects are removed. So they’re working together as a community. And they’re sharing a resource. It’s kind of a bit like the Coffee Commune here in Brisbane, where we have one resource and it’s being shared in the community. That’s how Cafe Femenino are working. And there’s a number of other countries that have similar styles of cooperative coffee production, so to speak, and they put so much back into their own communities from what they make.

Gene Tunny  19:49  

Yeah, with the grading. Is there an international standard for grading and who does the grading are there professional graders?

Raihaan Esat  19:57  

Yeah, that’s a great question. There, there is an in International Standard, it’s run by an organisation called the Specialty Coffee Association. They used to be an American Association, they’re European they have since merged. And they’ve basically set the global standard that is accepted everywhere. We have a lab here at the Coffee Commune in Brisbane, that is the only lab of its kind in Queensland, there’s a few around the country. But basically, we can look at a sample of green coffee, grade it, and then compare our results with labs all around the world. So hypothetically, if a coffee roaster looks at their green coffee and goes, I’m worried about this, I think it’s got a few defects in it, which you know, I wasn’t expecting, can you grade it for me, they don’t have to send the coffee back to the farm, to get checked, they can just send it to the lab here in Brisbane, we will check it and produce a report, which is, anyone around the world can read it as long as they are running the same the same systems as us which they are generally.

Gene Tunny  21:03  

And what’s being graded. Is it being graded for bitterness or I mean what’s…?

Raihaan Esat  21:09  

Yeah, there are two parts. There’s green grading, and then what we call cupping. So green grading is where you look at the green product that’s arrived. And if you think about it, green coffee is the seed of the coffee fruit. So it’s an it’s not a uniform thing. Every single seed is an individual. And there are many things that can go wrong in the process of producing that coffee. So if you imagine 1000 coffee plants all producing seeds that get harvested, some of those are going to be picked when they’re underripe. Some are going to be overripe. Some are gonna have insect damage on them. When they, after they get hulled and pulped. Some of them will get chipped or broken. Sometimes there’ll be mould that grows on the coffee. Sometimes they will be what we call sours or, and floaters, those are just immature coffees. So the the best quality coffee is what you imagine is the perfect coffee bean. It’s round, it’s shiny, it’s green, it’s got no additional defects to it. It’s got no mould growing on it. It’s not blackened or overripe. It was the fruit picked at its optimum ripeness, and then processed correctly and all the defects removed. Having said that defect-free coffee generally doesn’t exist. Right? There will always be to some degree some defects. So we categorise primary defects and secondary defects. So we couldn’t ask, for example, part of my job, a lot of my clients will say, I want this coffee and I want no primary defects in it. Primary defects are serious defects in the coffee. So for example, in the sample, if you take a sample of the green coffee, which is 350 grammes, and you look through it and you sort through it, you might find one which is completely encased in fungus.

Gene Tunny  23:10  

Haha, right? Yeah,

Raihaan Esat  23:12  

That would be a primary defect that that now eliminates that coffee as an option for that client. If we find no primary defects, there’s a whole guide book on this that explains every defect in coffee. There’s a number of them. We then look into secondary defects. Yeah, they might be like a little insect that has bored a hole into the coffee. One little hole on that seed might be a partial defect, but it’s not that serious compared to a full mouldy bean.

Tim Hughes  23:45  

And what’s the sample size of that Rai?

Raihaan Esat  23:47  

350 grammes

Tim Hughes  23:49  

350 grams sorry Yeah. Yeah, cool.

Raihaan Esat  23:52  

The next step is to do what we call cupping, which is to roast the sample of that coffee and then taste it. So there’s a sensory evaluation that has to happen. And the sensory evaluation is then scored out of 10. Well, sorry, it’s it’s out of 100. The, to qualify as specialty coffee, it has to score 80 or above. So for example, on the score sheet, we’re looking for things like flavour, acidity, balance, aftertaste, body, we’re looking for consistency across multiple cups. The score sheet is quite intimidating when you first look at it. But once you use it a few times, it’s actually quite straightforward.

Gene Tunny  24:36  

Yeah. So you’re looking at specialty coffees and you’re often going to what small or medium sized coffee farms is that right? Are there, I’m just wondering like, how is the market segmented because like, what about one of these, you know, what about Nestle? Or, or what’s the big, is it Dutch or the company that owns Moccona? I can never remember, I don’t know how to pronounce their name.

Raihaan Esat  25:03  

Douwe Egberts, JDE

Gene Tunny  25:07  

JDE, Gotcha. And like they must buy huge quantities of coffee. So they’re massive, do they just have massive coffee farms that are contracted to them to supply, are you dealing with the same ones?

Raihaan Esat  25:18  

Pretty much, pretty much so you can buy coffee on forward contracts. For example, JDE might say say, we project that we’re going to need 500 tonnes, 500 containers of coffee, each container being 20 tonnes next year. They can approach their producers and contract that coffee ahead of time and say this is the quality spec we expect. And we’re going to buy 500 containers from you over the next year. Now not every farm can fulfil that. So they may go alright, that farm can fulfill 20 containers, we have to now find other suppliers for the remaining balance of our requirements. So they do what I do, but on a much larger scale.

Gene Tunny  26:03  

Gotcha. But with what you do, does that mean you can get, like that they’ll have to go for something more, like are they basically going for something that is more mass market? And maybe they accept more defects than then you would? I mean, are there differences in in the quality of the coffee sourced? The the flavours, that sort of thing? I mean, you’re you’re producing specialty coffees, aren’t you? So you can go really niche? Is that right?

Raihaan Esat  26:30  

Well, I’ll, I’ll use Starbucks as a bit of an example for this because this is probably a better a better case study for your question. Starbucks buys very good quality coffee, what tends to happen is sometimes it goes wrong in the roasting or in the extraction phase, where if people tend to go “ah Starbucks is crap”, or they don’t like, they don’t like what they get from there. Starbucks has never promoted that they sell the best coffee in the world, but they’re very good at what they do. And they do buy very good coffee. And it’s all about setting up the requirements for quality before they go to market, just like you would in any procurement business. You set up what you need, what your requirements and projections are, and then you go to market and you try and find it or as close to it as possible.

Gene Tunny  27:19  

Gotcha. Would you be buying from similar farms to what Starbucks or JDE would be buying from?

Raihaan Esat  27:28  

Yeah. To some degree. So every every farm produces all levels of quality. A farm can produce absolute garbage, middle of the range coffee and super high quality coffee, because it’s an agricultural product, it then gets sorted, right? And so you get these different quality grades coming out of every farm on the planet. So it’s just about setting up the parameters of what you want. So we would buy, we buy everything from commercial grades of coffee, what we call commodity coffee, to specialty coffee, to super fancy boutique coffees, like experimental things, which haven’t hit the market yet. You know, we’re we’re funding where we’ve partnered with a producer in Colombia. And he wants to do some experiments. And we’re helping him set up the lab and the resources that he needs to do interesting fermentations using yeasts and bacterias to produce interesting and crazy flavours in coffee.

Tim Hughes  28:31  

That does sound interesting.

Gene Tunny  28:33  

And what’s Tim, is Tim, are you a specialty coffee Tim?

Raihaan Esat  28:37

Tim’s a specialty coffee yes.

Gene Tunny  28:39  

Right? Tim, you set some parameters for Rai didn’t you, how did that interaction work?

Tim Hughes  28:43  

Yeah, that was it was funny, actually, because it started when we came over last year when you were on that panel and got introduced to the Coffee Commune and seeing what you guys did here Rai was really interesting. And it was the right time with a lot of the work that I was doing, you know, my background in the health industry and listening to all the research on the health properties of coffee. Because it’s had a chequered past people, you know, that caffeine obviously sometimes isn’t great for everybody and overconsumption, you know, can be a problem. But the health benefits, the antioxidants, the polyphenols, chlorogenic acids, these properties are where the health aspects of coffee often comes in. So it was really interesting, and I had a chat with Rai about it. And I think at that time, no one had actually mentioned..

Raihaan Esat  29:31  

Tim’s request was one of the more unusual requests that I’ve ever seen in my life, but er…

Tim Hughes  29:36 

Thank you very much.

Raihaan Esat  29:38  

Normally people come to me and they go, Oh, look, I want coffee that tastes like this, or I want coffee that tastes like that, or it’s got to be at this price point. Those are 99.9% of the parameters that we work in. And then Tim comes along and he goes I want coffee that’s healthy for you. I went okay, we don’t have a measurement system for that. How do we measure that? He said I have, I’ve got a solution for that, we can do lab testing and figure out what the antioxidant levels are in coffee. And we want to do some testing and find out which one is the healthiest coffee that we can get. So, you know, that started the journey with, with Tim.

Gene Tunny  30:19  

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  30:24  

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  30:53  

Now back to the show.

Tim just a question for you. Why do we care about antioxidants?

Tim Hughes  31:03  

Good question. I mean, basically, from health terms, antioxidants are what would be the chemicals or properties that combat free radicals in our body. So the oxygenation process in our body where cancers can thrive and the ageing process and all of these things they are basically free radicals running around our our system, antioxidants are known to combat those. So antioxidants in our systems generally work well for us, they slow down the anti ageing process. They’ve been shown, this is where new studies are coming through all the time, they’ve been shown that they can help prevent heart disease. They’ve got, you know, improved cognitive function. There’s so many different areas where they’ve been shown to be beneficial for us. And coffee is a good way of getting those antioxidants into your system. They’re also a good source of fibre, which was a new thing to me, that was a fairly recent thing I heard from, Dr. Tim Spector is somebody who does a lot of work with the microbiome. And he was he was stating that coffee is definitely a health food because he’d had different, a lot of people have changed their minds on coffee. And he’s one person who had changed his mind on coffee. He said, Yeah, it’s definitely a health food. It’s good for the microbiome, you get about three grammes of fibre from a cup. You know, if you have three cups of coffee a day that can supply 25% of your regular daily allowance of fibre, which, you know, for a lot of people, there’s not enough fibre in their diet. So it’s not just the antioxidants, it’s all these other areas.

Raihaan Esat  32:40  

Yeah what really stood out to me when we did the testing was what the variability was from one coffee to another. So you know, there’s a lot of good research out there that says coffee has antioxidants, that it has these health benefits for you. But choosing the right coffee can really accelerate that. And you can get very different results, depending on what coffee you choose. And it seemed like just, you know, just off the small sample set of data that we had, that the high grown organic coffees tended to perform better than the lower grown coffees that were not organic. So that was really, really revealing to me, and I found that super interesting.

Tim Hughes  33:22  

And it’s that thing of like, you know, you could you could get a coffee with even higher antioxidant levels than than the ones we have, but it has to taste great as well, you know, so these compromises that you do, you can’t do everything, purely for the antioxidants. It’s, it’s a bit of a balance. And I’m really happy with where we got ours to but we’re constantly on the search like we’ve got other beans that we’re checking out from different regions at the moment. So it’ll be an ongoing thing we’ll add either add or or move out coffees as we go along. Because that actually, that leads into something I was, we were going to talk about anyway. So that maybe this is a good time, Rai to talk about the supply and demand for coffee. Because it’s a living growing thing. It must be hard to secure coffee sufficient to demand all the time. So there’s a few prongs to this question. One is, is the overall supply or sorry, the overall demand of coffee, is that growing or is it plateaued? And the supply of coffee, is that because it appears from different, different people that I hear from that it’s getting more challenging to grow the coffee because it’s quite a sensitive plant with the altitude and the conditions and with the changing climate that that can be affecting the future of coffee growth. So with that, have we plateaued with the supply? Are we good with the with the demand, etc?

Raihaan Esat  34:47  

Okay, so, short answer good news. We’re not going to run out of coffee.

Tim Hughes  34:51

That’s good news.

Raihaan Esat  34:53  

But there’s a couple of key factors and it’s a very big full bodied “but” that I have to put in here. There’s agricultural factors. There’s economic factors. And then there’s demographic factors that are really interplaying in interesting ways right now within the coffee industry globally. So we read, read the global food and beverage report for 2023. And that showed demographics wise, who’s drinking coffee? And where are they drinking coffee? So generally speaking, you’ve got sort of your professionals, slightly older generation tend to be drinking more coffee than the younger generation right now. So across the demographics, you’ve got one population drinking the same or more coffee daily, but you’ve got one generation that’s slightly in decline. So that will transfer later to probably a slightly declining requirement for coffee. But it’s not declining at the same rate as production is at the moment, there is a problem with agriculture. Coffee is not sustainable generally speaking, for a lot of producers, the variability in the markets, the climate change, the difficulties of producing coffee consistently, because it’s an agricultural and seasonal product. The demands of producing coffee to the level that we are demanding it as consumers is so difficult, and it’s actually forcing a lot of producers off their farms, or forcing producers to change to other crops, like avocados, which are more profitable for them. So it’s supply and demand at the end of the day, and we’ve actually seen coffee prices jump very, very drastically in the last 12 to 18 months, coffee prices on green coffee have gone up probably close to double what they were. And you know, how much does it how much have you seen that flow through into the cafes? It has started to happen, you’re starting to see cafes charging a bit more and more for their coffee, because everything has to flow through. So you’ve got economic effects, you’ve got the supply and demand, everything comes down to supply and demand, you have a shortage on supply, demand goes up comparatively to that. And then you’ve got all the demographic interplays that go on with it, we have further problems that are driving the price of coffee up at the moment, things like interest rates, every time our interest rates goes goes up, we have to finance coffee, to get it into the coffee, into the country, right? When you buy huge amounts of coffee it’s all under finance. Interest rates play a big part in what we have to factor into the price then, and you know, a half a percent or a quarter percent interest rate rise is quite significant across 20 tonnes of coffee. So generally, the price of green coffee at the farm level is going up, supply is slightly restricted and so that’s further pushing the price up. And then you have, let me call it political issues, as well that sort of come into play. For example, in Ethiopia, there was a like a civil war last year, what didn’t get a lot of news coverage, but basically, there was a civil war that was affecting transport networks and that made it difficult to get coffee out of Ethiopia. Now Ethiopia is one of the largest producers of coffee in the world. As soon as that becomes difficult to get coffee from one of your biggest producers. It puts a lot of strain on the other producers so anyone with a even a basic economics background can kind of see what’s happening here it’s it’s a difficult place, marketplace to do business that’s constantly evolving.

Gene Tunny  38:54  

Yeah I’ve got a couple of follows on from that. Broadly, what is the what range is the coffee price in and so is it is it in tonnes? Is it US dollars per tonne what is it?

Raihaan Esat  39:05  

USD per pound. Generally gets quoted in US dollars per pound on the market on the coffee market. It’s called the C market. And right now the level is sitting at if I’m not mistaken at about one $1. $1.70 USD per pound.

Gene Tunny  39:24  

Okay and so that obviously means like just thinking about what it costs to buy coffee in the shops after it’s been roasted and, or ground or whatever. There’s obviously a lot of value add from in the roasting and then the distribution and…

Raihaan Esat  39:42  

Yeah, so, 1.70 USD per pound is your baseline benchmark for just bog standard commodity grade coffee. Okay, as soon as you go up in quality into specialty, for example, Tim’s coffee wasn’t $1.70 US per pound. It was much more than that. because we added the organic certification, we added the quality of it, it’s at least an 83 point coffee, if I’m not mistaken. So we’ve now got a quality level that we have to compensate for, then when you get to roasting, so that coffee would have cost us quite a bit more, factor in the exchange rate, Australian dollar’s not performing that well against the US dollar at the moment. So as soon as we have to pay in US dollars, the underperformance of our currency means that we have to factor that and our coffee costs a little bit more. Come to roasting, here’s the bit that is quite a tragedy. If I put one kilo of coffee into the roaster, I don’t get one kilo out, you have about 10 to 12% moisture in the green coffee that just evaporates, basically, plus you have a little bit of carbonization, basically, you lose close to 20% of the weight of the coffee, just through the chimney of the coffee roaster. So you’re adding 20% on top of the cost of the coffee just at the roasting stage. Then there’s all the labour, operational costs that go into packing coffee, transporting coffee around the world, out to cafes, and then it has to be made into a drink, and coffee these days, I mean, if you go and just just stand in line at a coffee shop and listen to everyone’s orders, not everyone orders the same thing. I guarantee you seven out of 10 people will have a very different order from each other, one will be on an almond alternative dairy, one will have a syrup in it, one will be double strength, one will have chocolate powder on top. A cup of coffee is now a cocktail made by a bartender effectively. It’s, it’s not a simple product to produce at any stage. It’s crafted by hand and by skilled people all the way through the chain. And so if I can be honest, 5 or $6 for a cup of coffee? It’s too cheap.

Gene Tunny  42:10  

Hmm, interesting. I mean, Australian households struggling with interest rates may not agree, but I know, I know where you’re coming from. I’m just, I’m just joking. Yeah, that’s some really good points there Rai, and can you tell us about the the finance, you mentioned you had to borrow money, so you have to settle the contracts in US dollars is that right? Like what’s going on there?

Raihaan Esat  42:35  

Usually yes. So practical example, we are now buying coffee for next season, we’re in contact with our producers in Brazil. And we’re going right, we need to, we need probably six to 10 containers next year of coffee. They’ll say right, we can, we can settle six containers at, I’ll put a hypothetical number on it, five US dollars per kilo. Contract gets written as soon as the coffee ships from the port in Brazil, we get a bill to settle the contract. So the contract is in place. But it only gets paid when the coffee gets shipped. Now there’s lots of different Incoterms here and different contracts, setups and scenarios, you could pay at the farm directly when the coffee leaves the farm, you could pay when the coffee reaches, reaches the destination. But we generally work on as soon as the coffee ships, we pay the bill immediately. And that’s in US dollars. Most of the time.

Gene Tunny  43:41  

Yeah. And so where’s the where’s that? Where’s Why do you have to borrow the money, I mean, rather than going to the, okay, I’m just trying to think how this works.

Raihaan Esat  43:54  

Ok so think about it this way. It’s a cash flow problem, right? For us to produce coffee and supply to cafes. If Tim wants to supply coffee, if he were to buy coffee from the farm, he would have to pay for the coffee before he sold it.

Gene Tunny  44:13 

Gotcha. Yeah, that makes sense.

Raihaan Esat  44:15

All right. So the coffee has got to come and land in the warehouse so that it can be roasted so that he can sell it. And then Tim can collect the money from the sale and and then pay back the loan that he took to buy the coffee in the first place.

Gene Tunny  44:30

Yeah, yeah so it’s for your cash flow. So yeah…

Raihaan Esat  44:35

It’s a timing thing. Sometimes we land coffee here, three months in advance of when we need to actually roast it. And that’s because of seasonal variations. If the coffee is ready to harvest now, I might not need it for six months. But I’ve got to buy it now because it’s on the trees. It’s being harvested, it’s an agricultural product. And I think people take that for granted sometimes that coffee has to be grown on a tree, harvested by people and then there’s an interim period where there’s no coffee on the trees.

Gene Tunny  45:08  

Yeah. And how long would you typically have the beans, the green beans here in storage or in stock in your inventory?

Raihaan Esat  45:16  

Look, green coffee has a shelf life that’s a bit better than roasted coffee, roasted coffee tends to sort of lose its vibrancy and character after about 30 days after roasting, but green coffee, we can we can store it for sort of six to, six to 12 months, as long as the storage conditions are good, not not too much light, not too much heat, not too much humidity. If the storage conditions are good, we can store the coffee up to 12 months, and then it really starts to fade, in flavour, in in character. So it won’t be terrible after 12 months, it just does fade a little bit. So there is a quality drop if we store it for too long. So that’s the balancing act that we have to, we have to navigate trying to get coffee at its optimum, balance the agricultural cycle and the demand cycle from roasters.

Gene Tunny  46:08 

Gotcha.

Tim Hughes  46:10  

Now, it’s fascinating, I mean, and a good reason as to why I wouldn’t be able to do this on my own. You know, that’s why it’s such a great opportunity for what you guys offer here for, you know, the three stages of the coffee from the sourcing from the farm through ICT, the coffee alliance with the roasting and and then allows someone like me to, you know, benefit from all that experience and all those connections otherwise, yeah, yeah, so it’s from, from my perspective, it’s been great, very educational and very exciting. But yeah, it’s interesting seeing the dynamics behind the bigger operation, you know, and how far ahead you have to plan to get all this in place? I know, we talked about it with, with with my, you know, my business and the considerations that had to be made a long way ahead. And so yeah you have to secure those secure those, those coffee beans. It has all those different people? Yeah.

Gene Tunny  47:13  

Yeah, I found it interesting, you were saying, were you suggesting Rai that, I imagine coffee demand, it’s been growing has it, because the world economy is growing, population’s growing. But are you concerned that with these demographic shifts, I mean, I’ve found that extraordinary, but I guess that makes sense because the younger, the Gen Z’s in particular, they’re very health conscious. And maybe they, do they see coffee as not healthy, is that one of the concerns?

Raihaan Esat  47:43  

I just think that there’s a lot of, a lot of variety out there now, there’s a lot of choice. Let’s think back to say, you know, late 90s, early 2000s, anyone that wanted to look cool, carried around a cup of coffee with them. But now there’s so many alternatives. There’s bubble tea’s gone crazy. Right? So there’s an alternative for you. Tea shops in general have gone crazy. There’s an alternative for you. There’s so many other options for drink, hot and cold drinks. There’s yoghurt places, there’s milk bars, there’s so much different variety out there now. So I think there’s a lot of competition for choice. And that partially hurting the demand for coffee, even though the demand is still going up. It’s not going up at the same rates that it used to be.

Gene Tunny  48:34  

Yeah, I just wonder about some of the some of the bigger markets. I mean, I know in the States, they just all historically they’ve just drunk gallons of coffee and a lot of it in diners or wherever, just constantly pouring the filtered coffee.

Raihaan Esat  48:52  

People have changed where they drink their coffee as well. COVID was a big driver of this. When everyone started setting up home offices to work from home. What are the, what’s the first thing that they put in their home office? A coffee machine. Right? You, you could not buy coffee machines from white goods stores for six months, the demand for coffee machines went through the roof. So because everyone changed where they were drinking their coffee. So instead of say buying two or three coffees through the day, one coffee is now at home. And then the other two are out at work or from your local cafe. So the dynamics are changing a lot.

Gene Tunny  49:28  

Yeah, gotcha. But I’m just wondering, like, Are you starting, just like with the big markets, so say United States, China? Or is or is China a big market and India? I mean, maybe they’re not maybe it’s Europe, I don’t know what are the big markets for…

Raihaan Esat  49:44  

Yeah, China and India, Asia in general is, is an emerging market for coffee. They’re very traditional in, in tea. They’ve had long history of being tea drinking countries, and still are huge tea drinking countries, but what’s driving the growth in Coffee in those countries is this sort of middle, middle professional class, that’s growing like India has a huge middle class growing, that are professional people earning incomes really well. And they’ve got some disposable income. And so there’s time to spend on coffee because it’s the cool thing. Funny enough, though, in India, compared to Australia, Australia, coffee is a very morning thing. After two o’clock, it’s almost impossible to to get a coffee because all the cafes are closed, because no one’s really drinking coffee after two o’clock. In India, everyone goes out for coffee after work. Because they they have their day where after work, everyone goes out. So the coffee drinking culture is more evening time over there. Very, very interesting how the population uses the drink in a different way. For them, it’s more social. Whereas we’ve got a huge takeaway culture.

Gene Tunny  50:59  

Yeah, yeah, we do. I just realised that Arturo wrote a note on coffee and the market worldwide for my website for our website earlier this year. So I’ll put a link in the show notes. I think he might, we might have summarised the, where the demands coming from. But yeah, I found that fascinating that because of these demographic changes maybe here the growth will be moderated, or it won’t be as strong as it has been in the past. Or it could even mean demand could decline. Is that what you’re concerned about?

