Past Church Street New Years Eve

VAT and Leijonhufvud

few days ago I heard a dealer complaining about the amount of VAT payable. The complaint was based on if it had been more cautious and bought goods could have avoided all or part of the tax.


This complaint made me reflect and draw the following conclusion: the complaint is unfounded and VAT "finances" the accumulation of stocks. Why unfounded? Because to avoid paying VAT should never accumulate stocks trade continuously by the same amount for the tax and this clearly is not a long-term equilibrium. You can temporarily prevent your stock but when you reduce the tax paid at the time did not pay.


Reasoning in the same way also concluded that the tax used to finance the accumulation of stocks. Before a decision to combine goods, such purchases represent more tax credits for the trader, who uses them to make debits from sales and thus pay a lesser amount (or zero). The key is the system of credits and debits, which can avoid paying value-added generated today at the expense of a higher payment to be made in the future when more stock that is settled.

PD 1: It is assumed that there is no escape (partially) the tax, if any is complemented by the approach and therefore does not change.

PD 2: Maybe the complaint could have been referred to miss the opportunity to rebuild stocks using money earmarked to pay taxes.

Minor Labia Stretching

overstocking by bike

Interesting note on VOX Axel Leijonhufvud.

Brief summary (not literally) for lazy and Anglophobe: any financial crisis involves a collective error in the perception of wealth. The subsequent adjustment requires the distribution of the losses generated by these errors between the different actors in the economy. In the context of a market crisis or allow the judges assigned to these losses lead to a resurgence of it. In response, the State should undertake the dual task of punishing those who took undue risks but also to avoid a widespread collapse of the payments system.

In this regard, noting that the loss allocation mechanism which implicitly applies the U.S. government is unfair and not transparent. According to the author, the Reserve Federal offers liquidity at rates close to zero to private banks that can be channeled to the purchase of Treasury Bonds with a nominal yield of 3 to 4 percentage points. Banks, meanwhile, strengthen their balance sheets to pay the difference in performance at the expense of American taxpayers that this mechanism is slowly paying spurious losses of financial institutions. Finally, warning about the dangers of this procedure if not so distant future Federal Reserve is forced to raise rates to stop inflation pressures (which would increase the funding cost of banks would be barefoot with respect to government bonds).

So much for the note of AL.

Two comments in the margin, if the Fed funds to banks and these provide funds to the Treasury, is there not a mechanism underlying deficit financing by the Federal Reserve?

And a little more superficial: the district, would not you say this bike?

Can I Use Health Card At Casino Niagara

Nothing is free (no winners or losers)

Spain white shirt

About the different perspectives on the European economy these days have circulated both by the BEA as large media positions have been found: wishful thinking, moderate bitter and pessimistic. Whereas one of the main articles comes precisely from a Nobel Prize ( Paul Krugman in the New York Times ) I guess these lines can only be considered as a contribution to unraveling the general confusion. A confession from ...

Since the formation of the Euro block some countries (Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal ...) had a current account deficit, in many cases growing. After the international crisis, these countries faced a decline the price of real estate which, added to the contraction in world trade, strongly affected the affordability of a wide range of actors including public sector (in this situation and similar ones in the story we referred to here ) . In this context, the inability to obtain financing required a correction of current account results. Correct this imbalance in turn required a change in relative prices. In that case, why do not devalue?

Far away and long ago Argentina's economy had, after the implementation of the scheme convertibility, successive current account deficits. Tells the story (probably apocryphal) that a reviled but reminded Finance Minister against the tribulations of his interlocutor on this point retorted "This is not a current account deficit is a capital account surplus."

Beyond the rhetorical elegance of former minister, the fact is that by definition all current account deficit has as its counterpart funding from other countries, ie a surplus of capital account. Trivial. When you remember the benefits of financial integration European countries tends to be emphasized that the decline in rates meant for the less developed members of the single currency. But, in principle, the other members of the euro area, particularly Germany, but also the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, had access to a vast market where to channel their excess savings. Ultimately, the development strategy of "export led" allowed these countries to grow through trade with its partners, financial institutions exported while the domestic savings surplus capital. In plain language, while over the counter the more developed European countries offering goods to other partners through the single market, the new financial integration to extend no-fault allowed the grocer's account (and with low transaction costs!). Authentic happiness chain: while some grew through consumption (including construction financing) the others did for the external sector. The crisis broke off the romance.

devalue in this context does not alter the balance of forces and would therefore be safe and is that bad though, Europe's problem is internal to Europe. The future will depend on the possibility that this group of countries to define a new framework for joint development with no winners or losers. This is important because the burden of adjustment should fall not only in economies that increased their borrowing in recent years, but also those who fund it (accepting that part of that loan was given was wrong).

In this context, less developed countries seek an internal devaluation through deflation. As you rightly mentioned Krugman, this must necessarily be accompanied by a restructuring (how often removed?) In public and private debt, as price decreases with an inflexible debt could lead to a collapse of the payment chain. The position of developed countries in this context is striking: to demand payment of the debt requires a reversal of the balance, at least, the trade balance, which would run counter to its own development policy. These contradictions do not seem to have a simple resolution in the Euro.

