The economic case against slavery

modernslavery.jpg

In 1981, Mauritania became the last country in the world to abolish slavery, putting a supposed end to the archaic institution, yet there are an estimated 30 million people illegally enslaved across the globe today. The abhorrent ethics of the practice have not stopped many governments from letting modern slavery slip through the cracks. In order to convince governments to take real action, we must prove that slavery is an economic burden, and an investment in eradicating it will produce returns.

Slaves were once an expensive capital purchase, but rapid population growth in the mid-twentieth century has led to a sharp decrease in the cost of slave labor. Furthermore, unregulated migration systems in many countries have left a lot migrants with minimal information about legal migration and their rights. This has made it easier for criminals to exploit and traffic migrant labor. The International Labour Organization researched the flow of migrant workers into forced labor and found that migrant workers encompass a large percentage of trafficking victims. Business owners who wish to utilize this cheap, disposable labor can achieve higher profits compared to those that pay their laborers a wage, preventing money from flowing naturally from employers to employees and back into the economy by consumption. However, while slavery is profitable for criminal business, it is a drag on the economy as a whole.

Many impoverished, uneducated civilians who are desperate for money are tricked into taking out a loan where labor is demanded as repayment. According to Anti-Slavery International, bonded labor has become the most widespread form of modern slavery in the world. Bonded slaves become illegally trapped in servitude as that loan is extremely difficult to repay and the debt passes down each generation. Slavery flourishes in places with extreme poverty. In fact, it perpetuates poverty as slave labor decreases the wages for unskilled, free laborers, reducing the disposable income of free families. The research of Kevin Bales, co-founder of the human rights organization Free the Slaves, has shown that the first investment former slaves want to make is putting their children in schools. Education is crucial in combating poverty. First, education helps prevent the spread of poverty between generations. Second, learning to read, write, and think critically greatly increases one’s economic rate of return. As long as governments will not do anything to stop the illegal use of slavery, freedman labor remains an untapped resource in an economy.

The article “Slavery is Bad for Business” by Monti Narayan Datta and Kevin Bales states that the production output of slave labor is remarkably low due to a lack of incentives, lack of human development and lower life expectancy. They are not working to their full capacity and, consequently, have low economic value. When slaves are freed, the local economy booms as these people now act as economic agents. There is a greater incentive to increase productivity and their human capital since they are now supporting their families and exercising labor autonomy. Not only do they contribute to the economy through work, but also through consumption as active members of society with purchasing power.

Despite slavery’s persistence, education and legislation designed to hold businesses accountable for their use of servitude in the lower end of their supply chains have proven effective. For example, the California Transparency in Supply Chain Act mandates that any company with worldwide annual revenue above $100 million publicly discloses what they are doing to eradicate human trafficking and forced labor from their supply chain. If companies consciously work to stop purchasing intermediate goods produced by slaves, the demand for slave labor will decrease.

The second, critical step is to invest in freeing slaves and giving them a real chance at living a productive, healthy life. This step is crucial in ensuring the long-term success of those freed from slavery. Bales describes the freeing of slaves in the United States as the “botched emancipation of 1865” where millions of former slaves were left without access to education or political autonomy. Instead they were faced with discrimination and violence, which continues to resonate through society today. Without giving people some sort of chance, they are more likely to fall victim to other types of exploitation.

Ethics aside, slavery is not being addressed aggressively enough by governments around the world. If they looked honestly at the economic ramifications of a monstrous system that refuses to die, only then may governments be coerced to act.

Advertisements

Beyond Populism: The Importance of Punishing White-Collar Crime

berniemadoff
Elizabeth Williams/Bloomberg News

Late last month, The Economist published an article, “Jail bait,” arguing that the increased pursuit of criminal charges against white-collar workers is merely a symptom of America’s populist desire to vilify the wealthy. The article further asserts that not only is charging individuals costlier than charging firms, but also that individuals should not be held liable for their actions due to a system that promotes white-collar crime. Finally, the article claims that heightened enforcement can prove detrimental to innovators like Uber and Steve Jobs, who often walk the line of legality and morality when creating new businesses in the face of outdated regulations.

These arguments fail to acknowledge the potential benefits stemming from the punishment of white-collar criminals. Through stronger enforcement, both consumers and businesses can gain from an economy in which individuals are held accountable for breaking laws. Improved consumer trust in sellers of financial products is more conducive to economic well-being than allowing white-collar workers to skirt laws without consequences.