Raihaan Esat  51:33  

I’m more concerned about climate change, and the effects that it has on coffee production, because the demands for high quality coffee are so high right now, everyone wants the best of the best, or the best they can get for a given price. So the demand for high quality coffee is very high. But climate change is making it very difficult to produce coffee at a high level. For example, seasons are starting to change slightly. And there’s I’ll use a case study in Colombia, the farmer that we’re dealing with, never used to have a problem with what they call Broca. It’s the, it’s a beetle that bores holes into the coffee bean and basically eats it from the inside out. They are getting worse and worse and worse every year. And those beetles are actually very temperature sensitive. So they don’t like cold climates. As the temperature generally is increasing on average, these beetles are moving higher and higher up the mountain into the coffee plantations and destroying more and more crops. So to produce high quality coffee is becoming more difficult as a result of climate change. Weather patterns are changing as well. We’ve got rains happening when they shouldn’t be happening, triggering inconsistent flowerings in the coffee plants. And generally, it’s forcing producers to move higher up the mountain so to speak, right? The higher up the mountain you go, the colder it gets, the better it is for coffee, up to a certain level. But when you go up the mountain, there’s less mountain, there’s less land to produce coffee on. So I think there are some interesting pressures, especially on the climate change and geological side that are affecting coffee quite strongly. So finding high quality coffee is going to get more expensive, basically.

Gene Tunny  53:30  

Yeah I understand climate change. What do you mean by geological?

Raihaan Esat  53:33  

So we see countries that never used to produce coffee starting to produce coffee, or traditionally weren’t coffee growing countries, because the climate now is starting to move in a range that is suitable for coffee production. So maybe they were too cold or too high in altitude to be sustainable for coffee production. But as the climate’s generally warming up, suddenly that that geography of that area now is suitable for coffee production.

Gene Tunny  54:01  

Which countries are those?

Raihaan Esat  54:05 

So you’ve got countries like Nepal starting to produce some coffee. Some areas in Argentina are producing coffee as well. Cameroon. Those are probably the best examples. Ecuador’s producing a lot of coffee now as well.

Gene Tunny  54:23  

Gotcha. Right.

Tim Hughes  54:25  

That’s interesting.

Gene Tunny  54:27

Yeah. real example of climate change. Yeah, yeah extraordinary.

Tim Hughes  54:31  

Yeah, no, it’s that thing because I knew that those established countries were, yeah, having that problem of basically having a smaller, viable area to grow coffee, but um, yeah, it’s interesting, to, I hadn’t actually thought about it, but it’s clear that obviously those are the places that weren’t suitable and now becoming possible.

Raihaan Esat  54:50  

Yeah, yeah, look, another example is leaf, leaf rust. It’s a disease that affects the coffee leaves and it turns them from green into this rusty colour. And that also is seriously moving through coffee farms at a rate of knots and just literally destroying coffee plantations. So, you know, a lot of work is going by an organisation called World Coffee Research. We’re a supporter of them. And we actually sell little coffee trees that the Coffee Commune and all the proceeds go to World Coffee Research to find genetic varieties that are resistant to coffee leaf rust, for example.

Gene Tunny  55:28  

Yeah, good one. That’s great. Tim, what have we missed? Is there anything else we want to cover with Rai?

Tim Hughes  55:36  

No we’ve largely covered it. I mean, it’s so interesting. And I know that we could talk for a lot longer because it is it’s fascinating. Like, I’ve been immersed in this and been lucky to share a lot of time with Rai and use his expertise and ask him 100 questions. So this is a continuation of me asking in a broader sense, I guess, and learning more about the coffee industry as a whole. No, it’s been really good. I guess, what does the future of coffee look like would be the final point, I guess,

Raihaan Esat  56:03  

The future of coffee? Let me get my crystal ball. Where did I pack it, I must have left it in my other in my other bag. Hard to say at the moment, I think the coffee is at a bit of a point now where it can go one of two ways. Either, it’s going to get super expensive, because of all the pressures mounting up and and the result of that is we’re going to have to change the way that we drink coffee, which is only about probably 5, 10 years down the track from now. But if coffee gets to the point where it gets super expensive, let’s call it $10 a cup. I, we you’re going to be faced with the choice. Where are you going to drink your coffee? And what do you expect in terms of value for your cup of coffee? If you’re going to spend $10 on something, it had be, better be a damn good cup of coffee, and there needs to be a level of service that goes with it. I’ll use the burger analogy. I can go and get a $2 burger from a chain store. Or I can go to a fancy restaurant and pay $25 for a burger, right? Different level of experience that I received for my $25 compared to my $2, I think the same thing is going to happen with coffee, we’re going to see this widening spectrum of pricing, you’re going to still have the cheap coffees, and you’re going to have the more gourmet coffees, and there’s going to be a different level of experience that goes with them, the cafes, the organisations that nailed down that model correctly, will do well. And the ones that can’t keep up with it are unfortunately not going to do so well.

Tim Hughes  57:43  

That that’s actually really interesting. And just going briefly back to the point that you were saying about in COVID, all those coffee machines going out of stock, you know, as so many things did, of course, but I guess that’s one of the areas with with rising coffee prices. That third part, that last part of the stage of producing a great coffee, if it’s come from a great farm and grown well, if it’s been roasted well, that last part, which ultimately if you do coffee, you know have coffee at home, you have that responsibility yourself and there’s a massive growth opportunity for education as to how people can do that. Because it’s not easy making a great cup of coffee consistently. Like I’ve had some training. And it’s still hard, you know, to do something absolutely bang on each time as you do when you make a coffee. And I’m so impressed with the little designs you put in there as well, you know, just to top it off with but it really is an art form. But that’s I guess when it can become more affordable for a lot of people is if they have the capability to make good coffee at home. And it can be done reasonably inexpensively. But then it allows people yeah to, to save some money.

Raihaan Esat  58:56  

Everyone should have a good cup of coffee at home, definitely you should spend some time learning how to craft a nice cup of coffee, just the way that you would spend time learning how to make great pasta or a steak or a dessert. It’s, it’s part of a, it’s a ritualistic part of the process. It’s something that will enrich your life and gives you a lot of appreciation for what goes on in cafes as well. Because effectively when you go to a cafe, you’re paying someone to take your order to, you know, make and craft the coffee for you. Whereas you could do it yourself. So that’s probably where there’s there is a lot of scope for people to start exploring.

Gene Tunny  59:38  

I’ve got to ask you about that Rai in terms of you know, everyone can have a great cup of coffee. One of my favourite YouTube channels is the Whisky Tribal, or Whisky Vault I think they’re these guys in Austin, Texas, and they’re huge into their whisky. And they say the best whisky, because there are a lot of debates about whisky and whether you have single malt etc. The best whisky is the whisky you like to drink the way you like to drink it. Is that the same with coffee?

Raihaan Esat  1:00:07  

Very much so. And I think there’s a lot of room for exploration. Everyone is, generally speaking, how many times do you walk into a cafe and order the same thing, every single time. The coffee menu is generally quite large, there’s a lot of variation in drinks. So firstly, I’d encourage exploration, you know, explore the coffee menu and try different drinks, and then find the one that really does suit you. But the one that you like, might not be the same one every time. I drink a different coffee almost every day. Sometimes it’ll be espresso, sometimes it will be filtered coffee, sometimes it will be a milky coffee, depending on how I’m feeling on the day. And I’m sure the same thing goes for the whisky drinkers or for wine drinkers, if you just drank the same, the same beer every single day or the same wine every single day. Like, don’t you want to try something different? But some, but I understand some part of that is ritual as well. I want to, need to have some stability in my life. And coffee needs to be the stable thing in my morning. So I understand both sides of the equation, but I encourage explore exploration.

Gene Tunny  1:01:15  

Absolutely and given your own Economics Explored, and we’re all very much for exploration. I think that’s a good point to end on.

Raihaan Esat  1:01:23  

That was fun. Thank you guys.

Gene Tunny  1:01:24 

Very good.

Tim Hughes  1:01:25  

That was great. Thank you.

Gene Tunny  1:01:26  

Thanks Tim, thanks Rai, I really enjoyed it.

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

Speaker 1  1:02:18  

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Digital Money Demystified w/ Prof. Tonya Evans – EP216

Professor Tonya Evans is the author of the new book “Digital Money Demystified: Go from Cash to Crypto Safely, Legally, and Confidently.” She discusses the topic of cryptocurrency with show host Gene Tunny. Professor Evans argues there are many myths surrounding digital assets, including their association with criminal activity and extreme volatility. She aims to dispel these myths and provide readers with a more accurate understanding of cryptocurrencies. Professor Evans is distinguished professor at Penn State Dickinson Law and a leading expert in intellectual property and new technologies. Please note this episode is for general information only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About Professor Tonya M. Evans

Dr. Tonya M. Evans is a distinguished professor at Penn State Dickinson Law and a leading expert in intellectual property and new technologies. With a prestigious 2023 EDGE in Tech Athena Award, she is highly sought-after as a keynote speaker and consultant. Her expertise spans blockchain, entrepreneurship, entertainment law, and more.

As a member of international boards and committees, including the World Economic Forum/Wharton DAO Project Series, Dr. Evans remains at the forefront of cutting-edge research. She recently testified before the House Financial Services Committee and the Copyright Office and USPTO to advise on the intellectual property law issues related to NFTs and blockchain technology.

What’s covered in EP216

  • [00:05:31] Prudent crypto investing according to Prof. Evans.
  • [00:09:18] Crypto scams.
  • [00:13:18] Peer-to-peer technology.
  • [00:17:34] Taxing crypto assets.
  • [00:22:45] Central bank digital currencies.
  • [00:29:13] Exchanging value without government support.
  • [00:38:17] The currency of outer space.
  • [00:41:10] Self-custody and centralized exchanges.
  • [00:47:48] “Not your keys, not your crypto.”
  • [00:49:17] Underrepresentation in the crypto ecosystem.
  • [00:54:07] Learning the language of crypto.
  • [00:59:47] Tracking Bitcoin transactions.
  • [01:01:57] The speed of prosecuting crypto fraud.

Links relevant to the conversation

Amazon page for Digital Money Demystified:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Digital-Money-Demystified-Crypto%C2%AE-Confidently-ebook/dp/B0BVP8GPF8

Regarding a spot Bitcoin ETF, Yahoo Finance reported on 28 November 23 that “Crypto investors are awaiting Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) approval for a spot bitcoin ETF, which could unlock a surge of capital investment in the crypto space.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/bitcoin-may-reach-57k-over-175421720.html

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Binance:https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1926

Transcript: Digital Money Demystified w/ Prof. Tonya Evans – EP216

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. We then used a human application, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to exercise his primitive brain and see if he could successfully hunt down mondegreens. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording

Tonya Evans  00:03

Now we have web three where not only are we exchanging messages of information, packets of information. Now those packets are about value. It gets at the heart of even why governments tax, particularly in times of war, etc, and to protect borders that are now being threatened by a borderless currency.

Gene Tunny  00:32

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, and welcome to the show. In this episode, I talked about cryptocurrency with the author of a new book on the topic. The book is “Digital Money Demystified” and the author is Professor Tonya Evans from Dickinson Law at Pennsylvania State University. Among her many achievements, Professor Evans was a 2021 Forbes over 50 listee in the investment category. She’s on the board of directors of Digital Currency Group and she’s testified before a congressional committee on digital assets. In other words, she knows what she’s talking about on crypto. This episode was recorded in mid November 2023. Please check out the show notes for any important developments since then, particularly for any news about spot Bitcoin ETFs that may have happened. I should note that one big thing that’s happened since the interview is Binance and its CEO pleading guilty to criminal charges for anti money laundering and US sanctions violations. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said “it’s willful failures allowed money to flow to terrorists, cyber criminals and child abusers through its platform.” As always, if you have thoughts on this episode, or other episodes or ideas for future episodes, please get in touch. I’d love to hear your thoughts on crypto, positive or negative. What do you think about Professor Evans defence of crypto against the major criticisms that it faces? Has she changed your mind on crypto? What about the recent news about Binance or SBF before that? Please let me know what you think after listening to the episode. Let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Professor Tonya Evans on crypto.

Professor Tonya Evans, welcome to the programme.

Tonya Evans  02:42

Thank you, Gene. Thank you so much. I’ve been looking forward to this. So I’m happy to, happy to chat about my favourite topic.

Gene Tunny  02:49

Oh very good yes. You’re certainly passionate about it, I’ve been reading your book over, well the last two nights. It’s, it’s an easy to read book. And I got through it in in two sittings on my Kindle. So well done on that. So yes, your book is Digital Money Demystified from go from cash to crypto safely, legally and confidently. To start off with, what do you think needs to be demystified about digital money? Or in other words, what motivated you to write this book?

Tonya Evans  03:26

Yeah, this it’s interesting because I do so many speaking engagements, obviously, as a not only as a law professor, which is kind of a different exercise in exploring things. I know, we’ll get into some regulatory stuff later. But at a higher level, there’s so much misinformation about the nature of the assets, why they even exist, what types there are, how they’re different. Some of the most common myths that I constantly explore and help people to right size include the level of crypto involvement in criminal activity, which is actually quite low. The nature of volatility, and the the existence of volatility is not the myth. This is a nascent asset class. And so, obviously, it’s very volatile. So when I compare crypto as a nascent asset class to earlier developments of assets like the stock exchange, for example, we go back to the 30s and Buttonwood and the volatility that was involved, so many things going on behind the scenes that people weren’t aware of. And that was very problematic when you think about the asymmetry of information which is often extremely problematic in the finance lane. You really need to have the transparency and accessibility for an open market. Otherwise you don’t have an open market and people are left to their own devices. People are investing in things when they don’t have all of the information. And so that’s what made it really interesting for me to 1) start to study the area, but 2) to make sure that people understood the existing system, how crypto assets and blockchain technology actually changed that. And kind of where we go from here. As you can tell, the book is not an argument. For someone to absolutely buy crypto, I still leave that up to the person, but I want them to have a more informed body of information to draw from so that they can actually make good choices. One of the ways that I like to explain it is to say, you can actually be a prudent crypto investor, which sounds like an oxymoron. It’s like prudent and crypto investing, how do those things go together, but people are afraid of what they don’t understand. And the reality is, and we will continue to talk about this in our conversation. This technology is here, not just as a matter of Bitcoin and Etherium, and some of the other coins, but every major, not major, but every country is looking at its own version of digital currency in the form of central bank digital currencies. We have FedNow which is not in and of itself a cryptocurrency. But it’s kind of like the the framework or the platform for digital assets that I believe, my personal opinion, the government would not have this official statement today. But three to five years from now, we’ll look back on this moment in time, where FedNow, the rails, the frameworks to enable digital asset transmission, I believe will be the precursor to a central bank digital currency in the United States. And finally, when I think about the various investment products that will become available, probably, I’m pretty conservative so I would say at the beginning of 2024, we will see an exchange traded fund specifically for Bitcoin, probably 12 to 18 months after that, for Etherium. This will be an investment product that is available to investors, and also the professionals, the financial advisors that have to make sense of this, the CPAs the lawyers. So for all of these reasons, at least demystifying the space so that people don’t fall victim to the clickbait and the sensational headlines, some of which are horrible. I, there is no place for criminal activity, Sam Bankman-Fried is going to enjoy a lot of time in jail. I’m absolutely for that. But you know, that is one small part of a larger ecosystem where the great majority is used for legitimate not nefarious purposes. So for all those reasons, I just think it’s important that people level up their, their understanding, you see from the book, The glossary of terms, just helping to demystify and understand so that people will lean into the education piece to decide then if this is something that they want to add to their profession, or their portfolio.

Gene Tunny  08:04

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So you mentioned the glossary of terms just then I think that’s one of the standout features of the book. So yeah good work on that. Professor Evans, could you just explain the difference between some of these scams until, I read your your book, I didn’t appreciate the difference between an exit scam and a rug pull. So I hear about rug pulls all the time on Coffeezilla’s channel on YouTube, could, are you able to go over what those different crypto scams are and what to watch out for? Please?

Tonya Evans  08:40

Yeah they’re quite close, right. So it’s the difference of having a team that from the beginning, knows that they are going to turn the lights off at some point, they’re gonna, you know, pump up the price, get a lot of enthusiasm. And their goal from the beginning is to scam people out of their money, right, and to set the market conditions in order to get the highest price possible to leave others downstream holding the bag. Right, as opposed to someone that at least in the beginning, has some good intention and realises at some point in time, it’s not going well. And that people who have invested fall into what we talked about earlier about not having all the information. So you have a key some key decision makers that still have an influence on a project. Oftentimes, it’s not built yet. So they have grand plans, they have a roadmap, they might have a white paper, but at a certain point they run out of gas and they disappear with everyone’s money and all of a sudden you can’t find them anymore, closely aligned but so it’s more of the intentionality from the beginning. But the end result is a lot of people get caught holding the bag.

Gene Tunny  09:51

Right so the exit scam is where there’s that intentionality at the beginning is that right and the rug pull is yeah, we stuffed up let’s just try and get out of it. And yeah well…

Tonya Evans  10:01

That’s right, that’s right.

Gene Tunny  10:05

Bad luck investors. Okay. Righto, so you’re a Gen X law professor right? So I think I read that in the book. So you’re same generation is me and I often feel I’m probably, if I was five years younger, I probably would have got massively into crypto, but I was probably, at the start of it, I was a bit sceptical of it. How did you become like, as a lawyer, as a law professor, how did you become interested in crypto in the first place?

Tonya Evans  10:34

I had a friend who was getting an advanced degree in the future of media and kind of the intersection of media and new technologies. And to take a step back, I actually am primarily an intellectual property lawyer, and law professor, I just actually celebrated my 25th reunion from Howard University School of Law. So I’ve been around for a minute, I practiced law for 10 years before I even started teaching. And now as a recovering practitioner, also known as a law professor. And I get to lean in to things normatively, how they should be rather than day to day kind of practically what they are, right? That’s really the transition from representing clients to informing law as it’s being developed. And so I was very interested in the work that she was doing at the intersection of media and blockchain. I had heard of Bitcoin at the time, this was in 2017. Bitcoin was first launched in January of 2009. So it had been around for some time, but was really relegated to the fringes of cypher, the cypherpunk movement, mostly those kind of tech men, mostly with a technology, technology background, and also in finance, and kind of like this microcosm of two microcosms is the area of cryptocurrency. So mainstream adoption or even awareness just wasn’t a thing at that time. And also, as you mentioned, I’m a lawyer. I’m licenced to practice law in four states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and DC, I am highly revered. In my profession, I have no intention of losing my licence. And so trying to make sense of this magic internet money was not something that, that I was at all interested in at the time. But what I was interested in is her discussions around the underlying technology that was organising financial data, the transactions and the balances in a very novel way, using existing technologies. But again, organised in a novel way. So what were the technologies, are the technologies? Cryptography, which is the encrypted messaging that has been around in some form or fashion, quite frankly, for millennia, obviously, it’s digital now. But the idea of going from point A to point B, or sending a message, often in times of war and other areas, the ability to send to encrypt and decrypt messaging was critically important. But that’s been around for forever, then we have peer to peer technology. So as an IP lawyer, I’m also interested in this part, because when I first learned about peer to peer technology, it was gonna, you know, upend the media, ecosystem, and that entire industry was going to fall because you and I could be in completely different places but I could send you a perfect digital copy of a media file, and then go on the internet and send it to 1000 of my not-so-closest friends without exhausting the original. So I guess that was great if you wanted to share music, not so great for the music industry, but for everybody else. But obviously, if you are doing that with money that runs into the double spend problem, where, you know, I can say I have $100 in the bank to send it to you and also to Susan, and the first person to cash that check is the one who wins that is that’s not going to work for money. So the novel way of using cryptography, peer to peer technology, the internet, and then a novel way of coming to agreement, we would call it we call this the consensus mechanism of coming to agreement where I don’t have to trust you, but I trust a software that is pre-coded with the rules of engagement. It’s open source software, which is also lends itself to copyright, to patent areas of interest as an intellectual property attorney, where I was like, Well, I have to figure that out. I have to let my students know that this is something that is changing the nature of intellectual property. And it doesn’t, it didn’t seem at the time that I needed to also fundamentally understand cryptographically secure digital assets. But I fell down the rabbit hole, it was quickly apparent that understanding the technology I need needed to understand the nature of the assets that were being validated, verified and secured. In this type of news decentralised database, I didn’t have any appreciation for all that language at the time. But being drawn in, in my existing area of expertise, I think was the best way for me to be intellectually curious, and to really learn more.

Gene Tunny  15:31

Gotcha. And are there many legal cases? Is there much litigation regarding crypto?

Tonya Evans  15:38

What we’re seeing now involves, the short answer is yes. Now, but mostly at the federal and state levels against federal or state regulators and various parties or, or stakeholders, participants in crypto. I don’t know if you have a lot of them in terms of the actual number but the import of of actions with the SEC, the Security Exchange, Securities Exchange Commission against some of the big ones we have coinbase, we have the ripple case with ripple is a network that has a native token called XRP. That has been tied up for a long time until recently, when a federal court said that the SEC led by Gary Gensler had really overstepped the boundaries of their regulatory power. The way that reg, regulatory bodies in the executive actually get their power is it’s delegated from Congress. So an agency can only do as much as they are empowered to do by their enabling legislation. And the federal court said that the SEC overstepped its bounds actually making it the, clearing the pathway I should say, for those spot, Bitcoin exchange traded funds or ETFs, that are likely to be approved begrudgingly by the SEC, in my humble opinion. But as soon as November 17, perhaps in the first quarter of 2024, that is one of the most exciting and also pressing legal issues that people will start to learn more about. There’s other things going on with Treasury, trying to make sense of how to properly tax crypto, it was always a nightmare when I first started buying and exchanging crypto in like 2018, where you literally had to have a spreadsheet because crypto, all crypto assets are taxed in the United States as a capital asset. So imagine that every time I am going from cash to crypto, as I say, from, you know, $1 to some portion of Bitcoin is a taxable event, even if I’m using the dollar to get bitcoin and then within the same day, or maybe the same week, then exchanging Bitcoin for ETH. And then using that to get a stablecoin every single time there’s a an exchange, that is considered a taxable event, even if it’s negligible. So the argument before the before treasury, in general and IRS in particular is there should be some de minimis amount. In right now, the number that’s floated is about the equivalent of $600, where we, I mean, it gets to be completely impractical to have to account for every single transaction under that amount, because you’re not worried about money laundering, you’re, you know, you’re not worried about significant fraud or anything like that at that level. And so that’s a really interesting thing to watch. And then finally, there’s a lot of, I don’t think it’s going to happen in 2024, because we’re in a presidential cycle, but a lot of support for various types of legislation to give greater certainty as a matter of regulation. But greater clarity of what agency is actually primarily empowered, if at all, will there be a primary or lead regulator as between this SEC and the CFTC? That’s major. The CFTC is responsible for futures and for commodities. But there doesn’t seem to be agreement between the head of the CFTC and the SEC about the taxonomy, the characterization of various assets. And it’s problematic because most of them are programmable. They actually can change the nature of their character, they might start out as a security. I argue that Ethereum actually did start out as a security. It was, the project was not yet built, they did an initial coin offering inviting people to invest and get a return on their investment. That is, and it was not registered. That would be a classic unregistered security. But years later when it was fully decentralised there’s no central foundation or entity responsible, I argue, and the head of the CFTC would agree that that ETH is a commodity. But the SEC is the head. Gary Gensler does not agree. So I say all that to say, there’s a lot of uncertainty that is driving business away from the United States, to other jurisdictions where it may not be easier, but at least it’s clear. And that’s one of the greatest dangers in the United States is that we would not lead in this area. So those are some of the things to really look for in the headlines that have a direct impact on mass adoption.

Gene Tunny  20:54

And what jurisdictions would they be Professor Evans that the activity could be driven to?

Tonya Evans  21:01

So we see a lot of offshore stuff in and by off, sometimes, when people hear offshore, they immediately think illegal, this is literally off of the shores of the United States. So it makes me think of the Bahamas that has its own central bank currency, the sand dollar, it makes me think of Bermuda. I’m a former member of their advisory board, their financial Technology Advisory Board. They were quite forward thinking. Bermuda is particularly interesting, because it’s a jurisdiction that has a long history of well regulated very clear insurance. And so that’s an interesting place. Zug Switzerland is known as you know, like the Crypto Valley, in the same way that we might think of Silicon Valley here in the United States, quite forward thinking. Singapore is ahead of the curve. Absolutely. It’s the UAE. Despite all that is going on in that area of the world. The UAE, in general, makes me think of Dubai in particular, and Abu Dhabi. A couple of years ago, I was one of the first of Forbes 50, over 50 listees and we celebrated in Abu Dhabi, for example. And I was amazed not only how opulent and beautiful, but how progressive in terms of forward thinking with with crypto. And finally, and this is not a leader that we want to follow, but it’s a caution… not, well, I’ll say it a cautionary tale regarding central bank digital currencies, is China. China was the first country to launch a central bank digital currency, which raises in me all sorts of alarm bells, not not for central bank digital currencies in and of themselves. But the huge issues around financial privacy that people need to get up to speed on if in fact, the United States would start to publicly explore CBDC here, that you want to have the same financial privacy that you do with cash, but have the convenience and things that are better, faster, cheaper, with respect to digital assets. So there’s a lot going on in this space and a lot of activity. In fairness to the United States, there’s some countries and I’ve mentioned a few where you have just one regulator. They don’t have the alphabet soup of the FCC and the CFTC and the partridge in a pear tree right in, in the executive. They don’t have the committees and the subcommittee’s wrangling for jurisdiction and oversight authority in the legislature. However, you know, it’s more simplistic. And so it used to kind of not be a great thing, but it is when you need to be nimble and move quickly because our system is not intended to move quickly. It’s actually built this way to slow things down and be more methodical, but that doesn’t work with this type of technology.