Optimists and pessimists do not seem to reach convincing arguments. Optimists should be able to show a historical example of a successful disinflation, or at least, establish the characteristics that distinguish this from other deflations. The argument about the impossibility of the collapse of Euro based on exit costs and the historical inevitability of the "united Europe" (the mosaic of languages \u200b\u200band customs with little in common) seem inadequate. As a good South American (or rather, Argentina), I guess I'm closer to the pessimism, or at least prepared for the worst. But the possibility of defining the sequence of events that predict the coming of the apocalypse seems closer to futurology than the economy.

Why Does My Cat Have Black Boogers

safes and contract theory: gaps and loopholes

trying to understand how the market safe, I began to see its structure and how the institutions determine current performance. There are very little to read the topic, at least in conversational tones and not so legal. Notwithstanding the above, I shall try to represent in a simple, from what little I saw, the market follows.

The "supply side" of this market consists of banks, the demand side we have the customers, the bank lends them a service in return for monetary compensation takes the form, say, a newspaper subscription. This is formalized by a contract .

One aspect nontrivial safety boxes is that unlike the other services provided by banks in our country the regulatory framework that encompasses this activity is somewhat atypical, as there is no point to this operative legislation. This legal vacuum or loophole "is solved by resorting to other sources of law and comparative law, analogy, and so on. In this case, the activity falls within the orbit corresponding to any contract between private (ie, the corner grocer may offer a safe deposit box).

From the standpoint of legal-contractual agreement establishes a set of actions to which each party agrees, to a significant extent the results arising from compliance (or lack thereof) of the same. According to Russo , the duties of banks include:

• "allow the client-or person expressly authorized" access to safe banking day within the authorized time, so tailored to the security and control guidelines set by the entity, and allow access to the quiet place to perform the operation on privacy;
• " ensure the suitability of the premises and the integrity of the box and its contents. For these purposes, should permanently keep the boxes to prevent damage or violation of same in order to preserve its integrity ;
• " where appropriate, compensate customers for damage suffered damage or loss of deposited objects. This point arises from the contractual nature of the duty of custody, as we have discussed, is the soul of the contract. "

While customers are required to provide:

• "pay the price set by the bank;
• " use the box as agreed in the contract, which means: do not store dangerous substances, respect the rules of the institution in terms of security, etc. "

An important point is, of course, how to define the scope of responsibility banks in relation to the occurrence of certain contingencies or claims, or what is the same as what the true nature of the contract. On the one hand, emphasizing the role of surveillance and security of value given, a current doctrine resembles the contract in question to deposit contracts and therefore should govern the regulatory framework of a standard tank. The logical problem that has this doctrine is that the bank can not keep things straight it does not know who actually owns.

Moreover, proponents of the theory of location argue that the bank is limited to ensure the client exclusive use of a safe, under the circumstances of confidentiality and discretion it deserves the case. That is, the bank is not obliged to keep safe and has no interest in the use or destination of the contents thereof. However, this doctrine loses sight of the nature of the service " safe."

A third component, which predominates in the local case, takes elements from both schools and considers these contracts as a typology "sui generis ", which features location and deposit .

However, making an economic reading of the controversy, we can surmise that the first stream is associated with high transaction costs (ie, the bank does not know that in the box are the jewels of the grandmother, can be expensive for me to prove that the jewels were actually there until the time of the incident, and although able to convince the bank and a "neutral third party 'that the jewels were actually there, still not entirely clear what the value of same, etc.).

respect to the second current, that is not obvious is what is the scope of the provision of 'vigilance' required by the bank that is not considered a breach of contract: the contractual requirement of custody and supervision should be materialized in terms of means (4 police officers case, given quality steel, etc.) or results (or yes ensure the safe state)?

the accident, the timing of the game can be summarized as follows.

i) The box is violated, then there is a breach of contract by the bank;

ii) the client can "complete" the contract using an external arbitration (in this case to court), but it is a course of action as mentioned has high transaction costs and can take time;

iii ) as a form of settlement between the parties, the bank offers a fixed amount of compensation as 'safe', provided that the client undertakes not to resort to justice.

Given the above, the reflections that arise are the following.

a) what features are the "clients" of this market? That is, what is their motivation to allocate assets to this use "passive"? In addition to insecurity, a determinant of individual demand may be unable to access other financial instruments problems with the IRS. If you can not whitewash what's in the box, do not be left other than the fixed amount.

b) if you stole the jewels of the grandmother and worth less than the fixed amount (which a priori seems unlikely), you also should be fixed.

c) if the jewels were worth more than the fixed amount, you may even agree to accept given the uncertainty that you are exposed to the trial.

d) so I say the market for safes in Buenos Aires is saturated, but due to logistics and intelligence developed boqueteros even could have hired some safes then violently, and take also the value of the insurance ... even though it sounds trite.

Which brings me to the following question: comparing the cost, insurance and the probability of gap against having things in the house and robbed me what is the optimal value to deposit in the safe?