Ponzi scheme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the scheme, in 1920

A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. Named after Italian businessman Charles Ponzi, this scheme misleads investors by either falsely suggesting that profits are derived from legitimate business activities (whereas the business activities are non-existent), or by exaggerating the extent and profitability of the legitimate business activities, leveraging new investments to fabricate or supplement these profits. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as investors continue to contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment or lose faith in the non-existent assets they are purported to own.

Some of the first recorded incidents to meet the modern definition of the Ponzi scheme were carried out from 1869 to 1872 by Adele Spitzeder in Germany and by Sarah Howe in the United States in the 1880s through the "Ladies' Deposit". Howe offered a solely female clientele an 8% monthly interest rate and then stole the money that the women had invested. She was eventually discovered and served three years in prison. The Ponzi scheme was also previously described in novels; Charles Dickens's 1844 novel Martin Chuzzlewit and his 1857 novel Little Dorrit both feature such a scheme.

In the 1920s, Charles Ponzi carried out this scheme and became well known throughout the United States because of the huge amount of money that he took in. His original scheme was based on the legitimate arbitrage of international reply coupons for postage stamps, but he soon began diverting new investors' money to make payments to earlier investors and to himself. Unlike earlier similar schemes, Ponzi's gained considerable press coverage both within the United States and internationally both while it was being perpetrated and after it collapsed – this notoriety eventually led to the type of scheme being named after him.

Characteristics

In a Ponzi scheme, a con artist offers investments that promise very high returns with little or no risk to their victims. The returns are said to originate from a business or a secret idea run by the con artist. In reality, the business does not exist or the idea does not work in the way it is described. The con artist pays the high returns promised to their earlier investors by using the money obtained from later investors. Instead of engaging in a legitimate business activity, the con artist attempts to attract new investors to make the payments that were promised to earlier investors. The operator of the scheme also diverts clients' funds for the operator's personal use.

With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes collapse. As a result, most investors end up losing all or much of the money they invested. In some cases, the operator of the scheme may simply disappear with the money.

Red flags

According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), many Ponzi schemes share characteristics that should be "red flags" for investors.

• High investment returns with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and investments yielding higher returns typically involve more risk. Any "guaranteed" investment opportunity should be considered suspect.
• Overly consistent returns. Investment values tend to go up and down over time, especially those offering potentially high returns. An investment that continues to generate regular positive returns regardless of overall market conditions is considered suspicious.
• Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that have not been registered with financial regulators (like the SEC or the FCA). Registration is important because it provides investors with access to key information about the company's management, products, services, and finances.
• Unlicensed sellers. In the United States, federal and state securities laws require that investment professionals and their firms be licensed or registered. Most Ponzi schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms.
• Secretive or complex strategies. Investments that cannot be understood or on which no complete information can be found or obtained are considered suspicious.
• Issues with paperwork. Account statement errors may be a sign that funds are not being invested as promised.
• Difficulty receiving payments. Investors should be suspicious of cases where they don't receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out. Ponzi scheme promoters sometimes try to prevent participants from cashing out by offering even higher returns for staying put.

According to criminologist Marie Springer, the following red flags can also be of relevance:

• The sales personnel or adviser are overly pushy or aggressive (may involve high-pressure sales).
• The initial contact took place by a cold call or through a social network, a language-based radio or a religious radio advertisement.
• The client cannot determine the actual trades or investments that have been carried out.
• The clients are asked to write checks with a different name than the name of the corporation (such as an individual) or to send checks to a different address than the corporate address.
• Once the maturity date of their investment arrives, clients are pressured to roll over the principal and the profits.

Methods

Typically, Ponzi schemes require an initial investment and promise above-average returns. They use vague verbal guises such as "hedge futures trading", "high-yield investment programs", or "offshore investment" to describe their income strategy. It is common for the operator to take advantage of a lack of investor knowledge or competence, or sometimes claim to use a proprietary, secret investment strategy to avoid giving information about the scheme.

Charles Ponzi

The basic premise of a Ponzi scheme is "to rob Peter to pay Paul". Initially, the operator pays high returns to attract investors and entice current investors to invest more money. When other investors begin to participate, a cascade effect begins. The schemer pays a "return" to initial investors from the investments of new participants, rather than from genuine profits.