Gene Tunny  24:16

Hmmm, yeah, yeah, absolutely. I imagine that our regulators, I’m in Australia, so I imagine they’re looking closely at what’s happening in the States to see where things land. And you Yeah, it’s fascinating about this Bitcoin ETF. And I know that there was a group in Congress that’s looking at the regulations of how they changed the regulations around the SEC yet or is that something still to do? Do they need to give SEC more powers?

Tonya Evans  24:47

They’re exploring it. The short answer to your question is yes. Because the rulemaking authority that is delegated to an agency comes from Congress and so, we call those enabling or enabling acts, there’s another term as well, but enabling act. So basically, Congress says, here’s the framework, you’re the subject matter expert executive agency. So you all kind of you’re the mortar to these bricks. And it’s the executive branch in general agencies in particular that, that put into play the actual rules and regulations and actually run the thing you think of it like as you have a CEO, the President, and then you have all of these smaller bodies that take care of the day to day functioning, based upon, okay, we have this delegated authority from the legislative body, but it’s ultimately up to Congress to say you’ve over stepped, what we asked you to do, we empowered you to do X, Y, but now you’re doing Z, or also to say, hey, when we created this enabling legislation to empower this agency, we did not have this in mind. We did not have this in mind, right. And so we’re gonna need to go back to the drawing board on this. And I am encouraged that there is in many important, for many important issues, there seems to be a bipartisan effort. I don’t think this is beholden to one party or the other, although it is certainly playing itself out that way. When I think of President Biden’s executive order to order all of the agencies to look into the space and to come up with their rules, a report outs, etc. That happened back in 2022, in March of 2022. So a year later, we have some of those reports. The concern has been, and it’s been a bipartisan concern, that and what I what I testified about in March was about what appears to be a Choke Point 2.0. Choke Point 1.0 was an actual policy under the Obama administration that was cutting off banking access to certain industries deemed to be harmful at the time. So it was like the payday lenders and things like that. Ultimately, it was overturned. But you could at least intellectually understand why that might be. But it ended up not passing muster. We don’t have something on the books, but in effect, it has been very difficult for people operating in the crypto industry to actually be banked. They said, You know, it’s basically like, well, if you want it to be off, you know, off the grid and have your own little money, then you won’t use our banks to do it. And what we’re seeing is that and that has happened in the marijuana industry as well, it’s like if this is if something is otherwise legal, and lawful, that we shouldn’t have a government operating against it to thwart its progress and kind of kill it in its infancy, which what it appears to be. And so you will see this discussion around banking and and being able to onboard meaning going from cash to crypto, and off boarding, settling out, selling in the way that you would sell stocks, and then recoup in in Fiat. So we’ll see that playing itself out too. But that’s another major issue.

Gene Tunny  28:20

Right so is that really difficult at the moment so does the government make it difficult to do that?

Tonya Evans  28:24

It has been very difficult even for someone like me, in addition to teaching at Penn State, Dickinson Law School, I have my own onboarding platform. It’s a online business, I do not sell tokens, I do not invest for other people. And I have either been debanked or had an application denied just because I am a crypto educator, which makes no sense in the world. And it was too difficult because what banks were also hearing is, the government doesn’t like it, even though banks are private, they are in general, they are inextricably linked with the government, as we always see in terms of bailouts, etc, etc. And so when you hear from on high, that this is something that the government at this point in time does not fully support, in my humble opinion, because it is a customer service issue. When you start exchanging value that isn’t beholden to a government. That’s a big deal. You know, it’s we’re basically looking at a time where you have internet 3.0 web 3.0 is what people refer to it as, in the web 2.0 version. There was great support around the globe for the global exchange of information. Yeah, we had to use the internet, you had to protect the internet. Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel had to figure out what the hell email was because we were all going to use it. Right. And that was great. And we wanted to support innovation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now we have web three where not only are we exchanging messages of information packets of information. Now those packets are about value. It gets at the heart of even why governments tax, particularly in times of war, etc, and to protect borders that are now being threatened by a borderless currency. That’s a BFD. And so that changes the conversation even though the technology is the same. And so we have a customer service issue. And until governments can figure it out, I don’t think they’re always going to be very excited, particularly in the United States where we have the globe currently. Let’s talk about it in 10 years, but currently the global reserve.

Gene Tunny  30:42

Yeah, yeah. In your books title, you talk about going from cash to crypto. And that’s a you’ve got a registered trademark sign there, is that your platform is it Professor Evans can you explain what cash to crypto is about please?

Tonya Evans  30:56

Yeah, that’s my signature course. So I when I launched Advantage Evans Academy, my primary course and it’s still up and very popular today. It’s an on demand, evergreen version, I’m constantly updating actually, because things change every year. And it takes you in five modules from introducing folks to fundamentals or even the purpose. We start with mindset of even trusting ourselves, managing our own money, because as a Gen Xer I grew up, the minute that you had any money, you’re gonna put it in the bank. And it’s interesting to learn more, as I’ve learned more about the crypto space to really fundamentally start to unpack savings and loans, it’s like, Alright, so let me get this straight, I’m going to put a whole bunch of money into the bank, maybe you used to be able to walk down to the bank, I don’t know if people can do that anymore. And I’m gonna put my money in and it’s gonna be safe there and up to $100,000. I’ll get it back. If we all want our money, even though I plan to have way more than $100,000 stored for another day, right? But let’s say I just have 100,000, it’s FDIC insured, and I’m going to earn a pittance, if anything in interest. And then that same bank is going to loan me back my money for cars for homes, and they’re going to keep the spread. I don’t like that. I don’t like that system. I didn’t know that was a system where I was taught not to trust myself. And not to worry my pretty little head about it. Well, I’ve learned so much in the last six, going on seven years than I had, and I went to Northwestern and went to all the best schools I graduated with honours that from law school. My dad’s a doc, my mom’s a lawyer. I knew nothing about money before I really started to lean in and see how disconnected I was even from the process. Even from understanding when people ask me, what is bitcoin backed by, like what is the dollar backed by? And I don’t hate dollars, I love dollars. But we haven’t been on the global, excuse me the gold system standard for decades. Based on the full faith and credit of the government, we keep coming up against the threat of government shutdown, we’ve had two downgrades in our credit rating, because people aren’t trusting us as much as they used to. Because it’s our full faith and credit. Our word is supposed to be our bond, and it’s scaring the rest of the world. So this is an also, an alternative, alternative to that, that people need to get aware of. Not necessarily replacement in toto today. But you definitely want options in this world.

Gene Tunny  33:33

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  33:38

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  34:07

Now back to the show.

This is something I’ve covered on the show quite a bit because it’s obviously a huge issue in economics. And I mean the way that I think about it and that economists think about it’s well Milton Friedman in Monetary History of the United States, even you know, he acknowledged look, money is a fiction. But what will, what the question is which, which fiction is the most powerful do most believe and the fact is that with dollars, you can settle existing contracts, all the prices are in dollar terms. And you can pay your taxes to the inland ra…, internal revenue or to the Australian Taxation Office in the local currency. So that’s what gives the dollar power or means that that fiction is strongest. And I think that’s, that’s why many economists are concerned about that. And why there is that concern about well, maybe, I mean, is this volatility going to ever settle down? I don’t know. I mean, I think I take your points in your book, I think you make the best possible case for, for Bitcoin and for crypto. But yeah, I think that would be the concern of, of economists. Do you have any thoughts on that at all Professor Evans?

Tonya Evans  35:29

I think it’s important, it’s an important metric. I don’t even know if it’s a success or not, but just to understand what position crypto should have, if any, in an overall portfolio. And obviously, there is I mean, Bitcoin, for example, is up almost 70% this year. And it is one of the quickest ways over its lifecycle to get a significant return on investment as it goes through it’s bull and bear cycles in the same way that the stock market goes through bear, bullish and bearish cycles, the manipulation and I don’t use that pejoratively, but the way that monetary policy is set with inflation, we’re tweaking it’s kind of like we’re calibrating, right. And so there’s a natural energy lifecycle to assets. And as long as you are strategic, you could have something that is very, very safe and secure and predictable, offset with something that isn’t, with great risk comes greater reward, and then it’s an overall balance a balanced portfolio that I think is most important, I would not recommend, although I know some you know, Bitcoin maximalists will cash out their 401 K and put it all into Bitcoin and let it roll. They I think there’s a privilege in being able to do that, because I believe that if past is prologue, we are we will be entering a bull market soon. I think with more positive news. We’re getting past the crypto contagion, we have endured a two and a half, almost three year down cycle. And historically speaking, things have ticked upward. Bitcoin is generally the the rising tide that lifts all boats around. So even really crappy coins start to do modestly better. When bitcoin is doing better, that’s one of the many dangers I see in the space. But you know, whether or not this becomes this entire ecosystem becomes more stabilised. I believe that is possible. I just don’t know if I can read the tea leaves yet of when. But I do believe it’s not a matter of if but when giving, given the import of this technology that is just so pervasive across industry, and sector, it also makes me think of what will be the monetary standard. And this is not too far fetched to stay in space, in outer space, and we don’t have all of the sophisticated borders and things of that nature, but you’re gonna have to have a common currency that becomes more than any one government or, or country’s currency. What currency will that be? It’s probably going to be a digital asset. Which one I don’t know. It may not be Bitcoin, but it’s going to be some type of digital coin. And so preparing for that now and having a first mover advantage depending upon your risk tolerance is something that I’m willing personally to do. And I believe the first step to that is for folks to lean into education, from cash to crypto programme is great for fundamentals. Obviously, the book is a quick read that just level sets, facts so that people have a better idea of what questions to even ask, as they start to kind of become cautiously optimistic in the space, not fall victim to fear uncertainty and doubt or FUD and definitely not to fall victim to FOMO when people start talking about it and and celebrities are back in and NFT’s are all the rage and the next DOW comes out like you cannot be emotional about strategically investing for the long term. And so that’s what I want to educate and empower people to do through through my work through my courses. And certainly through the book.

Gene Tunny  39:22

Gotcha. You raise an interesting question about effectively what’s going to be the currency of the Galactic Empire. I’m gonna have to think more about that and see if any science fiction writers have thought about that. That’s quite a quite an important question. I like it. Right! With the, one thing I’m wondering is do you know how, how extensive is Bitcoin or crypto being used for actual transactions? Are contracts being written in do you see any of that going on?

Tonya Evans  39:53

That’s a great question. I’ve not quantified that yet. I love that question. You’ll have to have me back and we can uncover that. What I know for sure is that more and more legacy companies are creating opportunities for their existing customers to stay on platform and to have access, exposure or some of the the benefits of crypto and the underlying technology. So MasterCard and Visa have products now that will allow you to either earn crypto back, or to pay for things in crypto and you don’t really have to ever touch Bitcoin or whatever crypto is connected to it, because that happens behind the scenes. But you can say I offer this product, right? There’s still I don’t think they’re set their real time settlement is to the blockchain, right? They still have their legacy infrastructure, but they want to not lose customers, as people become more curious and have more opportunities. So Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, they will, PayPal first entered into the space, they would allow you to purchase Bitcoin, I don’t think it was other coins at the time, but you couldn’t take it off platform. So for me and for cypherpunks, or others, like the whole thing is your own personal self custody of your assets. So I don’t leave things on a centralised exchange, even if I trust it. Look what happened to you know, those who had left their property on FTX’s, centralised exchange or BlockFi. We saw a lot of lenders, you know, go out of business and file bankruptcy and your coins go with it. So self custody is a really important thing. But most people are not going to do that now. And PayPal knows that. So giving people the ability, they realised they weren’t going to get a lot of traction if they didn’t allow for people to take their Bitcoin off platform. And eventually they developed a product to do that. And in addition, they recently, I don’t know how to pronounce it, but they have their own coin. It’s like PY something. But it’s a PayPal, stablecoin so that they can do real time settlement within their own PayPal ecosystem, which is really really powerful Cash App, you have been able to buy bitcoin off of Cash App forever, and then transfer it off into your own self custody wallet. We have, in full transparency I am a member of the Board of Digital Currency Group, which owns Grayscale as in CoinDesk, it owns Genesis as well as well, probably 200 different projects and companies in its portfolio. And one of those is Grayscale, Grayscale has GBTC. So the Grayscale Trust, I’m sure a number of people have seen their commercials and Grayscale has petitioned or applied to exchange or change the character of GBTC into a spot Bitcoin ETF. And so there are so many companies BlackRock, one of the most prudent, traditional historical companies in the in the investment space has applied for an ETF as well. So Deutsche Bank, it just the gamut. So most of that exposure has been for high net worth individuals, but the crypto really is a democratic, inspiring currency. And that’s not a particular political party. It’s this the democratic with a little D that democratises access to, to money and not just money. Because we, it’s a bit of a misnomer to say cryptocurrencies. I feel like if we had to do all over again, we’d call it what I say as crypto asset, because some function well as currencies as we’ve talked about, but it also here in the States and around the world. In in Australia, for sure. We, it is a capital asset. So it’s not just currency. It has additional powers and properties, which is why many people right now, lending to its volatility. This idea of holding on we hoddle or huddle, you’ll see. So used to the proper word was hold and then it was misspelt and now it’s folklore to say huddle, instead of hold that holding for the long term, which makes Bitcoin in particular more valuable because it has a hard cap. Unlike many of the other coins and currencies that are more susceptible to inflation in the same way we see government issued currencies. So so so there’s a lot there to to focus on. You mentioned volatility is one thing I wanted to tie up with that as well, because it lends itself to what we’re talking about now. As more entrants come in to the space, as liquidity continues to rise, as clarity in the laws and regulations start to settle, historically speaking, the volatility of pricing starts to diminish. And the interesting question will be, how long will that take in this space? It just feels like everything is moving more quickly. I don’t know if it’s because I’m getting older or the world is moving faster or both. But what used to take decades and decades, I don’t know that it takes as long anymore, but time will tell.

Gene Tunny  45:36

Yeah, yeah. You mentioned GBT, was it GBTC? Could you? What does that mean? Sorry, I missed that before GB…

Tonya Evans  45:46

Grayscale has a Trust Company and it sells shares of its trust, and the trust holds Bitcoin and other assets. And what and so that was permissible, but it was set up as a trust, not offered as an exchange traded fund for Bitcoin specifically, and so Grayscale submitted a proposal, an application that is sitting before the SEC currently to be approved for a spot Bitcoin ETF. So it has an existing infrastructure. GBTC is available and traded, but based upon trust interests, not as a spot ETF, and that’s what we’re waiting to see. There are 12 different applications before the SEC, an important date for approval is the first one would be November 17. So there’s been a lot of speculation, will the SEC approve one, a few, all 12? So as not to be kind of like the kingmaker to say this is the first one we will approve, maybe that would unfairly, you know, nod to one particular company over another where I believe the SEC hates them all. My opinion, not the opinion of this show. But the federal court said what it said, so we’re gonna, you know, not a matter of if but when but will it be all of them? Will it just be the one from Grayscale? Will it be the first one that they receive? But there’s some date certains that are built into the application process and that’s what the SEC is coming up against now.

Gene Tunny  47:25

Right! Okay. Yeah, definitely. Look out for that. Right I’ve just got two more questions. If you have time Professor Evans this is fascinating. Really, really interesting. And I like the point you made about how you got to make sure you actually own the the assets, the crypto, there’s a phrase you use, I can’t remember off the top of my head but something about you if you don’t own the keys, you don’t own the crypto is that it? Something like that?

Tonya Evans  47:48

Yeah, not your keys, not your crypto not your keys, not your coins, not your keys, not your cheese, whatever you fancy.

Gene Tunny  47:54

Gotcha. Yeah, the other term I learned that is the Lamb bro. So for the Lamborghini bros. And so if we do have that, the bull market in in crypto, we’ll see a few more Lamborghinis out on the street. So it’s a bit of a…

Tonya Evans  48:10

We might, and I will have to say that those who, particularly cypherpunks, hate, hate, hate this moniker, they hate it, hate it, hate it, and I get it. I will tell you, as a woman who has gone to a number of conferences, it’s rough out there sometimes. I think there are men who have the privilege of not seeing how male dominated it, certain ecosystems can be, I mean, certain conferences can be and how intimidating it can be when people are drunk and things are going on and was very flashy. I think that is a misrepresentation in general of my experience, and I’m a black woman. As long as you know, I talk the talk and walk the walk I have, generally speaking, been received well, I have to say. That being said, the Lamborghinis, the parties, the strippers like that’s a lot. So when it makes me but, you know, you think of the idea that we have the finance world, and we have the tech world. And then they come together into this microcosm. The Crypto ecosystem is a microcosm of those two spaces where women are underrepresented significantly, even though it continues to improve people of colour, etc. And so there is no impediment other than one’s own education and knowledge and awareness of the space, which is encouraging. And I think for those who have been in the space for a long time, or maybe from the Cypherpunk movement would say, we’re not keeping anybody out. Right. Many are libertarians, they were like, equal …. is good. Get yours. I’m gonna get mine. I’m not going to keep you from yours. Don’t keep me from my, and I get that I respect that. I think there are other forces that work that make me want to be more intentional. To know how much personally and professionally I have benefited from the knowledge and awareness, the professional pivot I did as a lawyer, as a professor, as an educator, that now I believe, for anyone in the world, it is the best opportunity in countries like mine, and countries like yours, to get ahead to kind of level the playing field to get get caught up as a matter of generational wealth at any other time, in certainly my history, but I would argue the history of the world, because things are digitised, we’re starting to remove like redlining and gatekeepers, things that would maintain the status quo to have the best for just a few. And then the rest left for everybody else. This is one of those pivotal inflection points in life. And I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say, because I know personally, and for those who I’ve helped educate who are like me, that this was that makes it more exciting to. And so I, it was really important for me to put that chapter in the book, because I wanted to not only say, the crypto bro thing it has existed, but it hopefully is the exception and not the rule for people who are very serious in the space. But also it misrepresents all of those who are curious and well positioned to take advantage of the space too, because the only thing that is keeping people out presently is a lack of awareness, education, and some protection as they enter an untested space in many ways.

Gene Tunny  51:46

Gotcha. And that is one of the themes of your book, you were referencing it before. It’s the idea that you see this as it can level the playing field or can provide opportunities to people from minority groups. And I know you’re not saying definitely invest in crypto, but yeah, how do you think about it? Because I see risks in crypto. And I mean, is this the right thing for someone starting out or some someone with not a lot of resources to invest in first thing? How do you think about that?

Tonya Evans  52:17

I would like to see kind of a both and approach particularly with respect to Bitcoin. When I first started in the space I, for a number of reasons, one as a professional and thinking a lot of my profession and not wanting to misguide people, knowing people would trust my voice if they heard it from me. And so I didn’t want to be in the habit of saying buy Bitcoin, buy ETH, buy this, buy that, I’ve changed my approach because Bitcoin is quite special as are stablecoins, I actually think stablecoins are the best way for people to get in. They’re not going to get wrecked by volatility. There’s some really strong ones, USDC from Circle, I have great respect for that team doing exceptional job. I know some of those folks, personally, I love USDC. We also have Tether. I don’t know who the people are. But I know Tether is very important to the Etherium ecosystem. It’s kind of like the oil that keeps things going there. When people want to jump out of the volatility of the market, but not out of crypto, they often move in the stables. And there are ways that you can earn interest and yield and blah, blah, blah. And so, I believe the short answer to your question is that this is a space where you want to start buying, you do, the best days right now are when most people aren’t there. The best times to make a sizable return if it’s to be had at all, is when most people are scared. Right? Warren Buffett says be greedy when people are fearful and fearful when people are greedy. When people start to get greedy, that’s when you know you’re probably getting to the top of a cycle and it’s time to like stabilise move things around, rebalance, reposition. And to really understand that with all of those, you know, 1000s and 1000s of tokens and coins. I hope you’re not gonna buy them all. Probably not gonna buy the overwhelming majority but they’re the you know, the top five, top, top 10 have a proven track record. That doesn’t mean they’re always going to win. But if you start now, you start learning the language. It’s what I’ve even done with stocks when I started swing trading, not day trading, but swing trading sometimes I had to start to learn how to read charts and candles and wicks and bar graphs right to start understanding. If this is the way this particular assets move, once it hits this particular range, maybe that’s a great time to buy. Maybe I’m wrong, but at least I’m using some type of disciplined, non emo…, separate, disciplined approach like separate from emotion. And that’s really important. Some of those same strategies can be used in the crypto space, but the major caveat, not only as a matter of volatility, but also this is 24/7 365. There are no national holidays. There’s oftentimes no customer service. I mean, if you’re buying and holding on an exchange, you have some additional layers of protection. But you have some risks even being on exchanges. This is the time to learn about this. Stable coins, literally are pegged to a particular asset, in most cases, the dollar or some equivalent of that as well. So you don’t have to go up and down with the market, but you can learn about the market. And then finally, back to my original point about Bitcoin because it has a hard cap of 21 million coins that will ever be in circulation, and actually 19 million are already in circulation. But it’ll be a long time after my life. And yours when the final bitcoin is actually issued for some technical reasons we can talk about next time, but it’s special. It’s special. And actually, I don’t think and I think many people would agree with me, Bitcoin doesn’t really function well as a peer to peer cash for more stable economies in Australia, in the United States, in Canada, in very various places in Europe, because it’s a nice to have for most people, not a need to have. But then you go to other nations, you go to Central and South America, you go to countries on the continent of Africa, and you start to see places, Ecuador and El Salvador, where there’s complete destabilisation, there’s confiscation, it is critically important that people have access to something that will hold its value better than the national currency, that is more trustworthy and non-confiscatable in the same way that their local currency is. And when you when you start to learn about that, like people need to travel and understand different cultures and people to really get a handle on why this even if it’s not important, and like a nice investment to have, for some it’s life or death for others. And eventually, every one of us will be touched by some catastrophe at some point that will have a direct impact on our finances, be it natural disaster, something going on, God forbid, with the government and everything in between, like, we have to pay attention to what’s going on in the world. And to, there’s 99.9% of things we can’t control, control the controllables. And one of those is your own level of education in a space that’s transformative, but has the potential to be empowering and to protect you down the road. By the time you need to figure it out. It’s oftentimes too late. So now’s really the time, the market is kind of quiet, the bad actors are starting to get routed out. This is the time when you don’t have the FOMO and FUD pressure, and you can proactively start to take some significant steps in the right direction.

Gene Tunny  58:03

Righto, okay. Final question. You mentioned about criminal activity and as a proportion of all crypto activity, the criminal activities, very small proportion, okay, accept that, but has crypto, is there any evidence on whether crypto has enabled criminal activity? So it’s expanded the amount of criminal activity out there in, so does it make it easier to traffic arms or just you know, awful things like human trafficking, etc? Do we know in drugs? Do we know anything about that?