Calls for the increased punishment of white-collar criminals should not be mischaracterized as seeking “punishment simply because they are rich and successful.” In fact, criminal punishment actually holds the potential to improve the economic well-being of white-collar workers. This results from greater trust and transparency in white-collar industries, as consumers believe that rules and regulations are being adequately enforced to ensure fair dealings. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for products they trust, increasing both the quantity they demand and the price they are willing to pay due to the obvious benefit of knowing that they will not be victims of fraud or other crimes.

Contrary to what the article suggests, the economy may in fact benefit from the increased enforcement of white-collar crime, as taxpayers would face lower costs. While the actual costs of enforcement would likely be higher due to the greater number of cases brought against individuals, deterrence should also be weighed in the decision of which method to employ. In my last article, I referenced a study from Cindy R. Alexander showing that criminal charges can be a stronger deterrent to illegal behavior than fines. As a result, the savings from avoiding the damaging impact that white-collar criminals can have on the economy may offset the greater costs of pursuing these punishments in court. For example, the recent financial crisis – due in part to misleading information on the riskiness of mortgage-backed securities – greatly hurt consumer demand and hampered economic growth for years to come. Therefore, deterring future white-collar crime and its potentially damaging economic consequences should be factored in when assessing the true costs of enforcement.

It is also a dubious claim that punishing white-collar criminals would deter innovators driven to violate obsolete regulations. Though it may be true that entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates engaged in activities that brought them into conflict with enforcement agencies, this does not prove that these actions were necessary to the success of their societally beneficial companies. In fact, these anecdotes do not provide any causal evidence that punishing white-collar crime will stifle the innovations of the entrepreneurial process. It is reasonable to call for changing regulations when they are outdated and inhibit innovation, but this should be decided through proper legal channels.

Nor can the blame be shifted entirely to a corporate culture or business environment that promotes wrongdoing. Fiduciary duties hold corporate managers accountable to the best interests of shareholders and to the laws regulating the operations of their businesses. Thus, unlike the article suggests, corporate managers, not just firms, would be liable when in violation of these duties. To fail to punish white-collar criminals in these instances would enable those individuals to escape accountability to their fiduciary duties.

By reducing the trend of increased punishment for white-collar crime to a bitter, populist movement, The Economist’s article fails to acknowledge the potential benefits of such a policy. Ultimately, more studies should be conducted to analyze the impact of increased enforcement on rates of innovation to determine whether there is a causal link. Even if an impact is found, though, it merely suggests a need to update regulations with greater speed to account for changing economic conditions. To realize the potential economic gains from greater trust in financial firms, punishments for white-collar criminals must be adequately enforced. Such an effort extends beyond populism in its intent to improve the economic well-being of all parties, consumers and businesses alike.

“Trumped-Up Trickle-Down” and What It Means

5440390625_feab8a9520_b

In the first general election presidential debate, Republican nominee Donald Trump proposed one of his only concrete policies as a candidate: to cut taxes across the board, including a reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton called it “Trumped-up trickle-down,” alluding to Ronald Reagan’s so-called trickle-down economic policies of the 1980s. According to economist Heinz Arndt, the expression “trickle-down” implies a vertical flow from rich to poor that happens of its own accord. Tax cuts for higher-income individuals are meant to boost economic growth, as those individuals invest and spend the money saved on taxes. The corresponding increase in capital will create a need for more jobs, as higher investment means higher demand for goods and, eventually, an increase in wages. The same principle holds for giving tax cuts to corporations. If a corporation’s taxes are cut, the idea is it will use that money to either hire more workers or pay current workers more. In essence, the well-endowed will have more wealth to “trickle down” to lower economic classes.

In theory, it’s not a bad policy; in practice, it hasn’t worked. In the 1980s, Reagan proposed huge tax cuts across the board, especially for the highest-earners. The outcome of this policy was that the U.S. national debt roughly tripled during Reagan’s term, and income growth shifted from the bottom classes to the top classes. As you can see from the graph below, the Reagan tax cuts boosted income growth for the top 10 percent of income earners, while the bottom 90 percent of earners saw their income growth decline after the 1980s. This means that the highest earners earned even more, while income growth for the lowest earners slowed and eventually declined. Under Trump’s proposed tax cuts, this process is likely to repeat itself, widening the wealth and income gaps even more.