Tonya Evans  58:37

It’s just a small, small part. There are some significant bad actors who deal precisely in the things that you’ve mentioned. But and the Wall Street Journal here. Maybe within the last, well had to be within the last month, they ran this completely error-ridden report about Hamas, raising millions and millions in Bitcoin. And there was this huge rush by Senator Warren and some other folks signing off on letters saying that needs to be immediate action taken. And it was just completely wrong. And it was scary that our legislators would rely on something that was so faulty, and with not insignificant pushback and fact checking, mostly coming from the crypto community. The Wall Street Journal had to issue a retraction and the senators had to stand down. What was said to be millions and millions that Hamas, Hamas was like, please don’t send us any more money they can track it. Thank you. Send us dollars. Send us dollars do not, send send us dollars and oil. Do not send us Bitcoin because of the nature of the tracking. You can literally go to any bitcoin tracker and see in real time. Now it’s pseudonymous, not anonymous at but with Chainalysis and some other companies use what’sapp’s called blockchain forensics. And it’s really like following the money. It’s a paper trail. But only it’s not using paper and every single transaction all the way back to the original transaction in Bitcoin issued by Satoshi Nakamoto, him or herself, is on chain visible, and you can see from wallet to wallet to wallet to wallet, and you start aggregating pieces of data. This is the way the Department of Justice here in the United States starts to root that out, and it’s just a terrible place for activity. Now, the one point is, it might be easier to get it up front. But it’s not a matter of if but when, with the right resources behind behind it, some of that stuff is going to get found and people will be routed out and they will come to justice. So this is a terrible thing for for for criminal activity. That doesn’t mean criminals won’t try. They’re very lazy. And maybe they don’t know a lot about it either. But that’s why there’s a relatively insignificant amount because, you know, it’s easy to hide physical cash. Right? It’s not easy to hide something that’s there in plain sight. So it’s tough to combat that point because of the pervasiveness of, like the sensationalised headlines, and again not to diminish what’s going on we use Sam Bankman-Fried for example, as an you know, kind of the poster boy, but it took less time because he was apprehended in the Bahamas on November 7, in like basically almost a year to the date. He’s a convicted felon, and we’re just waiting for his sentence. It took way more time to find out who was involved in the the housing crisis, way more time to take down Bernie Madoff. It’s all garden variety fraud, but it happened far more quickly in the crypto space and I don’t think that the crypto space gets enough credit for that.

Gene Tunny  1:02:00

Yeah, good point. Very good point. Okay, Professor Tonya Evans, this has been amazing. I really value your insights and your your deep knowledge of this sector. This is this is really terrific. And I got a lot out of this. And yeah, I’d love to do a round two sometime in the future. But yep, Digital Money Demystified. I’ve got it on Kindle. I think it comes out in paperback. Next year, early next year. So yep, I think

Tonya Evans  1:02:28

It’s here now, yeah now here now go to your favourite place and buy buy buy, you can go to digitalmoneydemystified.com. But it came out on October 24. So it’s available wherever books around the world are sold.

Gene Tunny  1:02:42

Okay, ah very good. I must have misread that. That’s, that’s terrific. Well, Professor Tonya Evans, thanks so much for your time. I really value the conversation.

Tonya Evans  1:02:50

Appreciate you Gene. Thank you.

Gene Tunny  1:02:53

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

1:03:40

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this, or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Iceland’s Secret: The Untold Story of the World’s Biggest Con w/ Jared Bibler – EP215

Show host Gene Tunny interviews Jared Bibler, author of the book “Iceland’s Secret: The Untold Story of the World’s Biggest Con.” Jared discusses his firsthand experience during the brutal 2008 financial crisis in Iceland, where he worked at a collapsed bank and later at the financial markets regulator. He sheds light on the dodgy behavior of bankers leading up to the crisis and the severe consequences that followed. Stay tuned to the end of the episode for Gene’s interpretation of Iceland’s secret and its relevance to economies worldwide.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About Jared Bibler

Jared started his career as a consultant for a Wall Street giant in Boston and New York until moving to Iceland to support the Icelandic pension funds’ foreign investments. He resigned from his job at a leading Icelandic bank a weekend before the 2008 Icelandic financial crisis.

He was subsequently hired to lead a special investigation team, which referred more than 30 criminal cases to the Special Prosecutor of Iceland, including the largest stock market manipulation cases to be prosecuted globally.

Jared’s insider knowledge and unwavering persistence helped Iceland to famously become the only country to jail its bank CEOs. But the real story, deeply complex and sinister, has direct relevance today as banks once again begin to tumble.

What’s covered in EP215

  • 00:02:56 Iceland’s financial crisis was fueled by the growth of banks that became Enron-sized and collapsed, causing significant damage to the economy.
  • 00:05:49 Financial industry corruption and collapse.
  • 00:11:30 Iceland’s banking system collapsed.
  • 00:19:33 Icelandic banks manipulated stock prices.
  • 00:27:26 The financial system is vulnerable.
  • 00:34:58 Banking fraud and economic collapse.
  • 00:35:58 Currency crisis in Iceland.
  • 00:47:19 Iceland faced economic crisis and unemployment.
  • 00:50:54 Iceland’s recovery transformed into something ugly.
  • 00:57:38 Lessons from Iceland’s banking collapse.
  • 01:00:16 Incentives and regulation in finance.

Links relevant to the conversation

Amazon page for Iceland’s Secret:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Icelands-Secret-Untold-Worlds-Biggest/dp/0857198998

Transcript: Iceland’s Secret: The Untold Story of the World’s Biggest Con w/ Jared Bibler – EP215

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Jared Bibler  00:04

What meagre foreign currency reserves we had at the Central Bank, were being depleted. That’s another piece of the book. You probably didn’t get to but the central bank gave away most of its FX reserves. After the first two banks collapsed, central bank gave 500 million euros to prop up the Third Bank. That money disappeared in one day and then the third bank also collapsed. And they, they have never got that money back. That was that was a substantial chunk of Iceland’s FX.

Gene Tunny  00:40

Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, and welcome to the show. This episode is about Iceland’s secret, the untold story of the world’s biggest con. That’s the title of a book by my guest, Jared nibbler. Jared witnessed the brutal 2008 financial crisis in Iceland firsthand, he worked at one of the banks that eventually collapsed, and later on he worked at the financial markets regulator. His work contributed to the prosecution and conviction of several bank executives. In his book, Jared highlights the dodgy behaviour of bankers leading up to the financial crisis in Iceland and just how bad things got stay tuned until the end of the episode to hear my interpretation of Iceland’s secret, which is relevant to economies worldwide. Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy it. Jared Biblia Welcome to the programme. Hey,

Jared Bibler  02:03

thanks so much for having me, Gene. It’s a pleasure to be here. Oh, of course,

Gene Tunny  02:07

Jared. So yep. I’ve been reading your book with much interest, Iceland’s secret The Untold Story of the world’s biggest con. Now, I was in the treasury here in Australia during the financial crisis. And so we had our own challenges here. And I mean, not as much as other places, but that I remember seeing the news about Iceland that I just didn’t realise just how crazy things that got in, in Iceland, and it was great. Your book, really set it all out and had all your personal stories and recollections in it too. So it’s terrific. So to kick off with, could you just give us a flavour please? What was Iceland secret?

Jared Bibler  02:54

Well, I think you have to read the book to see the secret. But the the secret of the of the crash, I think was that we had these banks, which had been very sleepy institutions catering to a population of just around the time at that time in the 90s, about 250,000 people, very sleepy small savings banks, one was called the agriculture bank. One banks really financed the fisheries, and so on. But these are very small institutions. And they were able to grow a Ponzi like doubling in size every year during the during the first decade of the century, for several years, and so they they grew to each become the size of an Enron. And at that time, when they crashed, the population was still only 300. Little over 300,000 people. So we had these, we had these huge Enron sized collapses in one week, in a country with, you know, one 1000 for the size of the US. When Enron collapsed, it was a it was a big story, you know, and it was, there was a task force of 600 federal investigators, I believe, looking into Enron, and there were movies, there were five or six books, there was an Enron musical, I don’t know if you remember. And I was talking to a reader the other day, and he said, Look, this Iceland story was just so much bigger. And what why is why is your book deal now there are a few other books about it. There’s a lot of books in Icelandic about it. But there’s not that much talking about it. I didn’t really want to write this book. But I felt like after a few years, I have to tell this story. And I actually really struggled to tell the story. But first because I was trying to tell the story as an outside, outside, you know, so third person just here’s what happened in Iceland. And a very good friend of mine who helped me with the book. She said, No, you have to tell it through your own, you know, your own walk through the crisis. So that’s, that’s what we ended up doing. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  04:52

because you had experience in a bank, one of the big banks in Iceland prior to the crash, and then you ended up as a regulator, didn’t you investigating what went wrong? Could you tell us? I mean, how did that transition go? How did you go from being the banker and then leaving just before the crash and then to the, to the regulatory agency? Well,

Jared Bibler  05:16

my wife who the book is dedicated to, she had a dream. And, and a prophetic dream, as I think you see in the book, and she told me just to get out of the bank, and I had been in an asset management role, we had been managing money for mainly the pension funds in Iceland. So we had we had funds of private equity funds and hedge fund to funds was my main product. But I was really unhappy with the things I was seeing around me in the asset management department. You know, it’s the standard asset management stuff that people do, you know, if you want a big client to come in you, you price things in a way that all the existing people in the fun pay for that person that come in, and they never know it, right. So there’s a lot of that stuff. And I guess that’s pretty endemic, still in that industry. But that really bothered me. I mean, I was really, I was studying for the CFA, I was signing these ethics statements, and I was saying, so my wife knew that how upset I was, she told me to quit. So I just quit, I didn’t have a job to go to. And that was a Friday that it was my last day the all the banks collapsed, the next two of them collapsed on Monday, and one of them collapsed on Thursday of the next week. Right? Then we were just really, almost penniless. Because at the time, I mean, the crash, how it felt to live through that cannot be overstated. It was it was a horrendous experience. Because we didn’t it at some points, we couldn’t even access the money in our bank accounts. And almost everything that we had was frozen and later hair cut and discounted, we ended up losing our house in the end. And a lot of our friends did as well. So I mean, it was it was a horrendous time, the British had invoked terrorist legislation against the whole country of Iceland, declaring Iceland a terrorist organisation. And, you know, and this is what was barely reported, you know, we were sitting there being called terrorists by Gordon Brown. And that meant that all the payments into the country and foreign currencies were frozen for weeks or months. So that was a very dark winter, people were out on the streets. And the winter in Iceland is not that cold, but it’s dark. You know, it’s in Reykjavik, it’s about zero degrees, most of the time in the winter, but it’s dark. And people would be out on the street in the dark banging pots and pans and in front of the parliament building. And so I finally I didn’t have a job for the for all these months, my wife had a new job. And so we were trying to live on what she was making. And in Iceland, your mortgage payment goes up every month. So the principal balance is recalculated with the inflation of the preceding month, and then the the monthly payment is recalculated each month. So our payments went up something like 40% 50% in a very short time. So then I got very luckily, hired by the regulator, they said they wanted to hire one investigator to help them untangle the mess of the collapsed, you know, the three Enron collapses that we’d had ended up hiring to others, they hired me, another guy who had been in the banks and a woman who was a lawyer. And they just said to us, you know, go investigate the crisis. And so that was about six months after. I eventually, as you see in the book, I eventually got more people. But it took, I think it took 12 months to get my first person to add add to my team. And then eventually, we got we got a nice team together to do these investigations. So yeah,

Gene Tunny  08:48

so I’ve got sort of halfway in the book. So I apologise I haven’t read it all. And I’m still learn Iceland secret. I thought I’d died. Yeah, yeah. What What I found fascinating about the book is just because you’re American, aren’t you? You’re You’re you’ve studied in the States, and you end up in, in Iceland, and the, the culture is different. And yeah, I thought some of those recollections were terrific. And you’re talking about, you know, working with your, your fellow team members, so that that was great. So it’s worth reading for that. So yes. Can I just fix it in time? So we’re talking, we’re talking about October 2008. Is that right? That’s right. Yeah. Yeah. And Lehman Brothers had collapsed a couple of weeks before so you weren’t worried about that?

Jared Bibler  09:40

Oh, everybody was ever Yeah. So for? Well, to put a timeline on the whole on the whole episode, from 1998 was the beginning. I believe of the banks being privatised in Iceland. So the banks had been government owned, more or less. And they were still Hold off in pieces, but not in a, in a way that’s still being criticised today, and in Iceland and still hasn’t really been fully investigated today. Because basically, the powerful politicians gave bank a lot of banks out to people affiliated with those political parties. And so there wasn’t a lot of transparency, there was no, there was apparently foreign interest for lunch bunkie which was the oldest bank, but then the guest that bid was never even really considered. They just wanted to keep it in the family. Keep it keep it national, you know, Icelandic owned. And so that was 98 203 was a sort of beginning of the privatisation wave. And then in oath 203, they floated the ISK on global currency markets. So it was an exchangeable currency. And when that happened, it just things just took off. Yeah, so So the boom years was really I moved there in oh four, which was maybe one year in one, two years into the boom. And the whole thing lasted only a couple of years, really. Because by oh five, according to one, former executive, I believe oh five, he said, a quick thing, bank was already insolvent. And so the only you know, they, they weren’t doing great banking, at any, in my opinion, in any of these years, the banks were not the only way to escape the bad decisions of the year before was to double the bank in size, the next year, and they had a they had big foreign lenders just pumping money into these banks, so that it for a few years, they could borrow as much as they wanted. From European and later American lenders, there was already a mini crisis in 2006, where the currency crash stock market crashed and everything was a bit a bit, you know, up in the air, what would happen. And at that point, the banks actually started open retail savings accounts for retail customers in Europe, in order to collect the funding that they needed. And they were able to then keep the party going. So then I started in LHINs. Bucky in the Asset Management Department in early oh seven. And the subprime in the trade press, people were talking about subprime already, January Oh, seven, I was started to follow it. And things got more and more. At first, we thought this isn’t gonna, this isn’t going to touch us. Now, Icelandic banks barely invested in subprime. They weren’t doing much, they were just making bad loans to their friends, more or less. But though eight was when things were getting more and more dicey in the bank. And by the end by, I think, looking back when Lehman collapsed, the credit markets between banks in the world really froze. And those weeks and the Icelandic banks were on writing on just fumes anyway. And so that was the final straw, but they were not healthy. Now, this is not the story that I’ll tell you today. By the way, my book is not so popular in Iceland. Because Because the story now is that we had a great banking system, even though it was 11 times bigger than our GDP, but we had a great banking system. And and Lehman killed it. When otherwise it would have been fantastic. But yeah, it was Yeah. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  13:26

What I was asking was because you you quit in a period where I mean, did you? Did you ever you had a parent or your wife or her or your partner had a premonition that the bank was just going to go down and you wanted to get out? You should get out as soon as possible is that is that she

Jared Bibler  13:45

actually said? And she never talked like this. She said, Don’t let those eight holes fire you. You need to get out of there. She said, she had a dream that I was being fired and something bad had happened. And she said you need to be the one to quit to get out of there first. So as soon as she said that, I I I went, you know, I think I quit within a couple of days. So yeah.

Gene Tunny  14:09

So it’s interesting you talking about the rock the fact that Iceland floated, visit the kroner the corona, was that in early 2000s, that late in I think it was oh two, I think oh two, right. And so probably liberalised capital flows. And, yes, so you’ve got all of these, all of this lending, what to have any idea what was in the minds of the lenders? I mean, what were they seen in Iceland? What is the story they’re telling themselves? I

Jared Bibler  14:44

have a thought experiment for you imagine if a small Caribbean nation with 300,000 people went to Deutsche Bank just to pick on them because Deutsche lay a lot of money and lost a lot on the Icelandic banks. Majan if a 300,000 person Island went to Deutsche Bank He said our main exports are fisheries and tourism. Yeah. And we’d like to have a great banking system. But they would have laughed, right? They would not have probably went into that. But because it’s this, especially in German because now we live in Switzerland, especially in the German speaking imagination, Iceland is really to lay Iceland is really the, the mythical land of of, well, well, it is. It is the mythical land of the Sagas and Vikings and so on. And so the they were happy to, to to lend into this. They said, Oh, we’re liberalising our banking system were developed Western economy. The interesting thing about No, I, I am an Icelander. So I have, you know, I have the passport. And, you know, we we have probably socially one of the very most developed countries in the world. Certainly for women’s rights, gay rights, it’s it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s leading edge. But the economy is not developed to match that. So the economy in those days was a lot of fishing, fish exports, and heavy power exports. And today, we’ve added huge and disgusting levels of tourism onto on top of that, so the cup before the pandemic, I think there were 10 tourists per year for every man, woman and child and in Iceland. And so that has become the, that has become the biggest export, I believe. Gotcha.

Gene Tunny  16:30

And can I ask you about? Yeah, that all of this lending, and where was it going? Was this going into your, into the property market in Iceland? Or what was what was being done with all the money that the banks were borrowing?

Jared Bibler  16:45

Yeah, the first thing they did is, is inflate all the bubbles they could domestically. So property bubble, they had a they had a little mini private equity boom in Iceland, maybe in? Oh, 304 I think where they, you know, did sale and lease backs of, I think who says Smithian, which is the it’s a home improvement chain in Iceland, but like a chain and Iceland maybe has only five, five locations or 10. You know, there’s really only one city in Iceland, which is Reykjavik. Yeah, most people live there. And so, so they did a sale and leaseback of these five or 10 properties, and you know, they did things like that. But then by Oh 405 They were increasingly looking to do investments abroad. And so there was a there were private equity style investment groups in Iceland that went and bought up things like European airlines. They bought a lot of high street shops in the UK, for example, they bought famously based on the really based on the historic relationship between the two countries. This was a big, this was a big win for Iceland. We bought Denmark’s Copenhagen’s most prestigious department store became Iceland owned, which was kind of a big, big faced, because Denmark had been the colonial masters for 700 years and just treat it still today that Danish tend to come to Iceland and bark orders at people on the street and so on. So to buy their department store was just seen as you know, the crown jewels, so they did a lot of very expensive deals in those years. You know, we had pretty low interest rates in those years, and there was a lot of a lot of these deals going on. But a lot of them ended up not being not being great. And so, yeah, so it was it was kind of a family family game where bankers made made loans to their colleagues in this in this connected private equity world of Iceland and they, you know, they went and did deals. The banks, the banks also bought other banks. So, they expanded hugely into Scandinavia. They bought some of the oldest London banks, singer and Friedlander inheritable and you know, they were by the time I think in oh eight, my bank lens bunkie had even opened a branch in Hong Kong, I believe, or Singapore. I mean, they were really they want it to be these globe straddling behemoths.

Gene Tunny  19:13

But a Yeah, yeah, but what happened? I mean, they, they borrowed too much from abroad. They learned domestically and in the, their, their data is they just, they couldn’t pay it back. And then the banks crash, they ran out of cash or liquidity. I mean, well, so what actually happened?

Jared Bibler  19:32

The first thing that I discovered as an investigator, which is which is how the book opens, is I get this letter from the stock exchange. Yeah. And the Stock Exchange says saying, hey, look, on the three days before these banks collapsed, they each seemed to be buying their own shares up on the exchange, and they seem to be doing it with with bank money. And I thought that’s a little bit crazy because they hadn’t announced any Any share buybacks, right. And the volumes on the last three days were huge. It was effectively, they bought the whole market. Every trade that came across the exchange was the bank’s cash on the buying side, keeping the price up. And I thought this is crazy, right. So as you saw in the book, I tried to figure out when that behaviour had begun. So I went back to the Lehman and went back a few weeks to cover Lehman because I thought, okay, probably after Lehman, they got really nervous, and they started trying to manipulate their own stock price, you know, I just wanted to put a book end on the activity, before I wrote up, you know, a criminal case to send to the prosecutor. And I had to keep going back and back and back. I went back to first I thought I was being very bold when I when I covered a six month period. And then it turned out that the activity was the same for the whole for basically the whole six months of April, oh, eight to the to the crash, more or less, they were in the market every day. And many days, they were buying more than 75% of the market for their own shares. And so I went back, we ended up going back to 2004, which is coincidentally when I had moved to Iceland, so for five years, they had been doing this behaviour. Later, when I was closing the research for the book, I came across some court documents where and we had seen indications of this. But there’s court documents where some of the traders openly talk about this behaviour going back to 1998. So from the first days of the banks being privatised by the government, they were already intervening in the market to to and so with my perspective, and of course, I’m biassed because I was the investigator who developed those cases, my perspective is without that share price manipulation, the banks could never have grown the way they did. Because they had such healthy performance on the equity market. One of them was dual listed in Stockholm and and Reykjavik. And so whenever they went to lenders, they could say, look at how great our results we will look. The markets love us, you know, look at our stock is up another 20% another 30% this year, or 100%. I mean, the markets, the Icelandic stock market in those boom years, it was going up 60% A year the whole market only Wow. Right. And, and the bat and that was that that lasted for several years, that was the broad market was 50 to 60% a year. And the banks, but the banks grew so fast, that they ended up becoming seven year 80 or 90% of the market cap because they crowded out everything else. And so when they collapsed, of course, the stock market lost 93%. In 2008, it was basically closed for equity trading after the bank collapse. And so all of our, for example, if you talk about damage to the people of Iceland, all of our pension funds had to be in the equity market. Right. And so, and basically that meant they had to be in the, in the banks. When when I was investigating the the manipulation that the banks did was looking at lists of buyers of the shares. And there were some periods in Oh 708, where the only legitimate buyers of the banking of the bank shares were the Icelandic pension funds. And all the rests were, you know, because, yeah, they were accumulating so many of their own shares each quarter that, you know, and that they were going to be in they had, you know, the big four auditors were, were their auditors. I mean, all this is all big names. You know, the Stock Exchange was called NASDAQ, oh, MX, Iceland, you have KPMG you have EY you don’t have the the big four auditors are in Iceland, they knew that when their books were audited, they couldn’t be sitting on, you know, $200 million worth of their own shares, which they had just bought on the exchange. So they did these complex and runs style machinations at the end of the quarter to offload the, the, the shares. And so they would create, I would find a shell company that British Virgin Islands that had just bought 100 million worth of shares. And so to answer your what one of your questions a few questions ago, what were they making loans to well, by the by Oh 607 their loan book was almost entirely to these bogus companies that they had just created to buy the shares from them. Yeah, so So you know, it doesn’t make any sense at all, but it was uh, I think fake wanted to keep that, that that. I call it shear laundering. I think they wanted to keep that scheme going as long as they could. Yeah. Now

Gene Tunny  24:59

is that all Iceland secret or is Iceland secret something far worse that I’ve yet to discover?

Jared Bibler  25:04

I think I’ll tell you that secret, if you want. I’ll do a spoiler alert. I don’t know. This. That is the secret is the share is certainly a big secret. Because you know, that that was never really reported. This is one of the reasons I wrote that was like, I have to tell this story. I mean, yeah, they basically deceived the whole country. And all the investing world, I mean, London, all the big markets knew about these Icelandic banks that were lending to them, they were doing business with them. And the whole time they had created, you know, an illusion of success based on this market manipulation that they were doing daily behind the scenes, you know, the guys who were doing the manipulation had to do it so much that if if there’s a famous phone call, and one of the court documents where the guy’s late for work in the summer, and the price in Sweden has already dropped a couple of percent, and his boss is calling him saying, Get in here, man, we’re losing, like, you know, if they had to be in there on every trade, to keep up this illusion, and they did this free for for a decade. So I think that’s, that’s, that’s one of the secrets of the book. Well,

Gene Tunny  26:14

I can we can leave it under wraps. Okay, because I don’t I don’t want to ruin any potential sales of your book. And I don’t want to spoil that for myself, too. But I was just wondering, because when I when I saw the title, and then I started radio, then I that must be the seagull you’re talking about. But if there’s something far worse that that really gets me interested,

Jared Bibler  26:35

there is something far worse. Okay. And I would, you know, go ahead. Well, I just want to make the point that a lot of people say, Who cares about Iceland, and I, of course, I love Iceland. So I care about it a lot. But, for example, when people here in Switzerland, read the book, or hear me talk about it, I get a lot, there’s a lot of scared faces in the crowd. Because a lot of a lot of the world’s financial markets are are subject to the same forces and incentives as we had in Iceland, which led to this incredible collapse, which devastated the country. And I think it’s really the story again, I’m biassed, of course, but I think this is really kind of the story of what we may be all facing in the next couple of decades. Because we, we haven’t managed yet. And that and I also people get offended when I say this, but in two or 300 years, I think people will look back on us and the way we structured our financial systems and laugh at the way we laugh at Dutch tulip mania, or, you know, because we have kind of no put in no incentives, or no structures to keep an Iceland from happening elsewhere. Now it’s going to be maybe the nice thing about Iceland is it’s such a small place. It’s such a small population that the scam is very easy to for me to describe to you. I think in a bigger market, it’s going to be more it’s gonna be more subtle. But But still, all the incentives are on the side of of cheating, and building in, in sustainability to our markets. And nobody is really paid good money to, to stop these things can mean you have some window dressing like you have comply. I mean, they stopped some things. But in my experience, when senior management of a bank wants a big deal to go through, that deal is gonna go through nobody’s sitting, nobody’s gonna get paid have a 5 million franc bonus to stop to stop to stop something. This is not how it works.

Gene Tunny  28:41

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  28:47

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  29:16

Now back to the show. One of the interesting stories in the book is where you’re having to clear or run a transaction, aren’t you or make a transaction or deposit two was at a bank in Europe and trying to remember exactly yeah, it was trying to remember the details but in your manager, he initially said I Yep. Sounds fine to me. Just let it go through then. Later on. Oh, that must be it’s Jarrettsville. Sir, could you tell us about that?

Jared Bibler  29:49

Oh, yeah. So I tried to sprinkle in actually, my dream is to rereleased Iceland secrets sometime in the future with with more of the stories in there but my publishers said, you know, you’re a first time author, you only get 300 pages. Sorry, Jared, but, but I had more of more of those things have I tried to sprinkle in stories in the beginning, which are representative of the culture within the bank? And when actually when other bankers and other countries read this state, none of them says, They all say, oh, geez, yeah, that’s exactly how it is where I work, you know, none of them says, oh, Jared, this, this only happens in Iceland, they all say, Oh, yeah. So the story you’re referring to is we had a, some guys who call themselves a hedge fund. And they wanted our bank. To be basically we were the administrators of the fund, and the custodians of the funds, assets, but they were going to trade. And they had, they had got the investors, and they had, I think 120 million euros come into the fund. And they, as far as I could see, they weren’t hedging anything. They were just buying long positions and in equity, and very few companies. And I think they, I think they had some inside information, basically, on these few of these companies. But as the, as the saga went on, they did more and more crazy things. And one point they said, We’re, we’re investing in a shipping portfolio. I don’t even know what that means. And I was waiting for like the paperwork about because when you do an investment, you know, you know how it is. I mean, there’s there’s a contract, and there’s there’s there was nothing. They said just Just what please, they wrote me like, please help us wire 5 million euros to this account in Norway. Yeah. At at such and such bank, it was one of the biggest Norwegian or Scandinavian banks. So it was a reputable bank, but we didn’t count just had a person’s name. All I had was like an AI ban and a person’s name. And I went to my boss, and I said, I don’t think we should send 5 million customer money out of this fun to this account. We don’t have anything. He said, Why are you always making problems? You know, bring the solutions. And so I just decided, eventually I did it. I sent the money. I mean, I copied him on and and in an email to cover myself. And I said as as we discuss, you know, and as soon as I sent the 5 million, as soon as that went through they, they wanted another five. I mean, within within, as I remember it within a day. I mean, it was very quick. They ended up they ended up sending out 15 in cash. And the other weird thing about this was that it was such a, you know, when you’re looking for fraud, usually round numbers is a good flag, because most things don’t. There’s always a commission or you know, taxes or something, or exchange foreign exchange differences. Things never come out or rarely do they just come out to like 5,000,005. So yeah. So then the fund within a couple of weeks, got into trouble for some other things. Now, I had been trying to warn these guys about about the problems with this fund for more than a year. And they just said, you know, making problems just it’s going to be fine, you know, let it ride. And so you can see more of that in the book, but that they were going to scapegoat me then for this 15 million they went out. Because yeah, when his boss looked at it, and all the transactions that just jumped off the page, they were the biggest ones. And you know, all these zeros, they just jump off the page at you. He said, he said, What’s this? And my boss said, Oh, I don’t know, that looks like something that Jared did. That was that was the weekend. I think that happened on a Sunday. If I recall correctly that night was when my wife had the dream. And that Monday, she woke up and she said you have to get out of there. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  33:53

Was very smart. And that was a Friday. So yeah, there was the Friday that.

Jared Bibler  34:00

Well, I quit. So I put me so that was a Monday in Monday. Yeah, that. Well. That was right after Lehman. I have to go back. And look, it might have even been the Lehman weekend that that happened. It was in September, then I quit when you resign in Iceland, you you resign on the on a month end. Gotcha. So I put in my resignation for 31st of October. Sorry, 35th of September. So I probably put that in within a couple of days, effective 30. September, then I would have needed to work three more months, according to my contract. So So I should have been there October, November, December. But they was that stories in the book too. They basically let me go on the Friday October 3. And then the banks collapsed on the seventh eighth and the sixth, seventh and ninth of October.

Gene Tunny  34:58

So the banks collapsed. This is a day that was at the three biggest banks in Iceland collapsed. Yes. Right. Yeah. And you talked about the the hardship before. But so what did it mean, you know, one could get people weren’t able to get cash they the economy basically stalled? Yeah, it

Jared Bibler  35:18

was. So I’ll try to walk you through it. I mean, it was, it was frightening, because for months, the currency of the currency against the euro had been depreciating. So it’s through the, through the crisis week, the currency depreciated so much that it was it had lost half of its value, since maybe five, six months before that. So everything we were used to like flying to Europe and having vacations and things, everything was now double in price in a very short time. So that had already been going on. And the politicians were just saying, well, the currency will come back. There’s, there’s nothing on the other side, it’s never come back, of course, still today, and then what happened in the crisis is that it actually just, they just stopped trading. Nobody. So outside of Iceland, during the good years, it was 60 or 70 krona to the dollar. And then the offshore rate became something like two or three or 400 to the dollar raw. So anybody offshore who had ISK, they just wanted to dump it, they didn’t care what the rate was. So you had this offshore rate of two or three or 400, whatever it was. And then onshore, we had capital controls, which lasted a decade. So in Iceland, you could buy euros for, you know, for a predetermined rate set by the central bank. And they would basically give you the euros that they had against ISK. This lasted for a long time. And but you couldn’t get them you could only get them if you were travelling. Or if you hadn’t, if you had an invoice. That’s it. Yeah, there was no way to get dollars or euros or anything else for a long time. And of course, that that begat a huge new scam industry. All the bankers who had just been laid off from the banks, not all some of them started faking invoices from foreign companies. And you know, get if they had a relative in the UK, they have the relative send an invoice which said so and so’s consulting company 50,000 British pounds, they would get the, the onshore Icelandic rate, they’d wire the pounds out to the foreign account, the foreign guy would would take the British pounds and buy some Icelandic government bonds from a British guy who didn’t want them and would take the offshore rate. And they’d send the bonds back in in one in a one or two day round trip. They could double their money or triple their money in local currency terms. So that became a whole industry, which ran for about six. Yeah, to try to profit on the capital controls and but what it was really doing was depleting. The what meagre foreign currency reserves we had at the Central Bank, were being depleted. That’s another piece of the book. You probably didn’t get to. But the central bank gave away most of its FX reserves. After the first two banks collapse, central bank gave 500 million euros to prop up the Third Bank. That money disappeared in one day. And then the third bank also collapsed. And they they have never got that money back. That was that was a substantial chunk of Iceland’s FX. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  38:56

And you mentioned the the exchange rate and prior to the crisis, and you tell a story about how I mean teachers and people you would normally expect would be going they’ll be travelling overseas for shopping trips. Yeah.

Jared Bibler  39:10

Yeah. Because I just realised I didn’t really answer your question, the last one about how to live through it, but but to come to the teachers. Yeah, I mean, for those few years after the after the FX trading was free, you know, globally available. There was a huge demand for ISK assets among investors around the world because the yield was so high, you could get an eight or 10% and it was perceived to be a safe place to invest. And so a lot of money just flooded into the country. And that meant that the exchange rate went, the ISK got 20 3040 Maybe 50% stronger in a very short time. So people felt very rich and Um, but things in Iceland are still very expensive because you have almost no competition on retail and wholesale and, you know, maybe one wholesaler for anything you might buy. And so the currency was very strong. But that doesn’t mean that domestic prices are going to go down. They should, but they’re sticky. They don’t go down, right? Yeah, but that means you can go abroad and for and for the savings that you will have on buying, like, say, a laptop computer, you go to Boston to buy it would pay for the trip, the savings would pay for the trip. So that was a calculation that many of us made, people would just go to buy. I was in Boston once and someone had bought four big tires for his SUV in Iceland, and he was putting them on the plane they were putting them on, it’s just luggage with, you know, with a tag just wrapped around the tire and putting them on the belt, he probably saved enough on that to pay for a weekend in Boston. So as if it was a calculation a lot of us made. And so yeah, we felt super rare, we felt like the world was our oyster. And when we would go, also things seemed very cheap. So I went to Boston, and I took out my mom and dad, my brother and his wife for a meal. And even with a generous tip for a meal for the five of us, it cost only a little more than a meal for one person would have cost in Reykjavik at that time. So we just felt they felt like for me, it only lasted maybe 36 months or 24 months, but we felt like kings. Yeah. And then And then yeah, the the, the loss of that was that the times were very desperate in, in especially the autumn of Oh, eight, we had no idea what what the next week was going to bring. I mean, we had the terrorist thing from the UK, which really, that meant that all the companies in Iceland, let’s say that you had a fishing exporting fisheries company that was expecting to be paid for fish that they’d already exported to the UK or to the mate or mainland Europe. The payment would be just frozen in Swift, it would just have to be blocked somewhere in the UK and not allowed to go through because the whole country was considered a terrorist organisation. So

Gene Tunny  42:16

what was going on there? Jared? Was Was there any? Was that legit? I mean, what what’s going on? What were the banks? Did they have? Did they take deposits, so facilitate transactions for some shady people? What was actually going on?

Jared Bibler  42:31

That was just to punish Iceland? There’s many there’s different explanations? I’ve never heard a great one. I mean, Iceland, in England have a long standing tension are overfishing actually, there’s something called the cod wars in the 70s. Which Iceland one. But it meant that the fishing grounds that the English had been using, were no, we’re now claimed by Iceland. So some people say that this was retribution for the cod wars. Others say that, you know, it was retribution, because there was a lot of misunderstanding around savings accounts. And, and, and more generally bank products in the UK, that the Icelandic banks had offered. And so for example, there’s something called Icesave under under EU law, a bank in one country can open a branch in another country, and not be regulated by this by the new country. So so the Icelandic banks, when they were running out of money in oh six, they decided to use this to open online savings accounts in the UK. And take money from retail depositors in the UK, pay them higher interest rates to to lower them and take the British pounds, because they needed, they needed FX they needed foreign currency to keep to keep going. And so there was a there was a big misunderstanding between the two governments on the eve of the crisis, where famously the key was the finance minister, but he was a veterinarian, and he did not speak very good English, he should have had a interpreter. And he also should have had a UK cultural interpreter. Because as you as you know, you know, when, when an Englishman says I’m very concerned, that means like, you’re dead, you know. And so Alistair Darling was on this famous phone call. He says, I’m very concerned about the status of these deposits and so on, you know, I can’t remember the exact words, but the Icelandic guy just as well, well, we’re looking into that. And, you know, dollar darling is like, look, we’re going to talk tomorrow at eight in the morning, I’m going to call you but if this isn’t done, you know, we’re going to take we’re going to take measures, and I think I can’t remember the days how they played out but it was that day or the next that, because they had after 911, they had these new terrorist powers in the UK where they could put on her majesty’s treasury, they could put like al Qaeda on there, and that would just freeze all payments. Okay. So Gordon Brown just decided to put, so they put. So it was like al Qaeda, al Qaeda in Syria, I want to say or al Qaeda in Iraq, there was a whole bunch of terrorist names. And then it said republic of Iceland, Central Bank of Iceland. Financially, they even put the Financial Supervisory as a separate separately from the Republic as its own its own line item. But that just killed us, man, because that was in the middle of it. These countries are ostensibly NATO allies, right. And that just that just devastated us. And so yeah, so those months were just super dark we. Because they’re because of the freezing payments, there wasn’t like no food being imported. So we were eating more and more just locally, and we were anyway, for price reasons, eating only locally grown stuff. We just, I mean, we stopped driving the car. I mean, just I don’t want to sound like these are not complaints compared to what people have going through in Gaza right now, for example, but I mean, our lifestyle just was cut down to just the just getting through which we lived like that for years after, after that. Because the SAT and what is also sorry, the salaries were the same, but the buying power of the of the salary was half of what it had been in real terms. And then they they also raised taxes, the government raise taxes so that the income tax was almost 50%. In the years after the crisis, so I mean, I always tell Swiss people living in Iceland is like paying Zurich prices, but getting a Lisbon salary, you know, you have a quite low salary with high taxes, but then you have one of the most expensive cities in the world. So it’s all, even in the even in the good years. It was a struggle. Sometimes. Things are just unbelievably expensive. And even Swiss people today who go to Iceland as tourists, they say, Wow, it’s so expensive there. Then I say, Yeah, imagine living there and an Icelandic salary. It’s, you know, it’s not easy. Yeah. So

Gene Tunny  47:19

yeah. So during the crisis, you had a big increase in unemployment. Didn’t y’all have to look at what the stats are. But it was a huge economic shock. And it went

Jared Bibler  47:28

up four or 500% the unemployment rate. Right. Yeah, it was a huge shock, because the banks had employed the banks for so huge. I think they employ between them 10 or 12,000 people in a country of only at the time, 300,000 or so. And then you have all the you know, the follow on effects of such a big layoff. So, yeah, the unemployment rate was just just rocketed. And we just tried to Yeah, we just somehow got through it, everyone somehow got through it. But a lot of us lost our houses and, and all the pensions, pension savings that we had thought we had was was was decimated when the stock market dropped like that.

Gene Tunny  48:14

Right. So people are still feeling the effects of it. 15 years later, I would just I mean, people

Jared Bibler  48:20

don’t talk about it. Well, actually, they do. They do talk about it. Yeah, they are. Because they were they were projects like infrastructure projects. It’s almost like it’s, it’s almost though, like if so friend of mine was in Iceland, and said she was trying to talk to people about the crisis, and that nobody would talk about it still, like, people want to forget about it. Basically. There were infrastructure projects and ideas that we desperately need, like expansions to hospitals. There’s no rail infrastructure in the country at all. And the International Airport to Reykjavik is like a, it’s like an hour drive, it should have a train link. So there, there were things that the country needs that have just never been executed. And now they’re put on the back burner for 50 more years or something, who knows. So that’s definitely an effect and they actually closed some hospitals and some birthing centres, which forces people to drive over these, you know, really dangerous mountain passes and stuff in the winter to get medical care. So there were effects like that. And a lot of people lost their family businesses and, and so on. So the biggest effect is that when when the currency lost half of its value, Iceland suddenly became a tourist, you know, hotspot and, and Iceland marketed itself as such. And so that that that began the tourist wave, which continues today, but it’s like, it’s like what’s happened in other European cities but on steroids because the city of Reykjavik, the old towns centre is really only five or six streets. I mean, it’s a very small village. And now and that had very cosy things there like, like an old cafe with doily lace doilies, where the grandmothers drank coffee. And, you know, there was some classic things of old Reykjavik that were there. And almost all of that is gone now. Because it’s all just t shirts stores, or they’re selling like stuffed animal puffins, you know, and at the end, all the neighbourhoods around the old centre, including where I used to live, have become dominated by Airbnbs. So you can even walk around and not even hear the Icelandic language in the nation. And the, the old neighbourhoods are very giving because it’s just become tourists defied. And so that was the response. So people, often I face resistance, people say, Oh, Jared, come on Iceland recovered. And I’m like, well, first of all, nobody, nobody knocked on my door and said, Here, here’s the keys back to your house. But the other thing is that it all it only recovered by transforming into something pretty ugly for my from my eyes. Yeah, yeah.

Gene Tunny  51:19

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it’s. Yeah, I mean, it really was a huge shock. And I mean, I didn’t appreciate like we we sort of sailed through it. Reasonably. Okay. Here in Australia, there was a little bit of a slowdown, but then we were insulated from a lot of it partly because of mining. Right? Yeah, it was extraordinary to see just how bad things were there. So I’d recommend the book on that count, for sure. Just a couple more things before we wrap up. What happened to the perpetrators? Were some of the people do jail time. Is that correct? That’s,

Jared Bibler  51:51

that’s part of the secret at the end. Yeah, they some of them actually did a few months here and there. We, because the headline of Iceland was it was the only country that prosecuted bankers after 2008. Yes, and that is true. And the cases that you read about in the book are the reason the main reason behind the big prosecutions, but in the end, so in many European, I’m not a lawyer, so this surprised me. But in many European legal codes, you can’t get charged for multiple counts of the same crime. So if you if you did market manipulation, but you did it every day, for 1000 days in a row, which is what they did, when I and the max penalty, if you read the way the law is written, which is a European legal code that Iceland imported. But clearly, the spirit of the law is for someone who did a manipulation, maybe for a day or two or a week or like a single event. And then in Iceland, its maximum of six years in prison for that. So I was naively thinking, Oh my God, these poor guys, like they did it every day for 1000 days. It was gonna be, yeah, up to 6000 years in prison. And people said, No, charity, don’t be silly. Like it’s market manipulation. That’s one thing. And so the sentences that the so we were able to show that a lot with emails and internal documents, we’re able to show that, of course, the knowledge of this multibillion dollar manipulation went all the way to the CEOs of the of the banks, and even higher into the boards, and the ownership. But we were able to show that that went up in the biggest bank to the executive chairman of the board that he was getting daily reports on the manipulation directly from the traders. So they were they were writing these things, and I’m paraphrasing here, but Hey, boss, you know, we bought another XYZ number of shares today, the price is up 1.2%. You know, so that was a daily update to the chairman.

Gene Tunny  54:10

And did they not just not appreciate what they were doing was? I mean, I presume this I mean, this is illegal in Yeah, it sounds it sounds healthy, go. Did they just not appreciate it or they?

Jared Bibler  54:23

That’s what I think the book is, of course, I’m biassed again, but I think the books super important because it gets into a little bit. And you see this now with Sam Backman freed and the FTX trial and so on. The behaviour of white collar scammers, part of their shtick is that they can’t even admit to themselves that they’re doing criminal things. They, even after they’re charged, convicted and they serve jail time. My experience with the Icelandic situation would would lead me to believe that Sambac been freed for example, will probably never have a moment of clarity He, where he says I did some bad stuff. I mean, he should because it would help his soul it would help him like karmically to, to release that right. But he, I hope he does, but he probably will not. Because So, for the very top people who are masterminding the scheme, their justification is always like, Well, we were doing great things with the bank. So whatever it took to keep the bank alive is good. And then the people lower down in the scheme are just following orders. You know, like, like the guards that Auschwitz or something, you know that, and, and many of them are naive. So, some of them knew it, but some of them in my experience actually didn’t even think about. Because Iceland can also sometimes be very hierarchical culture where if your boss tells you, hey, buy all the shares on the market today, you’ll do in, it’s like, oh, my boss told me, you know, I’ll do that. So I think this is kind of a good template story for how these frauds go on. And, and I don’t know if I say this in the book, but the entire business of the of these banks, by the end, was perpetuating, perpetuating the buying of shares in the hiding of shares offshore. And they involved every department. And so, a lot of those people, I think, just just were just doing their job.

Gene Tunny  56:34

That’s how they see it. And so this was an important or this was an essential part of making the banks look much better than they were, and attracting the letting them borrow more from overseas, and then they lend that onto their, their friends or cronies. Okay, that’s

Jared Bibler  56:52

right. That’s yeah.

Gene Tunny  56:55

Yeah. Yeah. So the untold story of the world’s biggest con so. Yeah, I mean, that’s a big call world’s biggest con, but you, you’re confident it is. So you think

Jared Bibler  57:05

maybe it’s maybe it’s been outpaced now by crypto or, you know, but but certainly in the sense of a con that takes down a whole country. I think that scale definitely is still the biggest.

Gene Tunny  57:18

Yeah, yeah. It’s pretty extraordinary. Yeah. Okay, so, Jared, this terrific. It’s really, this conversation has really motivated me to finish the book and make sure I understand all the details as best I can. I think it’s yeah, it’s just extraordinary. What happened, I guess, to end on what do you think the lessons are for the rest of the world? I mean, we talked about how the, you know, you mentioned there could be a certain type of person who’s a white collar criminal, and there’s the quite brazen, I guess, you’ve got to look out for those people. I don’t know how you do that. I mean, you obviously need some sort of regulation. It sounds like the regulator in in Islan, Mae, it probably wasn’t doing the job it should have been doing beforehand. I mean, you discovered that you could actually go and visit these banks and force them hand over documents, which are was very good. So yeah, what are the lessons for the rest of us? Now for the rest of the world?

Jared Bibler  58:15

I think we need to. So this pattern keeps repeating. And my point with the book is that if you let this thing get out of control, it can take down your whole country, because our financial system is not just a playground of of, you know, Sam Backman, freetds and billionaires. But it’s also how we pay for things. It’s also how we save money. And we rely on it to it’s, you know, we take it for granted. But it’s kind of like the air we breathe in our daily lives to get to get groceries to, you know, buy a car or house, whatever. And so those two things, unfortunately, are connected. And the incentives for for having a system that that works well, and is not subject to gaming and collapse, I think are not. We have we have plenty of we have too many regulations probably, you know, we have a lot of people who spend their days checking boxes and things like that, both at regulators and within these institutions. But we haven’t really yet thought about what structure do we want the market? The markets to have? Markets are always created by us, you know, they’re not we, you know, people say, oh, you know, that let the market sorted out. But markets always have rules. You know, I used to work at the Swiss stock market here you have an opening time and closing time you have a cloud closing auction, how that works. I mean, you have the whole thing is rules. And we need to think more about as citizens I think we need to think more about what do we want our banking system to do, what are the outcomes we want? And then how can we best get those incentives, incentivized and I think and again, I’m biassed, but And this is very controversial, but I would like to see someone try this, I would like to see what happens in a country where the country’s regulator regulators would be incentivized to bring in the biggest cases they could, or prosecutors, right? Imagine, imagine if the incentives that bankers get, because if you do a $10 million, or $100 million deal, you get a piece of that as a as a bank employee, if you bring in that business, if I bring in which in Iceland, I brought in three, I don’t know, you can measure the cases different ways. But let’s just say conservatively, three $4 billion frauds. Each of the banks, for example, if you just take the last year, each of them spent about a billion US dollars or more just buying up their own shares on this tiny Icelandic stock market that you’d never heard of. Right. So but my team doesn’t get any, we don’t get any team dinners or anything for that, we just get a salary. So there’s actually, it’s even worse in most regulators. If you are someone like me, who’s a bit of a maverick, who wants to go after things, you don’t last, you won’t have a job, because that’s not the personality that anybody is looking for in those in those institutions, unfortunately. So we need to incentivize that we need to have the same type of risk taking and so on, on the regulation side that we have on the banking side, because otherwise you have a and the same thing with salaries. I mean, if you’re a great regulator, you know, you can always walk across the street to a bank and double your salary. So, so what’s going to make you you know, go after people at that bank or or look too deeply into anything you don’t. So the whole system is kind of really tilted. One one way. I don’t have all the answers to this, but I would really like to have this be in the conversation. And I suspect that after the next financial crisis, which I think is coming, I think it I hope, my hope with writing the book was to get this out there so that we could start to have that conversation. Because since 2008, we haven’t changed enough to keep that from happening again.

Gene Tunny  1:02:10

Yeah, absolutely. Fully agree with you there. Have been talking about this on my show from time to time, so absolutely, fully agree there. Okay, Jared, is there another book coming out anytime soon? I

Jared Bibler  1:02:23

have one but I’m, I’m not sure what I’m gonna do with it. But I’m working on one.

Gene Tunny  1:02:26

Okay. Okay, so

Jared Bibler  1:02:28

you keep that under? Yeah, under under wraps. It’s another secret, it might have secret in the title.

Gene Tunny  1:02:35

If they’re sick if they’re if I still don’t know, Iceland’s secret, I’ll put a segment at the end of this episode just for those who want to know, but I’ll encourage people to read the book. Because I think it’s an enjoyable read. And I love the all the stories and just how you learned about the issues in Iceland’s before the time before you saw teachers going by on buying trips overseas, people were importing BMWs and Mercedes while you are importing your rav4. Stories. Thank you, Jared. That’s, that’s great. Right. Any any final thoughts for wrap up?