Graph 1

According to a study by the Tax Justice Network, money that the wealthy accumulate through tax cuts is more likely to be moved to an offshore bank account than reinvested in the national economy. Corporate tax cuts may be used to give top executives bonuses or to fund the relocation of businesses to developing nations. While divesting from the American economy has the potential to make goods cheaper, the second plank of Trump’s proposed fiscal policy – extreme protectionism – would make his trickle-down tax cuts even worse.

Trump seeks to impose a 45 percent tariff on all imported products from China to the United States, meaning that any product coming from China will be marked up an extra 45 percent. Trump’s intention is to discourage companies from moving their factories to China, and instead open or maintain their factories in America. Except trade is incredibly beneficial to both countries involved. Trade allows countries that have a comparative advantage (meaning it is cheaper to produce one good compared to another in that country) to specialize at what they are best, whether it be abundant natural resources or a highly skilled labor force. Comparative advantage is why Southeast Asia produces most of America’s clothing and America produces most of the world’s high-tech products.

The reason we import products from China is that it is cheaper to import them than to produce them domestically. China’s comparative advantage in certain industries means that they can hire more workers and pay them less, making the final goods cheaper for American consumers. Imposing a tariff on all goods from China would effectively raise domestic prices, which would defeat the purpose of lowering taxes. For example, nearly 50 percent of U.S. imports from China are machinery and electronics, meaning a 45 percent tariff would make a large portion of consumer goods more expensive. Without an increase in wages, this increase in the price level would diminish the purchasing power of everyday Americans.

Overall, Donald Trump’s fiscal policy is comprised of two objectives that will do more to harm the economy in the long run than help it. It won’t create jobs, and it won’t raise wages. It will also make the rich richer and the poor poorer, enlarging the already vast wealth gap. Overall, Mr. Trump’s policies will benefit Mr. Trump personally more than they will benefit any average American who is so gladly voting for him. “Trumped-up trickle-down” economics is exactly what it says: a trickle-down policy on steroids.

Everbooked and Dynamic Pricing in the Share Economy

20095445482_a8cd3c85c7_k

We live in an era of sharing. Technological developments and online platforms allow people today to network and earn extra income by sharing assets they already have – their cars (Uber and Lyft), their household goods (Snapgoods), and even their homes and apartments (Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway). Collectively, this activity is known as the “share economy,” and it is rapidly growing. Participating in the share economy is simple: go online, or open an app, and in minutes you can find a ride or a place to stay for the weekend.

Founded in 2008, Airbnb allows users to rent a place to stay overnight in a private home or apartment. Having personally used Airbnb, I can attest to the benefits of renting a private place while on vacation it’s often less expensive than a hotel, there are more options to choose from, and staying in a private place has a “local feel.” As Airbnb advertises, “Don’t go there. Live there.” This online platform has proven very popular: Airbnb today is worth around $24 billion and has helped over 40 million people find a place to stay. As Airbnb’s rapid growth both in the United States and abroad continues, Airbnb landlords are taking advantage of data science in order to raise more revenue and secure a greater number of bookings. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with David Ordal, the CEO of a Bay-Area startup known as Everbooked that assists Airbnb landlords with market analytics and a technique known as dynamic pricing.

Dynamic pricing involves continually adjusting prices to adapt to changes in demand that are detected through data analysis. American Airlines is credited with being the first company to adopt this technique; in the early 1980s, it began experimenting with “Super Saver” ticket prices that were adjusted based upon seat availability, demand, and how far in advance customers made reservations. The results were impressive – American Airlines’ revenues skyrocketed the next year. Dynamic pricing is now universal in the airline industry, and the hotel industry has used dynamic pricing for a long time as well. Ordal founded Everbooked in 2014 when he noticed that dynamic pricing was not widely used in the vacation rental industry. He saw an opportunity in bringing dynamic pricing and data analytics to landlords renting through Airbnb. “We do the same thing as airlines, but for a place to stay,” Ordal explained. Today, Everbooked operates in 3,322 cities across the United States and looks to expand internationally in the future.