Jared Bibler  1:03:13

No, I just really appreciate the time to talk to you. And that was it was lovely to be on your show. Very

Gene Tunny  1:03:20

good. Thanks, Jared. Thanks. Okay, I hope you enjoyed my chat with Jared. Thanks got pretty messed up in Iceland didn’t that. According to Jared, things aren’t much better today. Jared left his job at the regulator in late 2011. After there was a reduction in the resources he had to investigate the misdeeds of the bankers. Unfortunately, the response to Iceland’s financial crisis ended up being inadequate. Several wrongdoers were punished, but they received relatively light sentences and many bankers got away with it. In Jarrods opinion, the regulator’s still don’t have enough power in Iceland. Politicians were unwilling to make tough decisions and apply the level of oversight and enforcement that is required in Jarrods view. That’s possibly because of the close relationships between politicians and bankers and business people in Iceland. Iceland is still experiencing financial scandals. For example, in October 2023 Bjarni Bennett Dixon, a former Iceland Prime Minister, he had to resign as finance minister, there was an irregularity with the privatisation of one of the banks that was taken over by the government during the financial crisis. It turns out is a company owned by his father was one of the purchasers of shares in the bank that was, that was privatised, so that raised a few eyebrows. Okay, Mr. Bennett Dixon, he has a reputation for being a Teflon politician. Though and only a few days after resigning he was appointed as Iceland’s foreign minister. That’s an impressive comeback for sure. From what I can tell what Jared thinks is Iceland’s big secret is this ongoing permissiveness regarding dubious financial dealings. It could be a big secret in in many other countries too. So for those of us in Australia, the US, UK and elsewhere, we need to be vigilant and watch for any signs of financial shenanigans in our countries. Finally, I’d encourage you to pick up a copy of Gerrard’s book, Iceland secret. There’s a lot of fascinating and intricate detail about the various financial shenanigans that occurred in the lead up to Iceland’s financial crisis. Jared did a great job with his book, and I’m very grateful to have had him on the show. Thanks for listening rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

1:06:43

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this how to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Is the American Dream a Broken Promise for Latinos? w/ Dr Paul Rivera – EP213

Dr Paul Rivera provides insights into the $3 trillion Latino economy in the United States and questions whether the American dream is a broken promise for Latinos. Dr. Paul Rivera is co-founder of BeActChange, a former senior economist at USAID, and lecturer at California State University Channel Islands. Dr Rivera and show host Gene Tunny also discuss the challenges of delivering foreign aid and the importance of understanding local communities. Rivera shares a compelling example to illustrate this point.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP213

  • The American Dream and Latino economy with Paul Rivera. (0:03)
  • International development, strategic planning, and community engagement. (4:41)
  • Inadequate consultation in international development projects. (10:23)
  • Latino population’s role in US economy and American dream. (14:07)
  • Latino mental health and the American Dream. (20:13)
  • The economic power of the Latino community in the US. (25:45)
  • Latino homeownership, education, and mental health. (29:12)
  • The American Dream and its accessibility. (34:46)
  • Immigrant experiences and the American dream. (40:06)
  • Latino population growth in the US and its impact. (43:48)
  • Marketing to the Latino community in the US. (47:26)

Links relevant to the conversation

About Dr Paul Rivera on his BeActChange website:

https://beactchange.com/about-paul/

Paul’s LinkedIn page:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drpaulrivera/

Paul’s book Creating Your Limitless Life co-authored with  Dr. Esther Zeledón:

https://www.amazon.com.au/CREATING-YOUR-LIMITLESS-LIFE-Terms-ebook/dp/B0CFZN3FCS

Latino GDP report 2023:

https://lattitude.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/LDC%20GDP%20REPORT%202023.pdf

Transcript: Is the American Dream a Broken Promise for Latinos? w/ Dr Paul Rivera – EP213

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Paul Rivera  00:03

Part of the problem with the American Dream is how we’ve translated it, how we’ve measured it. You know, if you look in the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of the American Dream is basically that this idea that the situation in America offers those who work hard, the equal opportunity to achieve and the dictionary says their highest aspirations. And that highest aspirations piece is something really important that I think people don’t hang on to enough.

Gene Tunny  00:35

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. In this episode, we explore the Latino economy in the United States. And we consider whether the American Dream is a broken promise for Latinos. My guest is Dr. Paul Rivera. He’s the co founder of be act change. He’s a former senior economist at USA ID. And he’s a former academic at CSU Channel Islands, which is part of the California State University system. Given his background, as well as asking Paul about Latino economy asked him about the challenges of delivering foreign aid. Paul gave some great advice about the need for donors to really understand the local communities they’re providing aid to. And he illustrates that point with a vivid example, which is worth listening to the episode for. Right, so let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. Paul Rivera. Dr. Paul Rivera, welcome to the programme.

Paul Rivera  02:03

Thanks so much for having me. Gene. It’s so great to be here.

Gene Tunny  02:05

It’s good to have you on Paul, you’re really interested in the conversation, you’ve got a background in economic development, which is something I’m very, very much interested in. And also well, at the moment, you are the VP and co founder of the Act change. Could you tell us a bit about big change? Please, before we get into the conversation, absolutely.

Paul Rivera  02:27

No, that would be my pleasure. It’s basically my spouse, and I who’ve co founded this company, it’s a consultancy, where at the end of the day, our job, our mission is really to impact lives. And it really comes from from our background, you know, it’s both of us have lived to the immigrant experience in the United States, we’ve both have careers in academia, and international development, you know, I come from, I come very much from the lens of critical thinking, that’s, that’s the most important thing for me is sort of attacking, looking for solutions from the lens of critical thinking. And I know that that’s, for example, what led me to economics as a field, you know, and that’s one of the reasons why I love it, the whole idea of of optimization and having a goal, and having an understanding of what are the constraints there? And what are the resources? And what are they efficient ways to get there is something that really, really sort of warms my soul a little bit in a strange way. I don’t know that. I don’t know that anybody ever talks about economics that way, but, but it’s really very much that my, you know, that, that for me, you know, because that approach to problem solving. I think that there’s a lot of, you know, as I look around the world, and I, you know, you see, you know, the world’s kind of a mess right now, and you see how much bias there is and prejudice and all of these things. And I think that if people really went out of their way to approach things from a critical thinking lens, that that there would be much less of that, you know, people, if people took the time to read the data to do the analysis to ask the questions, you know, to what are the questioning the assumptions, I think is huge. So, I started out actually, after I finished my PhD in academia, I spent I spent about 15 years as a as a professor at an at a university that was brand new, it actually opened the year that I arrived. And so I got to be founding faculty at a brand new University, which is an incredible experience just to see the level of impact that you can have, you know, on the formation of that university and, and the direction that it takes and this particular university was, was set in a heavily Hispanic Latino Area in California, in the US where there was no public university at the time. So it was a very underserved market. And so just just to be able to create that impact and bring that access into of university education there was was tremendous, you know, and I saw so much of what people struggled with, you know, this whole concept of of the American Dream, which I know we’re gonna get into a little bit later. Yeah, but you know, folks who who really did everything they could, they left their homelands, you know, to come to this land of opportunity and, and to see their kids getting into that university collegiate sphere was really, really impactful, you know, and I get emotional about it sometimes when I talk about it, because you see the transformation in these kids and these families and that sort of thing. And, you know, my, my whole thing has always been critical thinking, and so bringing that to the, to the youth. But as you mentioned, in my intro, my field is development economics. Yeah. And that’s always, that’s always what I studied. That comes a lot from my background to my parents, my mom was from Mexico, my dad is from El Salvador. And so I come very much from from that perspective and understanding not only the economic forces that are there, but really the cultural things, and, and understanding how those things mesh together to, to sort of create a reality both back in the home country, and in and in the the sort of immigrant receiving countries, you know, and so my, my push was always to go into that international development field, because I saw that there was so much opportunity there, I’ve travelled to 112 countries in the world at this point. And, you know, you go and you see that these countries have so much potential, there’s so much that can be done there to really improve quality of life. For for folks there, you know, and so I moved, I left academia after a while, and moved into this international development realm. Because I saw that opportunity, I wanted to have a greater impact in the world, you know. And as we sort of went into this, it was, it was really interesting, because the way in which development is carried out by a lot of these large organisations, you know, whether it’s bilateral governments or these international financial institutions, the World Bank, the IMF, there’s, there’s a changing of the tide a little bit, but it’s very paternalistic. Very, very, you know, it’s, it’s very prescriptive, that we are the experts, we come in to these countries, we assess the problem, and we fund the solution. If we happen to ask the local communities what it is that that they want, it’s just to say that we consulted them oftentimes, but that genuine integration with the community and what they need, and what’s really going to be sustainable, in terms of an intervention for them is, is really rare. You know, and it’s one of the biggest problems in international development, that that sustainability of impact is, is really difficult. And I’m 100% convinced that a large portion of that comes from failure to secure that buy in to actually listen to those communities. So from all of that, from all of that experience, really came this motivation to create the change, where it’s something that so we work with individuals, and we work with teams and organisations to really help them think of themselves as not just high achievers, and you know, and we’re high achiever, you and I sitting here, we’re definitely high achievers, you know, we have people who’ve achieved a certain success academically, professionally, and that sort of thing. But it’s folks who really want to take that and, and move to what we call trailblazers. So not just necessarily following the prescription that they’ve been given, but really digging deep, finding their purpose, and creating the the real action plan that moves them ahead in a way that fulfils them. So and so it’s something that’s been really, really rewarding for us at this point, you know, in terms of the business, because we’ve really been able to see tremendous transformation in how people, people in organisations perceive themselves, how they understand their mission, and how that impacts how they carry on their day to day, how they think about their future, how they talk about themselves. So it’s something that that it’s, we’re just really excited about it, it’s something that’s going gangbusters at this point. And, and we’re happy to, to be sort of spreading that message of, of self empowerment, and how that dovetails with, with with especially for a lot of these Latino communities that we work with, you know, how that dovetails with not only greater satisfaction, but also improvements in their economic standing and their ability to help themselves, their family, their community. Rod, okay,

Gene Tunny  09:19

so just specifically, are you doing, you’re doing consulting work for the communities? Are you are you engaged by aid organisations to to work with communities, how does it work?

Paul Rivera  09:31

So we’re sort of two parts, right? So I’m a specialist in strategic planning. So when one of our arms is still actually doing strategic planning with some of these larger aid organisations, they have a country strategy that they need to develop and how it is that they’re going to carry out the depending on the country, you know, so um, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to go towards that country. And so when some of the contracting that we do is basically helping the As aid organisations create strategic plans, and then action plans, and then monitoring and evaluation plans that are going to push them towards their objectives in that sense, you know, and my push always is really to make sure that that’s, you know, founded at the grassroots that that’s something that’s been vetted and not just vetted, but really engaged and bought into by those local communities.

Gene Tunny  10:23

Gotcha. And I thought that was interesting. That comment you made about historically the, say, the World Bank and other big, big lenders for development, Asian development, bank, etc. Were you suggesting that? Yeah, they weren’t. They didn’t think enough about what the communities needed? Do you have any examples? Was it too much of a focus on big ticket or big, you know, flashy or fashionable projects or big infrastructure, projects, dams, etc? Is that part of the problem?

Paul Rivera  11:00

I would say there’s, there’s a couple levels I’ll give you. I’ll give you an example. That’s my anecdote. Okay. One of my first consulting jobs that I ever that I ever took was with one of these large international financial institutions, which shall remain nameless. But they had a they had been working in Western Africa somewhere with these with these fishery fisherman communities. Somebody had the idea that, you know, in my last situation, they said, they had worked somewhere in East Asia, I think, I believe it was in Thailand. And they had worked with Fisher communities, and they had created this project through which they purchased sort of these long boats with motor but with motors, that would help the fishermen they said, basically, that the problem in that situation was that there was a sort of a low level capital investment. And so they just infused this capital. And that’s what was needed to bring our productivity. And so they said, copy paste, it worked in East Asia, so it’s going to work in West Africa. And they they did absolutely no consultation. Okay. So I came in actually, as an ex post evaluator, about three years after the project had been completed. And so I go in to this community where I know they had worked. And I started asking about the boats and the fishermen and how things are going and people are looking at me with blank stares, like, What are you talking? I’m like, I’m like, a few years ago, there was this project and this organisation came, and they’re like, Oh, you have to talk to the chief. And so this particular country still had sort of a chief says, Chief type chiefdom society organisation, right? So they take me to the chief, and the chief walks me down to the beach, and I see 10 of these boats upside down, sitting on the beach completely rotted out, and there’s no motors. Okay. And so what they, when I started asking about it, he said, Well, what if what essentially they didn’t understand was that their society is a very highly structured society. And the fishermen, they were considered to be sort of not high loss, high status, folks. And so this organisation had come in, and given a very high status gift, in effect, to a relatively not high status person. And so the natural thing for them to do was to say, I can’t accept this gift. So they gifted all of the boats to the chief, the chief is the chief. So the chief doesn’t fish. He doesn’t, he’s not a fisherman. So the chief basically sold the boats, sold all the motors, he used the income to buy himself a new house in Switzerland. And that was it. Right? So what happened, right, and I can, I can give you five other similar examples, there was there was basically they external parties came in, they gave some sort of analysis of what they perceive to be the problem, they copy pasted a solution. And they put in millions of dollars for it. And at the end of the day, there was no real impact from that, because they failed to secure the buy in from the community, they failed to do the basic consultation that would show you know, what it is that was actually needed in those communities. So you know, that’s our, that’s our big thing is really, really engaging in listening. You know, before, you know, when we talk about wasting taxpayer dollars, and that sort of thing, it’s our responsibility to make sure that that’s that that’s going to be used in a proper fashion, you know, yeah,

Gene Tunny  14:23

yeah, that’s a that’s a really good example. I didn’t bring you on to chat about foreign aid or development assistance, but we might have to have another session on it. Because it’s it’s a big area and I know that there have been a voice I’ve read Billy’s delete stuff. I think there’s some good stuff there. I mean, he’s doing some great analysis that that that is a really good example Paul. So yeah, really, really thankful that You sure that Yeah, but we’ll have to we’ll have to have another conversation otherwise, we’re going to use the whole hour on, on on talking about those issues. Okay, so let’s go Miko back to Through the question of Latinos and the American dream, because that’s what, yeah, what got my interest? When when I learned about you, there’s this idea that you have of the broken promise or the what is it the fallacy of the American Dream for Latinos, and you mentioned this university, this new university was this in California is this part of the University of California system,

Paul Rivera  15:26

it’s actually part of the California State University system. So So California has, has multiple tiers, the, you know, the University of California has, you know, it’s the UCLA, it’s the UC Berkeley, which are the high level, what they call the, you know, the r1 institutions and that sort of thing. And then there’s the California State University system, which I believe has 23 campuses across the state, and they’re really the ones that are designed. So most teachers in California have gone through the California State University system, and it’s, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s a, it’s a huge amount of, of students, and it’s really the most is the entry point, it’s the access point for for, for collegiate education there. And it’s, it’s a wonderful, wonderful kind of institution, that that, you know, has, it has helped so many but, you know, the Latino thing, especially in the United States, and in California is really fascinating, there are close to 63 million Latinos in the United States, which is not quite 20% of the population. So it you know, if you, if you kind of separate them out, they’re kind of a country all all in themselves. And if they were a country in and of themselves, that that $3.2 trillion, Latino GDP. So that’s, that’s the latest calculation that Latinos in the United States generate 3.2 dollars $3.2 trillion dollars in GDP, which would make them the fifth largest economy in the world, right? It’s a massive amount of, of money, that that is generated through that. Yeah. And, you know, and and if you look at at that figure in terms of growth rates, for example, over the last 1012 years, it’s been almost a 4% annual growth rate, which is pretty much double what the US GDP growth rate has been in this in the comparable period, right? So it’s really, as a as a whole at a macro lens, it’s really something that has grown substantially, right. And then there has to be, though, the, the flip side, the micro side, that has to be looked at a little bit, right. And so when, when you start to dig into it a little bit, you start to see that, so much of that of that macro level of growth for one is coming from population growth. Yeah, it’s the it’s the largest, you know, it’s the most, it’s the fastest growing population demographic in the US, Latinos work like crazy. It’s the it’s the, it’s the population group with the highest labour force participation rate. And the estimate is that over the next 10 years from now, 78% of the net growth in the in the labour force will come from Latinos in the United States. So you know, that those numbers are really accelerating. So when you think about it, when you start, when you start thinking about that, that calculation, the per capita figures are not doing great, right? That the macro figures are doing, you know, are significant. But as you start to look at that per capita scenario, it’s not something that’s super robust, you know, and, and so, Latinos are really very much invested in this idea of the American dream. And, you know, I’ve been to just about every country in Latin America, and all my family’s in the United States. And these are the folks that I talked to, and, and that’s my community. And as you talk to as you talk to Latinos, the statistics and the statistics bear it out, it’s the population group that most believes in the American dream, right, this idea that, that in a land of equal opportunity, hard work is going to get you to success, you know, and that’s, that’s really the core of the American dream as, as, as immigrants see them, and it’s, you know, it’s worth saying that having having been all over the place, the American dream, it’s what we call it, but it’s something that’s, that’s really universal, right? I know, like, I know that Australia has a tremendous amount of, of immigration, and I know that basically, they’re all going there looking for some whatever it it is, but it’s some version of the American dream, you know, and so it’s it’s, it’s a it’s an aspiration that you see worldwide, but at least in the US, at least looking at the at this Latino population. Their their progress on it is stumbling in a lot of ways. You know, the, the there’s a wage gap of about 23% compared to non Latino white population. More significantly, is Is this wealth gap. So the average Latino household has about $36,000 in wealth measured as compared to about 190,000. For non Hispanic white population. So it’s, that’s more than a five fold difference. And you know that difference, that gap is really something that drives so many of the decisions that Latinos are making, right, so they don’t have that wealth base, which means they don’t have the investment base, they don’t necessarily they don’t have the same levels of financial security, they don’t invest as much in health, and certainly not mental health, which is one of the places where you really see these impacts play out, you know, we start looking at, at at the Latino populations, and how it is that they see themselves in their situation, and they’re so deeply invested in this idea that all I need to do is work hard and work hard and work hard and work hard. And that’s what they’re doing and still struggling, you know, so the statistic that always pops out to me is that of these 63 million, Latinos, 4 million of them every year suffer what what is termed a major depressive episode. So to the point where they are basically unable to function in some way that that others start to notice their, their depression and become worried for them. You know, and that’s part and parcel from, you know, the, the the sort of regular levels of depression that you see, these are people who are just down for the count in some way, you know, and when you ask them, What is it, you know, when they, when you ask them about the source of it, it’s exactly these things, you know, it’s this struggle, this chase toward the things of the American Dream towards that financial security towards the homeownership towards, towards the stability, that were there, they’re stumbling, and, and it’s stressful, you know, and they’re less likely Latinos are also less likely to seek help for it. So they’re sort of, they’re not making it, they’re not feeling good about it. And now they’re trying to make it while they’re, you know, their, their brains and their their emotions are not are not helping them either, you know, so,

Gene Tunny  22:12

yeah, it’s,

Paul Rivera  22:13

it’s a struggle, you know, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a tough place to be. And yet, you know, the, the Latino population continues to be so optimistic about immigration and the American dream and moving towards those things, you know, so a big part, I would say that a big part of our push, in our business and in our mentorship, and a lot of the work that we do, is really trying to shift that narrative, you know, to be to be a place where, where, for one, you know, I’m, I’m a micro economist, by, by training, by practice and by love. So for me, everything starts with the individual, you know, so so much of this work comes down to, I think helping people understand their, their why their purpose, like, like, I mentioned it earlier, but that sort of digging deep as to who you are, and why do you do what you do? And, and the how, you know, what, what’s your unique problem solving approach in this world? What’s the value that you bring, and having people understand their their own values and beliefs and how those things sort of come into play to create, really we work a lot on helping people create and organisations helping them create their brand? Yeah, you know, very good,

Gene Tunny  23:24

Paul. I’ve got about half a dozen questions after that, though. All right. That’s, that’s fascinating. First, what do we mean by Latina? And I don’t mean to sound dance, but because I understand Latin American, but predominantly, what what are we talking about now? Because I mean, like, I mean, I’m living in Australia. So I mean, my knowledge of America is limited by, you know, generally what I’m seeing in the media or in film and TV. And so I know, historically, you’ve had large, you have a large Puerto Rican population, and particularly in New York City, and and then you’ve got the Mexican immigrants and the, you know, lots in in oil and gas in Texas and California. And then there are the communities from Central and South America. What’s the Latino community look like in the US?

Paul Rivera  24:14

It’s extremely diverse, you know, as you look at as you look at the numbers, by far the largest Latino population is in California. And, and most of those are Mexican descent. But as you know, as you rightly point out there, there are basically pockets, pocket maybe to an understatement there. There’s there’s significant populations of Latinos in everything that is the southwest, so basically, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. All in that path. I would say that most Latinos, by far are Mexican, Mexican American descent. And then you get to other other portions of the country, as you said, sort of New York, Atlanta, Miami, where you’re gonna get a lot more of the The Puerto Rican Dominican, especially as you get down in sort of that South Florida area, you’re gonna get the the mix of all all Latin Americans, you know, Cubans, Colombian, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, and that sort of thing. So it’s that I’ve met Latinos of every variety at some point somewhere in the United States. But I would say that there’s definitely in terms of numbers, that concentration on the coasts. At the same time, 43% of people engaged in the farming industry, in the United States are Latinos. So there’s also a huge Latino population within sort of the mid sections of the country, but they don’t have that same density necessarily, that you find on the coasts.

Gene Tunny  25:45

Gotcha. And is there a recognition among Latinos of a, of a community of a broader Latino community for eternity, so to speak, I

Paul Rivera  25:54

would say that that’s something that that we, meaning I in this business, and the folks of us who work in similar things work really hard to create. I, you know, that there’s, there’s so much common history that that binds us, you know, I mean, I mean, for one, starting with, with language, you know, from South of Mexico, down to the tip, with, with a few exceptions, we all speak a common language. And, and obviously, it’s like, it’s like, it’s like the United States, you know, people in Texas don’t speak quite the same way that New Yorkers do or Californians do. And I think that those are differences that we need to celebrate. And I don’t think the Latino community does that enough. And then, the other side of it, though, is that everyone is very proud of their, their unique country heritage. You know, my family is very proud to be Mexican. My wife’s family’s very proud to be Nicaraguan. And so it is hard when you come to as an immigrant to the United States to suddenly you’re not Nicaraguan anymore, you’re not Colombian, you’re not Mexican, you are Latino, right, and you’re put under this general umbrella. And so it is, it is a bit of a mindset change to say, you know, I’m in a brotherhood with all of these people who don’t come from my country, you know, so it’s, I would say that it’s something that’s still evolving, and it’s something that that the Latino community would benefit tremendously from, by by having sort of that mindset shift that brings people closer together, I think, I think it would be revolutionary, you know, you would stop the just the ability to stop saying, you know, oh, you know, he’s, you know, whatever, he’s from x country, and you can’t trust those people kind of a thing, you know, to really say, you know, what, we have a common history of economic struggle, and, you know, it’s Latin America. So corrupt government is something that, you know, really binds Latin Americans together and, and the impacts of that. So, you know, I think you could be transformational in terms of how the Latino community would, would evolve as a as a group in the US if they were able to better come together those ways. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  27:58

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  28:03

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  28:32

Now back to the show. Okay, so you mentioned a $3.2 trillion GDP. So yeah, that’s roughly that must be about twice the size of the Australian economy measured in Australia in US dollar terms. So maybe a bit under but now but yeah, it’s a it’s a substantial amount. What where does that figure come from? Pull? What does that estimate come from?

Paul Rivera  29:01

There’s a there’s a recent report that came out that’s called the Latino GDP report. They’ve published it every year, for the last six years or so. And they’ve seen it, you know, they’ve seen they’ve seen that growth, and it’s a group that their aim is really to see how it is, in particular that that sort of the three pillars of Latino homeownership and business ownership and asset ownership have increased or decreased over time. But you know, it’s it’s part it’s part of that that whole tracking and objective calculation there.

Gene Tunny  29:35

A lot link to that. In the show notes. Yep. You talked about a wage gap of 23%. Is that largely because Latinos are working in there are fewer Latinos working in professional occupations more so as labourers or in, in in service occupations? Would that be the I would say so

Paul Rivera  29:57

yeah, I would say so. You know, that the the If the educational attainment is not the same, and then you know, there’s, there’s a lot of things that that go that go with that, you know, we talk, as I said, I have a lot of experience at the university level, and one of the things that you see, for example, is that, you know, a lot of Latinos are scholarship kids, you know, they go to college under under these scholarships, because, you know, the parents don’t, we don’t have the wealth necessarily to, especially in the US to Shell out the money for their full collegiate education. So they have to take some sort of loans, and they have to take scholarships, and that sort of thing. And it’s fascinating, because the way that the system goes, it’s, it’s supposedly helping them out, you know, which it is, because otherwise they wouldn’t have access, but at the same time, it puts them behind the eight ball, you know, now, now you’re the kid whose parents didn’t go to college, so you didn’t grow up, talking about college, hearing about college or understanding what that culture is, like, suddenly, suddenly, you’re in this place where your school work is much tougher. And now you’re told oh, but to be here, you have to have a job. Now, right. And, and so there goes a big part of your time that should be devoted to studying and really dedicated to these other things. And now you have to know you have to have a job to pay for, for the privilege of being there, and that sort of thing. So you know, that all of these things, you know, they’re, it’s, it’s not that they’re, that they’re bad in any way, but that they, they’re there, they’re one more barrier, one more hurdle, that you have to jump, you know, and so once they get out to, for example, the workforce, a lot of them are not folks that have done, they’ve never done an internship, they can’t do an internship, they can’t afford an intern, and they can’t afford an unpaid internship, you know, so, you know, they get out into the working world, and you know, what the job that they’re going to apply for, is going to be, it’s good that the competition is tough, you know, they’re, they’re there, as I said, they’re behind the eight ball a little bit. And not, it’s not quite the same situation. So. So even those that are professionals have a wage gap, because they don’t necessarily see the same. They’re not perceived as being equivalently qualified. And the other thing is that, that goes sort of along with this as, as Latinos in our culture, as part of this whole American Dream thing, and believing that hard work is what matters, we’re really told, we’re really told that you just keep your head down, don’t make waves just work hard. And one of the consequences of that is that we’re not taught the value of networking, the importance, like the essential, the essential pneus, of, of networking, you know, and I know, it’s something that I’ve, I’ve had to learn the hard way over time, that, you know, if you really want to have that next level come to you, there has to be somebody at that level, who’s gonna vouch for you. And and we’re not we’re not taught that, you know, it’s something that that we’re told to be humble, we’re not we’re, that it’s, it’s rude, actually, to ask for some of those for that help for that push for that phone call? You know, so it’s, it’s something that, that we push for a lot. And as I said, you know, coming back to your question earlier, if there were a much stronger feeling of community among the Latino community, and I think that’s even something that that we could create for ourselves, and it’s slowly happening, but I think that pace needs to really accelerate.

Gene Tunny  33:25

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Okay. So one of the other things you mentioned, is depression rates of depression, is the incidence of depression in Latino communities higher than in non Latino or non Hispanic? Do you know, it is,

Paul Rivera  33:40

it is a little bit higher, you know, statistically, it’s a little bit higher than that there are two major differences. One is that the basically, Latinos don’t have don’t have the wherewithal the resources to seek help as much. So, you know, they the incidence happens a little bit more often. But it’s it, it’s going untreated, basically, in a lot of ways. And then the second piece is that the the incidence, as I said, is slightly higher similar, but the depth of the depression is also is also different. So one of the things that you see is that the they measure the incidence of suicidal ideation, so not just are you depressed, but do you get to the point of actually thinking about an ending, you know, the pain and and that rate among Latinos, and especially among younger working age, Latinos is significantly higher than then, you know, other comparable groups,

Gene Tunny  34:46

as the Latino community have been affected by the opioid epidemic, and you know, data on that, that

Paul Rivera  34:51

I’m sure there isn’t that’s that’s not something that I am super specialised in. So I I wouldn’t want to go. I wouldn’t want to speculate beyond my beyond my realm on that one.

Gene Tunny  35:06

That’s okay. I might look into it. I was just interested, then when you’re talking about depression in the depths of depression, just

Paul Rivera  35:14

I mean, I mean, what is what is the case is that there’s a tremendous, I would say, more sort of high functioning alcoholism, and that that would be a much more prominent thing. But you know, I don’t I don’t as I say, I don’t want to speculate too much on Yeah,

Gene Tunny  35:30

fair enough. Fair enough. I might, I might look into that myself. Getting to the just going to the American dream. So I was interested in how you, you phrased it, how you conceptualise it, or how people conceptualise it, there’s this idea that given that America has this equal opportunity that you’ve got this, you should be able to prosper? And then if you don’t prosper, if you don’t do well, then in a way, it’s your own fault, and you’re a loser? I mean, that’s the implicit message there isn’t. I mean, it’s quite right. It’s terrible psychologically. When you think about it, so I guess one of the issues is this, just how, you know, is there this equal opportunity, and one of the things I’ve been looking at lately, those his book that came out a few years ago, Dream hoarders, and there’s this growing literature on just the transmission of advantage or disadvantage across generations, and it looks like the US if you look at the data, there’s less intergenerational mobility in the US than in, in other countries such as Australia. I mean, we’re, we’re maybe not as good as we once were. But we’re still better than the US, it seems. So this this issue of the American dream, is this this part of a broader problem ball? It’s not just for, it’s not just a problem affecting Latinos?

Paul Rivera  36:51

I think it absolutely is a much broader problem, you know, and I speak to it from, from my perspective, and, and my, my knowledge, where, you know, I have that that intimate connection, but I mean, as you look at things, I mean, yeah, as you say, the you know, the, the first one, just from a, from a basic, big level perspective, as you look at sort of the the top developing developed countries in the world, and you look at life expectancy, that the US is, is close to the bottom, on some of those, you know, there, there’s actually quite a few sort of middle middle income and developing countries that are, that are surpassing, if not, at least dangerously close to life expectancy in the US. So, you know, at a fundamental level, the, the, the sort of American Dream is failing Americans too, in a lot of ways, you know, and I think that, that there’s that there’s some interesting, there’s a lot of interesting things there. You know, in a, in a past life, I was a consular officer working for the, for the US government in basically issuing visas overseas. And so I met 1000s 1000s and 1000s, of, you know, people in other countries who were literally in front of me requesting to come to the United States, you know, and so I had a lot of a lot of conversations with, with people about that, that subject, you know, and, and the ones who, it’s a really interesting thing, so most of them want to come as tourists, right? They want to come to the US for some period of time, just to see and then go back. And your current your job as a consular officer is a terrible job, because you’re judging people that you’ve never met before, based on, you know, some sort of not arbitrary, but but at least you know, not very in depth criteria necessarily. But the people who are most sincere and the most convincing are the ones who are who are able to tell you a story about their community and their connections and their rootedness in their home country. Right. So you know, as as an American consular officer, you want to give a visa to the person who’s going to come to the US and then go back home. Right? That’s the whole idea. Yeah. And and those these folks who, who, some of them speak so eloquently, so romantically about their, their connections at home and their and their family and their roots and their beliefs, and that sort of thing. And those are the many of the same people who for because their situation in their home countries is often so tough, they find themselves in the position of where they make the choice to come to the United States, you know, and this whole concept of the American dream of part of the problem with the American Dream is how we’ve translated it, how we’ve measured it, you know, as you if you look in the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of the American Dream is basically that, that this idea that the situation in America offers those who work hard, the equal opportunity to achieve and the dictionary says their highest aspirations, and that highest aspirations piece is something really important that I think people don’t hang on to enough because as as we see it, As we measure it as we watch it play out, the American dream, so often is measured by Do you own a house? Do you? Do you have a certain income? And then do you? Do you have a college education? Are you married? Have you had kids yet? You know, and the conversations that go that way? And in many ways, it’s a very individualistic type of pursuit. It’s about what have I done? What have I achieved? What have I acquired, and so much of the value in I think any community, the US included, Australia included, but certainly, as we’ve seen in Latin America, and lots of other countries, community is the core, you know, community is what is it’s, it’s the place that that helps form your values. It’s the place that’s that helps you with your resilience, when things get tough, there’s, there’s a core that you rely on. And when you as an immigrant, you are extracted from that core and dropped in a new situation, and told that the checkmarks that measure your success, are these individualistic things, it’s really, really tough. You know, so, you know, we’ve come back a couple of times to this idea of, of community. But, you know, as we think about how it is that, that, that we sort of build that, that I think that community pieces is essential not. And really, it’s kind of interesting, because our our model is really one of individual purpose, right? Our whole big change model is really one of building individual purpose, but at the same time, recognising that in others, and then building that community, that sort of network of strength that sort of holds everybody up together. That’s that’s sort of our vision for it. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  41:42

Yeah. Very good. I should, I should also not so just so we’re getting the right, or we’ve got the balanced picture of what’s going on. Sure. Because we’ve talked about a lot of the issues with the American dream and challenges and how it’s, it may not be playing out as, as Latinos expect. Is it generally the case, though, that I mean, immigrants from Latin American countries into the United States, they’re generally doing better than they were in their, in their, their source countries, and they’re not going back? There’s, there’s not much of a flow back. Is there? Do you have any observations on that?

Paul Rivera  42:23

Yeah, yeah. So I think I think there’s, there’s a few ways to see it, you know, if you look at their, their same thing, if you look at their financial positions, I would say that that is true. You know, if you look at sort of their their household, their household GDP, sort of scenarios, I would say that that’s absolutely true. However, you know, I’ve spending, having spent a lot of time in these immigrant Latino communities, both in the US and outside, I would say that there’s, you kind of have to temper that with, with the reality of the situations in some ways, you know, there are safety, for example, safety and security aspects to a lot of the communities where, where Latinos end up, end up in, that they don’t necessarily have in their home communities, they don’t have the same, the same support systems that are there, the implicit and explicit sort of biases against them that they see in the workplace are real, and those things, those things have an impact as well. So you know, I, I would say that many, many, many Latinos dream very, speak very romantically and longingly about where they came from. And the and the option of going back is a tough one. You know, my, my dad actually just re emigrated back to El Salvador, not not long ago, but it’s basically in his retirement and because he was able to go back, in a sense, in a triumphant way, right, that he’s the guy here, it might and, you know, I’m fortunate that my parents were, were did well have done well in the United States, you know, and he’s able to go back as someone who is triumphant in that situation, but a lot of Latinos who, who are struggling more in the US, there’s, I think that they struggle with the, the pressure of not wanting to go back, not triumphant, you know, the, with the idea that, you know, it’s not that easy just to just to say, You know what, it didn’t work over here. So we’re gonna go back, you know, the folks count on them, remittances are a massive thing. So even though they may be struggling in the US, the remittances that they send back home are often supporting an entire extended family and They can’t just, you know, walk away from that either, you know, so there’s there’s a lot riding on them and, and you know, those those stresses are real and they affect how they live out their lives.

Gene Tunny  45:09

Yeah, that’s a really good point, I’ll have to look for data on that, because those remittance flows are potentially very large. So they’re massive,

Paul Rivera  45:18

you know, you get countries like El Salvador, and remittances on any given year are somewhere between 17 and 20%, of of GDP, is coming in as remittances from primarily from the United States, you know, so it’s, it’s really some, it’s more than just something that’s, that’s giving that little extra boost to the economy. It’s what’s really driving the economy. And in a lot of these cases, you know, and, and as you see countries that are struggling, like like Haiti, or or Venezuela and that sort of thing, you know, a lot oftentimes these remittances are what’s what’s keeping food on people’s plates back at home?

Gene Tunny  45:49

Yeah, absolutely. And it’s providing us dollars, but it’s providing foreign exchange that helps you there Exactly. Yep. By imports, for sure. That’s a very good point. Right. Oh, so just to just to finish off all and I’m wondering, do you have any reflections or thoughts on what this means the growing proportion of the growing role of Latinos in the US? I mean, you mentioned it’s got a 4% growth rate, which is higher than, I don’t know, off the top my head what the average US growth rate is, but I imagine it’s lower than that. So they’ve got the Higher, higher growth rate, and there’s going to be a growing proportion Latinos in the population, the economy, do you have any thoughts on what it means for the broader society? Or the or for? I don’t, I don’t want to get into politics, necessarily, but what does it mean for, you know, the social makeup where America is heading? Yeah,

Paul Rivera  46:45

you know, I mean, you know, the, it’s not a, it’s not a new, new thing at all, you know, between it, you know, there’s, there’s a large South Asian population in the United States, there’s, there’s a large African American population, you know, it’s been a long time that the US has been, has been becoming a brown replace, you know, for, for, for lack of a better term, at least in terms of the Latino population. One side of it is that, you know, if you’re a business person, and in the United States, and you’re not somehow targeting the Latino population, you’re missing out on a huge, huge market, you know, so that, that part is, that part is super clear. But you know, as, as a Latino, myself, and somebody who’s concerned about about my community, I really love to see, see it go past that, you know, because that’s, that’s the consumer side of it, right? That’s, you know, marketing to Latinos is, is really sort of targeting them from as consumers, and I would love to see, the Latino population become much stronger in terms of them as a core of investment. And that, and that’s really, where a lot of the stress comes down, a lot of the sort of the problematics come down in a lot of ways, you know, if we continue to see, for example, this population expanding without really closing off the not just the income gaps, but the wealth gap, that’s there, you know, you’re you’re creating systemically in some way and a sort of permanent underclass. And I don’t particularly want to go into politics, either. But history shows that when you create a, a, an underclass, that that isn’t that doesn’t have that, that mobility and doesn’t have the wherewithal to, to move up, it’s bound to cause instability, it’s, it’s bound to cause all sorts of problems, you know, so I would love to see the country as a whole, but certainly, certainly the Latino community come to, you know, be a little more cohesive, focus more, as you know, as just I know, I’ve said it a couple of times, but it’s, it’s really important to us, you know, this idea of focusing on not just the the check marks of the American dream as we see it, but but really something that focuses more on, on valuing individuals valuing their purpose and our work, it sounds, it sounds a little bit dreamy, sometimes, but you know, it, make no mistake, Mark, our entire concept is that based on your purpose, based on your unique value, whether you’re an individual, an NGO, a team, small business, that if if you start from that core, that your financial position can be much stronger, right, that your wealth position can be much stronger and much more sustainable. And that’s, that’s sort of really what we’re going for, you know, something that that helps turn that tide a little bit and start making those inroads and, and building some of that, that wealth that gives the financial stability and the and I think ultimately the the economic stability, the macro stability that and there and the and the growth that we would like to see. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Gene Tunny  49:53

Absolutely. Can I ask you about, you mentioned businesses in the US I mean, You’ve got to you should be, you should recognise you got this growing market there, there’s large market businesses in the US. Is there advertising? Or there is? In Spanish? I mean, the advertising? are they preparing advertising materials and informational materials in Spanish? Sure,

Paul Rivera  50:19

sure. Yeah, for sure that they’re, you know, it’s sort of they’re sort of a bipolar situation, you go to you go to places like Los Angeles, New York, Miami, there’s, there’s billboards in Spanish, you know, and there’s, and there’s, you know, plenty of radio stations, and, and, you know, television things in, in completely in Spanish, and those are there. And then you see, sort of this growing core of smaller businesses in the US that are that are just sort of niche marketing, targeting, specifically the Latino, the Latino markets. There, you know, and a lot of it is, is really trying to bring some of the more authentic, culturally appropriate sorts of goods and products into into the market, but they have, you know, they have the same problem that small businesses have everywhere, but even multiplied, you know, because they’re because they’re Latinos, which is the access to credit. So the, you know, the, the growth potential there for a lot of these small businesses is really, really tough. The statistic is that less slightly less than 2% of venture capital in the US, goes to Latino entrepreneurs, you know, so it’s, it’s, that growth is is is slow and tough. But, but definitely, you know, the, the Latino population is, as I said, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re almost 19 20% of the population. So there’s definitely, you know, advertising in that direction and products that are that are definitely targeted to that market.

Gene Tunny  51:46

Yeah, just occurred to me then. And then I mean, it makes sense that they’ve got Spanish language radio stations. Yes. Yeah, that that makes perfect sense. Okay. Paul Rivera, that’s been terrific. Any final thoughts? And please tell us where we can find out more about the work you’re doing?

Paul Rivera  52:03

No, this is this has been incredible. Thanks so much for, for having this conversation with me. I truly, truly appreciate it. You can find us we have our website, be act changed.com, you can find us also on Instagram on be dot Act dot change, you can find me on LinkedIn. I’m Dr. Paul Rivera. And we have also as I mentioned, my my wife and I asked her I said Alana and I are, are being changed together, we have a book that’s just been released called Creating your limitless life. It’s available on on Amazon. And there’s a there’s an accompanying workbook, at least for now, the Kindle versions are extremely, extremely low priced, I think it’s about 125. Australian. So it’s, it’s a really, really great book, it’s something that that’s really written from the heart and talks a lot about the personal experiences, and then translating that a little bit into, into what i’ve what I’ve at least, hinted at here a little bit, which is sort of our approach that’s based on purpose. Looking for alignment in your actions, finding the resilience, when things get tough, and, and, and really creating a legacy for yourself and seeing seeing your life or your business, your organisation as something that seeks to leave a positive legacy in this world and, and creating the pathways towards that. And, you know, you know, we wrote this from, from our perspective, as I said, you know, as Latinos, as people who’ve lived the immigrant experience, we’ve had so much tremendous feedback from all sorts of folks saying, you know, I’m a white male, and I really, I really, you know, resonate with, with the message is there and I’ve felt, you know, the imposter syndrome and the people pleasing and, you know, all of these things that, that sort of people feel they hold back and hold them back and from, from really carrying their life forward in a different way. So it’s, we’ve been really happy with the, with the success we’ve had, and our ability to get that message out. So if you get a chance, I highly recommend picking up the book, leave a review if you if you enjoyed it. And and that’s where we’re at, you can always find us as I said on the website, big change.com Very

Gene Tunny  54:14

good, Paul, I’ll definitely have to get the Kindle edition. One of the this is this is not necessarily an ad for Kindle, but I would say that one of the things that’s changed my life the most in the last few years has been getting a Kindle. So I guess I was slow to get into the get into the Kindle. But since I’ve got out I mean, it’s you’re just able to, to get I just read so many more books or different books that I wouldn’t look as the price I was lower price and I’ll try it out. So I love the

Paul Rivera  54:43

I mean, the device itself has gotten so much better to Yes, you know, with the screen and the battery life and all of those things and now you can make notes on them and all of that they’re tremendous. Yeah, it’s, and we’ve, you know, we had the great fortune to work with with a really excellent Australian publisher and getting this book out. So we certainly feel like we’re we have a spiritual home in Australia to to thanks to them. So that’s been a great experience as well. Yeah. Excellent.

Gene Tunny  55:07

That’s what I want to hear for. Paul Rivera. Thanks so much for your time. It’s been a great conversation. Really enjoyed it.

Paul Rivera  55:14

Absolutely. Thanks so much Gene.

Gene Tunny  55:19

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

56:06

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Carbon as an emerging, liquid asset class w/ Michael Azlen, Carbon Cap Management – EP212

With carbon prices becoming more common globally, carbon is an emerging, liquid asset class, according to Michael Azlen, CEO and co-portfolio manager of Carbon Cap Management. Michael shares his insights into investing in carbon markets with show host Gene Tunny. Michael, an experienced investment professional and regular speaker at investment conferences, shares his research on the benefits of diversifying investments across multiple carbon markets. Tune in to learn more about the potential of carbon markets as an investment opportunity. Disclaimer: This is for general information only, and does not constitute investment or financial advice. 
Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP212

  • Carbon markets and investing in an emerging asset class. (0:03)
  • Carbon markets and their correlation with other asset classes. (2:57)
  • Carbon markets and impact investing. (9:20)
  • Carbon markets and emissions trading schemes. (13:42)
  • Carbon market mechanisms and their effectiveness. (20:52)
  • Carbon markets and their potential for investment. (28:19)
  • Climate change impact on asset management industry. (33:35)
  • Final thoughts on carbon markets and investing with Michael Azlen. (38:25)

Links relevant to the conversation

About Michael Azlen and Carbon Cap:

https://www.carbon-cap.com/about-us

Michael’s article on “The Carbon Risk Premium”:

https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijaltinv/25/1/33

Transcript: Carbon as an emerging, liquid asset class w/ Michael Azlen, Carbon Cap Management – EP212

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to see if the otter had missed anything, and with all respect to otters they do miss quite a bit. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Michael Azlen  00:03

By investing across all five of these markets, your overall portfolio volatility really comes down of course because your your nicely diversified, while it doesn’t necessarily impede your return expectations so that’s that’s one of the key observations of our research paper was this this very low cross correlation between carbon markets.

Gene Tunny  00:27

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. In this episode, you’ll learn about carbon as a liquid emerging asset class. Emissions of carbon dioxide are increasingly being priced globally through various emissions trading schemes, or through other mechanisms that impose carbon prices. To explore carbon markets I talk to a fund manager who is investing in carbon markets globally. My guest is Michael Azlen, CEO and Co-Portfolio Manager of Carbon Cap Management. Michael has 25 years of experience as an investment professional, and he’s a regular speaker at investment conferences worldwide. Also he’s been a guest lecturer in graduate programmes at London Business School for more than 15 years. I’m really pleased to have been able to interview Michael because he has some great insights into carbon markets. For instance, he explains how carbon markets are generally uncorrelated with equities, bonds and real estate, and hence they can help investors diversify in uncertain times. For the lawyers, this is for general information only and none of this should be interpreted as investment or financial advice. Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Michael Azlen on carbon markets.

Michael Azlen from Carbon Cap. Thanks for joining me on the programme.

Michael Azlen  02:20

Pleased to be here Gene, thanks for inviting me.

Gene Tunny  02:22

Oh, of course. I’ve covered climate change quite a bit on the show. But I haven’t had anyone who has the expertise in the carbon markets and investing in carbon as an emerging asset class or, or another way I’ve seen it expressed as a liquid asset class. So Michael, to start off with, could you tell us a bit about Carbon Cap, please, you’re the CEO and Co-Portfolio Manager there. What does Carbon Cap do exactly?

Michael Azlen  02:57

Sure. So So Carbon Cap runs the World Carbon Fund. It’s a climate change impact fund. And the Fund invests into the regulated compliance carbon markets around the world. The fund has two objectives. The first objective is to generate a positive return over any rolling 12 month period. So we don’t want to be up every month or every quarter. But over every rolling 12 month period, the objective is to be positive, regardless of the performance of carbon itself. And the second objective of the fund is to have an impact, a direct impact on climate change. And we do this in a number of ways. But the hardest impact is achieved through our commitment to take 20% of the performance fees that are generated. And we use those to purchase compliance carbon permits, again in the regulated market Gene. And we cancel those permits. And in the fund has been running for three and a half years, the total return net of fees to our clients is in excess of 100% now, so very strong returns over this three and a half year period. And therefore, you know, the nice thing about performing it is aligned with direct climate impact. So higher performance means more impact. And that creates a nice alignment of interest between between the investors ourselves as the manager and having an impact on climate change. The fund has grown significantly from the launch, we launched with only 10 million the fund is now $280 million in size. So we’re approaching 300 million and our client base is now moving much more institutional in nature. In terms of impact allocators. The fund holds Article Nine status here in Europe and that that status, Article Nine is the highest level of impact under the European taxonomy. So it’s an uncorrelated absolute return fund with climate impact. So it’s quite a quite a unique fund and I think you know, more and more clients are seeking uncorrelated returns as we’re, you know, the global macro situation is becoming quite difficult. I think the forecast from here out.

Gene Tunny  05:14

Okay, so yeah, I’ve got a few questions based on that. Michael uncorrelated, do you mean uncorrelated with the business cycle with the stock market? What do you mean by uncorrelated?

Michael Azlen  05:24

Yeah, so the background to to Carbon Cap Gene was after I built and sold my previous asset management business to a public company, I then became deeply involved in research onto the into the science of climate change, so nothing to do with carbon. And that led me to enrolling at the London School of Economics and their climate change programme. And this is where I learned about carbon markets. At that time, this was in 2018, carbon was trading in the different markets around the world about half a billion dollars daily. So it’s quite liquid. And I was quite surprised by that. And my first question as an investment professionals was, was your question. What are the what are the statistical properties of the asset class, you know, return and volatility and correlation. When I looked for the research Gene, there was no research on carbon. So I hired a PhD student from the LSE, myself, we collected the data, and we analysed and wrote that up as a full research paper. Now, it did take three years in the peer review process with academic papers. But I’m very pleased to tell you the paper was published last year in the Journal of Alternative Investments. So, so coming back to your question, when you’re asking, you know, what do we mean by correlation? In this sense, if you take the, you know, the daily, weekly or monthly returns of carbon, which is a liquid tradable asset class now, I should mention that, that that liquidity where it was trading half a billion a day, that was in 2018, now we’re trading 4 billion per day. So the liquidity has increased significantly. And and when you look at those correlation numbers over rolling periods, carbon just exhibits effectively no correlation at all to equities, to bonds to real estate to other commodities, it has very unique correlation properties

Gene Tunny  07:18

Right and what about the volatility is it much more volatile than those other asset classes?