Everbooked uses an algorithm to scan through market data in real time, searching for changes in various demand factors. “We look at different factors for demand, such as seasonal trends and weekend and weekday tracks,” Ordal said. He noted that, in some cases, weekdays actually see higher demand than weekends, often due to business travelers. In addition, the algorithm tracks Airbnb reservations in a given area and even examines local FAA air traffic data, which has proven to be a good metric for predicting how many people are traveling to and from a particular locale. When the algorithm detects something notable, it automatically updates users’ prices within hours of detection. The end result is that, by having their prices updated in real time, Airbnb landlords can earn an extra 14-38 percent in revenue each year.

“A lot of clients are professional landlords,” Ordal added. “We work with hosts who are more business-oriented. These are the people who really want to understand the market, who really want to understand analytics.” In addition to automatically updating clients’ prices, Everbooked also compiles huge amounts of data on rental units in various locales across the United States, allowing clients to compare their listings to those of other nearby Airbnb landlords. On the Everbooked website, an Airbnb landlord can see what types of listings they are competing against – whether homes, apartments, or condominiums – and the average prices for each of these types of listings throughout the year. Several histograms display which prices are the most common among various types of listings, as well as which types of listings are the most popular in a given locale. Everbooked also creates graphs to help clients determine the prices they should charge for extra guests, and provides up-to-date information on seasonal demand trends.

At one time, the benefits of dynamic pricing were limited to large, highly organized businesses. Today, with the rise of the share economy, that landscape is dramatically changing. Ordal thinks that someday dynamic pricing will become universal among vacation rentals. I agree – there are simply too many benefits to pass up.

A Time for Peace, A Time for Debt: The Cost of Colombian Reconstruction

colombia-map-and-flag_0_0

After 54 months of peace talks in Havana between the FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia) and the Colombian government, a tentative deal was signed with the intention of ending the longest civil war in modern history. The conflict began in the mid-1960s as a byproduct of the Cold War and served as a proxy battleground for Soviet and U.S. forces. After their ties to the Soviet Union were severed, however, the FARC turned to drug-running, kidnapping, extortion, and even all-out territorial war to fund their campaign. This delegitimized their political claims and turned them into what many agreed was just another violent, rent-seeking group in Colombia, masked under the guise of political ideology.

As of 2012 (the year peace talks began and a ceasefire was agreed upon), over 220,000 people had been killed in the conflict, and around 6 million more had been displaced from their homes. The deal was therefore of critical importance to the future of the nation, and it was the first of its kind to have any real chance of success. Nevertheless, the treaty was, at that stage, merely symbolic, and Colombians would have to ratify it in a plebiscite set for Oct. 2, 2016. The results were unexpected, as the “No” vote won by less than half a percentage point. The president and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Juan Manuel Santos, urged his citizens not to lose faith in the process; his predecessor, Alvaro Uribe, basked in the failure of what he had called “a fraudulent peace.”

One of the most controversial and distorted aspects of the agreement was its possible impact on the Colombian economy. While it is difficult to ascertain the potential economic consequences of the deal, there are some figures that can be analyzed and truths which can be pieced together to forecast what could happen if peace were to be signed under similar circumstances.

First, we must acknowledge that reconstruction is a costly affair. The Colombian minister of finance, Mauricio Cardenas, pegged the amount at around $30 billion USD; Capital Economics, an economic research firm, said it would be around $60 billion; and Global Risk Insights, a political risk analysis group, put the price tag at $90 billion. A study conducted by BBC Mundo found that costs would come from three major sources over a 10-year period. The authors estimate that the per-year cost would be at least $3.5 billion in subsidies and programs for victims, $1.8 billion for agricultural reform and investment, and $2 billion for the integration of rebel combatants into society. Their estimate, therefore, came to around $73 billion over the next decade.

Despite this massive price tag, the “Sí” campaign believed other factors would counterbalance the new debt issued as a result of the deal. They touted the possible upsurge in foreign and domestic investment, arguing that a more stable business environment would foster improved consumer confidence, leading to more jobs for incoming ex-fighters and other Colombians. The reality, however, is not so straightforward.

Counterinsurgency experts David Kilcullen and Greg Mills explain in their feature for the Center for Complex Operations that “most campaigns struggle with connecting improvements in security with sustainable employment creation, especially in rural areas” and that “job creation is key, because it will help dissipate much of the sense of grievance that has historically fueled conflict.” Most rebel combatants are from rural areas of the country, and the $18 billion or so dedicated to this routinely overlooked sector might be in vain if the funds are not strategically invested. Past public investments in agriculture have been plagued by unmet deadlines, corruption, and the misuse of funds. There was little evidence public agents could be trusted again with such a complicated and expensive task, and many saw the probable failure of this endeavor as an opportunity for ex-rebels to join gangs and other guerilla groups when the legal route failed.

The $20 billion allocated for “integration” was a very vague and controversial point in the deal as well. Identity changes, safety nets, and police protection for common rebel soldiers were included in the agreement, but the extent to which these safeguards would be implemented was dubious at best. Would a company know whether a potential employee was a member of a Marxist guerilla movement? Why were taxpayer dollars being put in the pockets of individuals who were killing Colombian soldiers not a month ago? These were all bitter pills to swallow for the average hard-working Colombian, especially given the country’s already exorbitant tax rates (Colombia has the fifth highest tax-to-GDP ratio in the world). There was also uncertainty about the skills these ex-rebel fighters had (or lack thereof), and how they would translate into a formal economy where gunfighting and survival skills aren’t in much demand.

This may seem like a bleak prognosis, but it is important to consider the alternative. Since its independence in 1810, Colombia has rarely experienced a moment of peace. It is a historically violent country with an inherited propensity for war, and only extreme measures can break the cycle. The U.S. government invested in and made concessions to the Confederate states after the Civil War, as did the U.K. after its deal with the IRA – peace is as difficult as it is necessary. Though Colombians weren’t convinced by this particular agreement, they must not lose hope for a peaceful future. War is an unsustainable and expensive activity, which hinders more lives than any price tag, tax increase, or awkward labor environment ever will.

Financial Crimes and Fines: A Misguided Approach

db20teaser202_0

In the wake of the Great Recession, populist opinion has responded approvingly to regulatory agencies’ stronger approach against wrongdoing by financial firms. Companies in the financial industry have increasingly found themselves subjected to fines as a result of this greater scrutiny. Yet, regulatory agencies are losing out on a superior alternative to fines. Criminal charges against individuals, including executive-level managers, should be employed as a more effective, targeted punishment that does not harm innocent employees and increase systemic risk in the process.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s recent charges against Deutsche Bank provide one example of the possible downsides of using fines as punishment. In September, the DOJ proposed a $14 billion fine against Deutsche Bank for selling mortgage-backed securities during the financial crisis without proper disclosure. The possibility of such a large fine sparked doubts in investors’ minds about the firm’s ability to pay, leading to a further decline in the already troubled firm’s share price. Fear of the ramifications of the fine was not limited solely to Deutsche Bank’s investors, either. Other financial firms became nervous at the precedent that the DOJ could set with this large fine. Some analysts were worried about the systemic risk Deutsche Bank could pose to the highly interconnected banking industry, should the fine significantly damage Deutsche Bank’s liquidity and endanger its ability to do business.

One of the main benefits of the use of criminal charges rather than general fines is that it allows regulatory agencies to avoid increasing systemic risk. Fines against a firm can reduce its liquidity, and if the fine is large enough, this reduction in liquidity could cost the firm more than the face value of the fine. In response to a liquidity shortage, the firm may have to engage in fire sales of assets, accepting lower prices to sell them quickly and damaging the value of similar assets held by other firms. Or, to fulfill regulatory capital ratios, the firm may have to issue additional equity, diluting current shareholder value. Thus, if enforcement agencies wish to avoid collateral damage to firms not implicated in a criminal investigation, then there is necessarily an upper limit as to how much they can fine guilty firms.

Criminal charges, on the other hand, hold the potential to lessen systemic risk by avoiding the more immediate losses in liquidity resulting from fines. Thus, criminal charges can limit harm to outside parties, as the replacement of even high-level executives is less likely to be as damaging to a firm as punitive fines. Furthermore, criminal punishments can be more effective deterrents to illegal behavior. In an analysis of data from 78 firms punished for financial crimes, Cindy R. Alexander finds that the “reputational penalties” firms pay are greater with criminal, rather than civil, sanctions. These reputational penalties, which take the form of lost customers or lower prices accepted by remaining customers, damage the punished firm’s profitability over time but avoid the larger, short-run costs that fines create.