Michael Azlen  07:24

So it varies between markets. So you know, today in the World Carbon Fund, we invest in five different liquid regulated carbon markets. And those volatilities vary from probably the lowest volatility market is between 10 to 15% volatility, and the highest volatility market maybe is about a 60% volatility. So there’s quite a difference in volatility in the different carbon markets.

Gene Tunny  07:48

Okay, so I might ask you about those different carbon markets in a moment, there are just a few other things to clear up. You talked about institutional investors, so you’re talking about, what investment banks, so the Goldman Sachs, or Morgan Stanley, you’re not okay, who are you talking about there? Pension funds, perhaps?

Michael Azlen  08:10

Yeah, exactly. So generally, you know, high net worth investors, and then retail investors would be non institutional, and then kind of in the middle ground, you would have family offices and multifamily offices in the middle ground. And then you would move into more institutional, which would be, as you say, professional investment management organisations. So this, these could be other investment management firms that have maybe a multi asset product, or they might run a fund of hedge funds product, and they would be an investor into our fund. And finally, the classic, you know, asset holders like in Australia, the super funds and other big pension funds. So we’re seeing also interest from the bigger pension funds now, because there’s an interesting aspect, not only the return and the low correlation, but the climate impact, and the potential for carbon exposure to give you somewhat of a climate hedge in your portfolio is another another interesting aspect. If you understand that climate change is now impacting equity and bond portfolios by having some carbon it’s somewhat of a hedge against some of those impacts.

Gene Tunny  09:19

Yeah, that makes sense. And can you explain, you mentioned this Article Nine, in the European taxonomy? I’m completely unfamiliar with that. Sorry. Could you explain what what that’s about?

Michael Azlen  09:32

So, Europe a couple of years ago, launched a new taxonomy to identify the level of transparency and impact for funds and they set minimum standards, reporting standards in order to achieve those different article levels and the highest level there of impact is Article Nine. So you know, in an in an effort to create an environment that kind of weeded out greenwashing, they said, let’s put some standards in here. Because you know, I mean, three years ago, every single fund was green in some aspect, right? Even if it really wasn’t green, it could be labelled green. And so Europe brought in this taxonomy and said, now, unless you meet these very strict reporting requirements, you can’t make a green claim. Or more importantly, you know, your fund will be ranked Article Six, Article Seven, Article eight, Article Nine. So there’s a varying degree of reporting, and you it to achieve Article Nine, you must demonstrate meaningful impact in terms of the activities of the fund have to be reported in detail, and you have to demonstrate impact. And so in our case, we have now a three year audit trail where we have purchased carbon permits with those performance fee amounts, and then we just cancel them. And that’s all audited and documented.

Gene Tunny  10:57

Okay, okay I’ll have to look more into that, that’s interesting. I mean, yeah, there have been a bit of concerns about greenwashing, or concerns about just how effective some of these carbon offsets are, whether they’re actually legitimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So I think that’s, that’s fair enough. Righto! I’ve got to ask you about this $4 billion a day of trading. And I mean, you’re involved in this sort of thing. And oh, can I ask first? Actually, you might have mentioned it before. Assets under management, are you do you disclose the assets under management of your of your fund?

Michael Azlen  11:36

Yeah so as I mentioned, we are currently running 280, two eight zero million dollars in the World Carbon Fund.

Gene Tunny  11:44

Gotcha. Because I latched on to that there’s that four billion dollars a day that’s being traded, who’s trading it, and who ultimately needs these carbon permits or these assets? So we’ve got, I mean, what is it that’s being traded? There’s the permit. So in Australia, we I think we call them Australian carbon credit units. So they represent what is it a tonne of co2 equivalent? And then there are also offsets. Can you tell us a bit about that market, who’s in it and what’s been traded, please, Michael?

Michael Azlen  12:13

So this, this is a real area of confusion Gene. So it’s really important that we clarify the difference between various carbon markets because there are actually three very distinct carbon markets. And they’re very, very different. So this is very, very important. So the first market that most people are actually familiar with, and let’s leave the Australian ACCU market. Let’s leave that to the side for a minute. I’m talking globally now. Most people are familiar with what’s called the voluntary carbon market, voluntary, because it means it’s a voluntary participation, a corporate can choose to buy these credits, can choose to buy these offsets. And here Gene terminology, we use the term credit and offset. In the voluntary market, it’s a carbon credit or a carbon offset. In the markets in which we invest, we invest in a completely separate market, the regulated market, the compliance carbon market, where companies must comply, and those are called carbon allowance permits. So in the voluntary market, most it’s called a carbon credit or offset. The normal project here Gene is planting trees, or trying to protect a forest or a mangrove swamp. It’s some type of project related activity. And then an independent party will calculate how much carbon is sequestered from the activity. They give it a rating, and they calculate the tonnes and they issue these credits and offsets. I’m going to give you five key bullet points about this voluntary market very, very important. Number one, it is completely unregulated. Number two, it’s illiquid, it’s it’s not a liquid asset. Number three it’s very small in size. I’ll come back to that. Number four, because it’s all of these different methodologies. It’s very opaque and complex to figure out, well, how did they calculate these credits, how many credits? And number five, I think very important, in the voluntary market, there is effectively an unlimited supply of these credits. This is where Gene you mentioned in the last ,just the last nine months, this year alone, there have been a number of investigative journalist articles that have uncovered practices in that market that have proven to show that some of the projects have not actually sequestered any carbon at all. And I think the key here Gene is that in any market as an economist, you’ll know this when you have a financial asset without any financial oversight, this brings moral hazard into the equation right? So if we can create more credits or offsets through a different methodology, we all benefit within that ecosystem. But there’s no independent oversight of that. So the problem of over crediting and sort of supply has become an issue. And so I think what we’re seeing is corporate buyers of wanting to make a climate impact are now somewhat shying away from that market, because they don’t want to be involved in these in these scandals. So that’s the voluntary market. If I move the lens to the regulated markets Gene, I want to give you five key bullet points about the regulated market. The first one, of course, it is highly regulated, because it is run by governments. Number two, it’s it’s very liquid, it now trades $4 billion every day. Number three, it’s large. So when we compare the size, this market is traded, last year, about 1 trillion with a T dollars, and the voluntary market did about 1 billion. So this is a 1000 times difference in size, not 10 times or 100 times this is huge. And number four, it’s very transparent. Of course, these these markets, because they’re run by the government, so they put all the rules on the website, it’s transparent. And number five and most important Gene, in the regulated market the supply of the permits is capped and every year that supply lower and lower and lower. So in one market, unlimited supply just keeps increasing, and in this market it’s capped and it keeps going down. So it’s quite, there’s quite a big difference between these two markets.

Gene Tunny  16:28

Yeah, gotcha. So you’re talking about the permits that are part of emissions trading schemes, or cap and trade schemes or whatever you want to call it. So what are the major markets, Michael, which economies have these schemes and which economies therefore have these regulated markets, there are these permits that you’re involved in investing in and trading?

Michael Azlen  16:53

So the good news here, Gene, is that not only is there, are there current, currently multiple countries and jurisdictions, but there are at least a dozen new countries that have announced they’re going to launch full Emission Trading Systems, cap and trade systems as you as you correctly identified, so the growth of the asset class is going to be tremendous in the next five years. The current markets that we invest into today are the European emission trading system. Number two is the UK emission trading system, which was established after Brexit more than two years ago. When the UK left Europe, they launched their own emission trading system. The third market is the California carbon market, which is in the state of California. Fourth market is the regional greenhouse gas cap and trade market, which is on the east coast of the United States. And it consists of 11 states together on the East Coast in one block carbon market. And the fifth market we invest in is the New Zealand carbon market, which has been around for a long time, it’s gone through transformations. It’s a small market, but it’s we think it’s quite a well run market and and that’s the fifth market. Um, one thing I want to point out, Europe has is the most liquid market, it trades probably half of that 4 billion daily, 2 billion a day is the European market. So very, very liquid and it was launched in 2005. From 2005 until today, emissions in Europe have dropped by 1 billion metric tonnes per year. That is a big success. And and for this reason, I think because of that success, obviously without impeding economic growth. I mean, that’s quite important, right? I think that is why we’ve had these big announcements in the last well, even the last three months, Brazil is moving legislation to launch a full cap and trade market, India and Japan, Japan, the third biggest emitter in the world. China, of course, launched after doing extensive research on the European market and the California, China launched the world’s biggest cap and trade market two years ago, covers 4.5 billion tonnes of carbon. So it’s massive. South Korea, Mexico should go live next year, they finished the two years of their pilot programme. So we’re expecting that may be the next fund that we could add into the fund. But there’s there’s many more countries I was recently in Singapore three weeks ago and Indonesia just launched their cap and trade market. Most of the Asian Tigers, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, they’re they’re all have plans at various stages, it’s taking time to, but they all have plans to launch cap and trade carbon markets, which is great news.

Gene Tunny  19:51

Right. The US is obviously a major omission from that list of countries. Do you think there’s any prospect of the the US, there are some states out there that you mentioned, is that right? But the whole US there’s no federal cap and trade scheme in the US is there?

Michael Azlen  20:09

No, and I think it’s unlikely we’re going to get a federal scheme, because of the, you know, the polarisation, you know, at the federal level, but but what we’re seeing Gene is, you have the state of California, and then you have 11 states on the east coast. So we already have those 12 states. Three months ago, the state of Washington, the 13th US state launched its own carbon market. That market launched three months ago. And in the last six months, New York State has announced it’s going to launch a full blown cap and trade carbon market probably within 18 months. So things are happening at the individual state level, but I think it’s unlikely we’re going to get federal carbon pricing.

Gene Tunny  20:52

Gotcha. And where’s Australia sit in this? So do you have any thoughts about these, these A double C Us or ACCUs that we have here? Is that something you’re not interested in investing in?

Michael Azlen  21:04

So in the fund, we have a market entry framework that has a number of criteria that a carbon market must pass in order for us to onboard that into the fund. And there’s very practical considerations like access to that market. But then there’s there’s other considerations such as, you know, transparency, country risk, policy risk, currency risk, and items like that. So, you know, on many of those, of course, Australia being a, you know, a Western democracy, there’s no issue, but the actual structure of the ACCU market in Australia is somewhat of a hybrid between the regulated market which has, you know, a cap which gets lowered every year, and the voluntary market, which is unlimited supply effectively. And, and therefore, when we apply those market, market entry, that market entry framework against the Australian market, it simply doesn’t pass it, it’s it doesn’t meet the stringency test, because of the fact that it allows voluntary project supply units to come in of very questionable calculation methodologies. And and really the other thing is Gene, durability. When you have a project that it I think we can measure that it may have sequestered carbon, but but it what is the risk of reversal? And how long will that carbon be stored, if it’s only stored for 10 years and then released back into the atmosphere, well, then you know, that that perhaps hasn’t been a very valid carbon credit. So durability and risk of reversal of the carbon then being re re emitted is very high. And so projects, such as soil carbon and whatnot, they do have this potential for risk of reversal and therefore low durability. Most projects now that I think more corporate buyers are looking at more permanent removal, such as, you know, direct air capture, and other strategies where you can prove long term, you’ve pulled the carbon out, you’ve injected it deep underground, you liquefy it, inject it into a storage well, for very long term durable storage, over 100 years, or maybe even over 1000 years. So you can really demonstrate storage.

Gene Tunny  23:21

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  23:26

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  23:55

Now back to the show.

Now, who ultimately needs these permits, it’s emitters isn’t it? It’s big companies that are polluting. So smelters and power generators, fossil fuel generators. Is that right? They’re the ones who ultimately need it. They’ve got the demand.

Michael Azlen  24:17

Yeah, so in a cap and trade programme, the government controls the total quantity of emissions. But because there’s a limited number of permits, exactly, as you said. And the way they decide who’s in is they normally set a threshold Gene. So in most markets, it’s a 25,000 tonne per year threshold. So any company that emits more than 25,000 tonnes per year they’re notified by the government they’re in, they don’t have a choice. So that’s why we we call it a compliance instead of a voluntary market because you must comply. It means that the government audits you every year, and you must give the government the permits based on the audit. So if you we audit you and you met 2 million tonnes by April of this year, you have to give the government 2 million permits and the government controls the supply of those permits. So that’s a cap and trade. Every year the government, in the case of Europe let’s say, we, we sell at auctions 1.3 billion permits, at the end of the year the companies are audited. And if the total emissions are also 1.3, the companies then give those permits back to the government who destroy them, they they destroy the permit, and that that compliance cycle for one year has now been completed. The second year now the government sells 1.2 billion, destroys those then 1.1, then a billion then 900. So every year the supply of permits is going down. So we know within the ecosystem 1000s of companies, someone must select themselves to stop emitting carbon. And that’s the beauty of the mechanism Gene, it allows the price, the market sets the price of carbon, and that price signal is taken by participants and internalised. What do I mean? They compare the market price of carbon to their internal cost of abatement. In other words, the CEO calls in his head of engineering and says, John, you know, we’re emitting 2 million tonnes a year, it’s $100, that’s costing us $200 million a year. Can you get her emissions down? He says to the head of engineering, right? He’s profit motivated. And the head of engineering then looks at the latest technologies for that industrial process, and comes back and says to the CEO, yeah, we can get it down. But it costs $160 a tonne. Well, that that CEO has a very clear decision, then he’ll he will simply buy the permit for 100. But there will be another company in the ecosystem, where the head of engineering says it’s $40, we can reduce our emissions for 40 bucks a tonne. That’s a no brainer. The CEO chooses then to invest in that low carbon technology and they choose to cut their emissions. So this is the power of the mechanism. It forces what we call the three magic words, least cost abatement. Right, that those are the three magic words, tap and lower the emissions. That’s good, but we want to achieve it at the lowest possible cost. As an economist you will appreciate this is you know, this is a parsimonious solution to to this quite difficult problem.

Gene Tunny  27:17

Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think, yeah, that’s that’s something that economists would would agree on. I mean, one of the things that’s happened in Australia is because we, we don’t have a carbon price, but yet the politicians have made commitments to try and get emissions down, we end up doing all sorts of things that may not end up being that that least, what is it the least cost of abatement?

Michael Azlen  27:41

Yeah to achieve least cost abatement. Yeah, yeah. So because we want to we all want to cut emissions of course, we’ve seen the terrible impact, but we don’t want to do it at any price, right, we want to do it at the lowest possible cost. And so in a carbon market, as we keep lowering the number of permits, the supply, we know we as long as we have liquidity and price discovery taking place in that market, that that is important. We can be quite confident it’s the companies with the lowest cost they self select themselves to choose to reduce their emissions. And the reason they do it is they make more profit. I mean, they they’re not being green or ESG. They simply are reducing their emissions because they make more profit.

Gene Tunny  28:19

Yeah. Okay. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about the market some of the technical details. Is there a futures market in, in these permits, the derivatives? I mean, what’s the, what’s the market look like?

Michael Azlen  28:34

So in each market that we invest in is slightly different in four of the five markets Gene, there is exchange listed futures and exchange listed options that trade like many other commodities, like oil, or wheat, or corn or, you know, other commodities. And most of the liquidity is in that exchange listed futures market. Most of the trading activity in carbon, probably no one knows the exact number, but I would say 70, or 80% of the trading activity, is those big end users hedging their carbon obligation. And as you said, it’s the power sector. electric utilities, steel, cement, chemicals, glass, these high emitting sectors are the main participants in, in carbon markets.

Gene Tunny  29:18

Gotcha. Gotcha. But they’re not your investors are they or are they? Oh, you’ve got no, no, no. Okay. So, but you’re you are participating in the market, but they’re the ones who ultimately need the permits. Okay. Gotcha. That makes sense. What about foreign exchange risk you mentioned? I mean, what you’re saying there, it sounds really embarrassing for Australia for our ACCUs, those criteria that you set out and how we don’t meet them over here. That’s, yeah that’s quite embarrassing for us, I imagine. You mentioned foreign exchange risk, do you hedge that foreign exchange risk?

Michael Azlen  30:00

In the fund? We do yeah. So where we invest in, you know, in a carbon market and in another currency we hedge that out. That’s, you know, quite common in our industry.

Gene Tunny  30:11

Gotcha. Okay. So we’ve, we’ve talked about, you know, regulated and you’re in the regulated space versus voluntary. I was surprised just how much larger the regulated is than the the voluntary, I suppose it makes sense if it’s, if it’s compulsory. You talked about a euro, the European scheme, and then the UK scheme. To what extent are these markets connected? Can I buy permits in in one scheme and use them in another? I mean, how does that how does it all work? Are they are these markets connected in any way?

Michael Azlen  30:48

So the long term plan, Gene is for carbon markets all to link together. So to give you an example, you know, four or five years ago, Switzerland had its own separate carbon market, and then it chose to link with the EU carbon market. And that is the long term trajectory. I think if we look 10 or 15 years into the future, hopefully, we initially will have maybe regional carbon markets, Asia, North America, South America, that kind of thing. And then eventually, one would hope, one global carbon price and carbon market, and we believe the asset class, you know, now is trading about 70 billion a month, as I mentioned, we think that, you know, when when China, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, when all these markets spin up in the next three to five years, we’ll be trading probably well over, you know, half a trillion a month, I mean, it’s going to be a huge asset class, probably overtaking crude oil as the most heavily traded commodity in the world, probably within five to 10 years. So strategically, I think it’s a very important asset class. One of the very unique things is Gene, they’re not linked yet. So even though the California market the permit covers one tonne, same same commodity as the one tonne in the European market, because there’s no fungibility you can’t bring the permit and hand it in, in Europe, from California. When you look at the cross correlation. It’s zero, effectively. So to give you an example, this year, year to date performance, the European market is about flat on the year, the UK market is down 40% on the year, the California market is up 20% on the year, and the RGGI market on the east coast of the US is up I don’t know about 5% on the year. So you can see just from these numbers, very diverse performance, there’s no cross correlation. So by investing across all five of these markets, your overall portfolio volatility really comes down of course, because you’re, you’re nicely diversified. While it doesn’t necessarily impede your return expectations. So that’s that’s one of the key observations of our research paper was this this very low cross correlation between carbon markets.

Gene Tunny  33:03

Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, I’ll have to, I’ll put a link in the show notes to that. Michael, yeah this has been fascinating. I’ve learned a lot about about these markets. And it’s, it’s, there’s a lot I’m gonna have to follow up on just to make sure I’m as across it as I can. Can I ask you about your, your story how you ended up at Carbon Cap? I mean, you’re you’re in the UK now, aren’t you? You’re, so you’re based in London, you’ve got an office in Mayfair. But you’re obviously, I mean, you don’t have a British accent do you so what, can you tell us a bit about your story?

Michael Azlen  33:35

Yeah, so I’m a Canadian, and worked, began my career with two of Canada’s banks as a proprietary trader. After, I then came to London to do my graduate degree at London Business School. And I’ve actually been teaching now for 18 years on the graduate degree programme at London Business School. The last five years, I’ve been teaching a segment on the impact of climate change on the asset management industry, which is a very, very interesting and fast moving area. I worked in the hedge fund industry here in London in a number of roles. And then I set up my first business, regulated investment management business in 2005. And I was very fortunate Gene to grow that business to a decent size. And we were approached, and I managed to sell the business to a Swiss public company. And it was after that sale, and my earn out period, I had a little bit of time off, but that’s when I became deeply involved in research into climate change itself, nothing to do with carbon, I was, I was quite sceptical of the whole area of climate change, you know, because, to me, the you know, the temperature and weather didn’t seem that bad. And I also had known that the climate had always changed prior to humans being on the planet, quite dramatically right? Humans have only been on the planet 250,000 years or so. And we’ve got paleo climate records way back before then showing great variability in weather and the climate system. So I just sort of wanted to bottom out those two questions. And I’ve now read more than 200 Peer Reviewed papers, I was I was in a fortunate position because I didn’t have to work, I could simply focus on that. And I’m a bit geeky, you know, I like to read these these peer reviewed academic papers, and I fairly quickly, over about two or three months became convinced that the problem is extremely acute. If you’re an empirical person, you just weigh evidence, you just base your decision on evidence. It’s, it’s, you know, the concentration of co2 now in the atmosphere at 425 parts per million. I mean, it’s increased by 50%. And it just keeps climbing higher and higher. And the impacts, I don’t know, if you, you saw the data that came out just a few days ago, on September, me, not only was the month of September, the hottest September on record, but the deviation above the previous record was enormous. So the impacts that we’re seeing now are becoming, you know, massive. I know, in Australia, in particular, there’s been, you know, some some very big impacts both in fires and flooding events. And those are unfortunately likely to continue. So hopefully, you know, we can address this so that, that, that spurred my passion to do something Gene and I was fortunate to be able to get a Swiss private bank to back me to launch my second business. And now we have a very interesting Climate Impact Fund.

Gene Tunny  36:26

Hmm, good one, good one. Can I ask you about this course you are teaching, the impact of climate change on the asset management industry, I mean, I mean, you’re a case study of that, I mean, yes, obviously, you know, carbon now is a liquid asset class or an emerging asset class, as you call it. But are there other impacts that you that you consider in that course? I’m just just interested in what the content of that is broadly and what you see is the, those impacts.

Michael Azlen  36:54

Well, I mean, it’s a, this is a massive area now for, for academic investigation. It began with things like, for instance, looking at a diversified equity portfolio and trying to calculate initially, you know, the carbon footprint of that portfolio as a proxy for you know, the emissions. And then academics began to research well, what is the difference in performance between a portfolio that has a bigger carbon footprint, they call that a brown portfolio, versus a portfolio with a with a less carbon foot a green, and this Brown versus green, if you just Google that, that spread of performance in equities, and in fixed income markets, has been an area of very great research. But things have moved on since then. And now, what the research is looking at is trying to really identify with the actual climate risks that individual corporates are exposed to, either insurance companies in their in their insurance portfolio right with regard to flooding risk, fire risk, things of this nature. You can imagine banks, their lending risk. So in terms of a kind of Basel three stress test, but, but instead of looking at credit quality, we’re now trying to assess are they lending money to companies where those companies have undue climate risk, and therefore, you should factor that in? So it really extends to a pretty wide range. It’s a really fast moving and interesting area.

Gene Tunny  38:25

Gotcha. Okay, I’ll have to have a look at that. I mean, that might be a topic for another episode, I won’t to go into it now because you’ve, you’ve given me, you know, lots of good stuff to think about already, Michael so that’s been that’s been terrific. Any final thoughts before we wrap up?

Michael Azlen  38:42

No, I would just like to say, you know, I think everything begins and ends with education and learning about a topic, if you’ve got questions, if this has interested you today, I would direct you to our website, we have an open access website with a research library and we have a section on the website of little educational videos, short snippets, to help people understand how does the, you know, what do you mean by voluntary carbon market? What do you mean by regulated carbon market? And we have information, of course, on the latest science on what’s happening on climate change. So I would encourage people to, if you found today interesting, to you know, do your research and and please use the resources that are available our research paper, I think it is not available on the website, but I would happy, anyone who emails me, I’d be happy to send it and for any, you know, Australian based investors that would be interested in thinking about our fund, you know be of course very happy to have that conversation too.

Gene Tunny  39:43

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I imagine it could be of interest to with yeah, super funds. I mean, we’ve got some big, obviously some big super funds here and we’ve got, I mean, I’m in Queensland here we’ve got a Queensland Investment Corporation, which is owned by the state government. I know that they’ve got, they’re interested in alternative investments, I’m not sure to what extent they’re interested in the carbon market, but anyway, it’s uh, yeah, absolutely if there is a, if there is someone listening right now and investors in Australia or anywhere, yeah, I think I think definitely check out your website, Michael and you know, this is obviously not financial advice, I can’t, this is general information only. But, you know, certainly, this is, it, I think you’re right. It is an emerging liquid asset class, and it’s something that really has to be considered in future portfolios. So, Michael Azlen that’s been terrific. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation. So thanks so much for your time and for your insights really, really thought it was great.

Michael Azlen  40:46

Gene, thank you very happy to participate today. Thanks for inviting me.

Gene Tunny  40:50

Cheers.

Michael Azlen  40:51

Cheers. Bye bye

Gene Tunny  40:53

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

41:40

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.