However, there are some downsides to the greater use of criminal charges against firms. Alexander found that firms attempting to recover from reputational damage may shuffle employees and managers to regain reputation. This shuffling may be indiscriminate, resulting in employees not involved in criminal wrongdoing to lose their jobs. The deterrent effect of criminal charges, though, may counter this risk by discouraging firms from engaging in wrongdoing in the first place.

Historically, the use of criminal charges in response to financial firms’ misdeeds has been used sparingly by the DOJ and other enforcement agencies, especially against upper-level managers. Many were outraged when firms bailed out by the U.S. government during the financial crisis kept their executives without facing criminal charges. Regulatory authorities have, however, brought criminal charges against high-level traders in recent years. In July, the DOJ announced that it would charge two HSBC trading executives for manipulating currency prices. When firms are guilty of significant wrongdoing, as in the case of Deutsche Bank, enforcement agencies should ensure that senior executives face the same criminal charges that lower-level employees would face for their crimes, including possible jail time.

While many are happy to see regulatory agencies adopt a hardline approach with large fines like the one proposed against Deutsche Bank, such a method has unintended consequences that extend beyond just the guilty parties. On the contrary, the use of criminal charges against individuals, including high-level executives, offers an effective alternative that avoids many of the negative externalities created by fines. In a global economy that is increasingly interconnected, it is important that regulatory agencies punish wrongdoing with strong deterrents like criminal charges that do not cause wider economic harm.

Conservative fiscal policy in Japan prevents rise in inflation

The Japanese economy is facing an unusual series of problems which have proved difficult for officials to address. Low birth rates and strict nationalization policies have resulted in an aging, shrinking population. Although Japan has the third largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the world, it has had virtually no growth in the past two decades. Structural problems and, as we will examine in this article, overly cautious monetary policy have caused deflation in recent years.

Negative interest rates, the promise of 0% interest on a 10-year bond, and attempts at actively discrediting the Bank of Japan (BOJ) have all failed to raise inflation rates in Japan. Even in a world where developed countries are stuck in a state of secular stagnation due to sky-high corporate savings rates, Japan stands out. If one adheres to Ben Bernanke’s prescription that the mission of a central bank is to “strive for low and stable inflation,” and “promote stable growth in output and employment,” then it is the responsibility of the BOJ to fix the problem of zero growth and deflation.

According to Martin Wolf at Financial Times, corporations in Japan are saving over 20% of their capital. This makes up nearly 8% of Japanese GDP. When money is being held in banks instead of invested, money changes hands less frequently, effectively decreasing the money supply. Like with most things, the less money there is in circulation, the more it is worth. Wolf refers to this as a “savings glut.” Conservative corporate policy is currently causing deflation in Japan and hindering growth.

This negative externality created by the private sector should clearly be disincentivized. By creating seigniorage — profit created by issuing currency — the BOJ could effectively tax this stockpiling of yen. Printing more bank notes would increase the money supply and therefore decrease its value. This currency devaluation would create more incentives to invest rather than save, and, as an added benefit, would create much-needed growth in the manufacturing sector.

Issuing currency with nothing to back it may seem bold, but it has been tried before. In 2011, the European debt crisis caused the euro to crash. Believing that it was a strong, safe currency, many investors began trading their euros for Swiss francs. Switzerland’s currency began to gain value very rapidly. In order to prevent the massive appreciation of the franc, the Swiss central bank committed to printing as many francs, and purchasing as many euros, as needed to keep the franc to euro ratio above 1.20. As shown below, the franc first depreciated due to the announcement itself, but the policy was first put to the test in January 2012.

FrancToEuroFinalEdit.png

Data from: Global Financial Data

 

Capping the franc turned out to be a success. The creation of seigniorage stopped the growth in deflation and even managed to create some small inflation. The policy would not be put to the test again until the franc began to appreciate again in late 2014. This time, however, the Swiss central bank did not remain as astute. Instead of allowing the policy to take effect, they lifted the cap, and as a result, deflation skyrocketed.

SwissInflationFinalEdit.png

Data From: http://www.inflation.eu

 

If the BOJ adopted a similar policy, it could jump start its countries slow economy and move towards its goal of consistent growth. Savings rates would decrease, spurring more investment. The yen would depreciate, spurring growth in the manufacturing sector. Finally, this printed money could be used to pay for additional social programs for the aging population, or to pay back some of the massive debt the country has acquired.