Often, high returns encourage investors to leave their money in the scheme, so that the operator does not actually have to pay very much to investors. The operator simply sends statements showing how much they have earned, which maintains the deception that the scheme is an investment with high returns. Investors within a Ponzi scheme may face difficulties when trying to get their money out of the investment.

Operators also try to minimize withdrawals by offering new plans to investors where money cannot be withdrawn for a certain period of time in exchange for higher returns. The operator sees new cash flows as investors cannot transfer money. If a few investors do wish to withdraw their money in accordance with the terms allowed, their requests are usually promptly processed, which gives the illusion to all other investors that the fund is solvent and financially sound.

Ponzi schemes sometimes begin as legitimate investment vehicles, such as hedge funds that can easily degenerate into a Ponzi-type scheme if they unexpectedly lose money or fail to legitimately earn the returns expected. The operators fabricate false returns or produce fraudulent audit reports instead of admitting their failure to meet expectations, from which point on the operation can be considered a Ponzi scheme.

A wide variety of investment vehicles and strategies, typically legitimate, have become the basis of Ponzi schemes. For instance, Allen Stanford used bank certificates of deposit to defraud tens of thousands of people. Certificates of deposit are usually low-risk and insured instruments, but the Stanford certificates of deposit were fraudulent.

Unraveling

Theoretically, it is possible for certain Ponzi schemes to ultimately "succeed" financially, at least so long as a Ponzi scheme was not what the promoters were initially intending to operate. For example, a failing hedge fund reporting fraudulent returns could conceivably "make good" its reported numbers, for example by making a successful high-risk investment. Moreover, if the operators of such a scheme are facing the likelihood of imminent collapse accompanied by criminal charges, they may see little additional "risk" to themselves in attempting to cover their tracks by engaging in further illegal acts to try and make good the shortfall (for example, by engaging in insider trading). Especially with investment vehicles like hedge funds that are regulated and monitored less heavily than other investment vehicles such as mutual funds, in the absence of a whistleblower or accompanying illegal acts, any fraudulent content in reports is often difficult to detect unless and until the investment vehicles ultimately collapse.

Typically, however, if a Ponzi scheme is not stopped by authorities it usually falls apart for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The operator vanishes, taking all the remaining investment money. Promoters who intend to abscond often attempt to do so as returns due to be paid are about to exceed new investments, as this is when the investment capital available will be at its maximum.
2. Since the scheme requires a continual stream of investments to fund higher returns, if the number of new investors slows down, the scheme collapses as the operator can no longer pay the promised returns (the higher the returns, the greater the risk of the Ponzi scheme collapsing). Such liquidity crises often trigger panics, as more people start asking for their money, similar to a bank run.
3. External market forces, such as a sharp decline in the economy, can often hasten the collapse of a Ponzi scheme (for example, the Madoff investment scandal during the market downturn of 2008), since they often cause many investors to attempt to withdraw part or all of their funds sooner than they had intended.

In some cases, two or more of the aforementioned factors may be at play. For example, news of a police investigation into a Ponzi scheme may cause investors to immediately demand their money, and in turn cause the promoters to flee the jurisdiction sooner than planned (assuming they intended to eventually abscond in the first place), thus causing the scheme to collapse much faster than if the police investigation had simply been permitted to run its course.

Actual losses are extremely difficult to calculate. The amounts that investors thought they had were never attainable in the first place. The wide gap between "money in" and "fictitious gains" make it virtually impossible to know how much was lost in any Ponzi scheme.

Similar schemes

Pyramid scheme

A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a mistaken belief in a nonexistent financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return. However, several characteristics distinguish these schemes from Ponzi schemes:

• In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. Failure to recruit typically means no investment return.
• A Ponzi scheme claims to rely on some esoteric investment approach, and often attracts well-to-do investors, whereas pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
• A pyramid scheme typically collapses much faster because it requires exponential increases in participants to sustain it. By contrast, Ponzi schemes can survive (at least in the short-term) simply by persuading most existing participants to reinvest their money, with a relatively small number of new participants.

Cryptocurrency Ponzi

Cryptocurrencies have been employed by scammers attempting a new generation of Ponzi schemes. For example, misuse of initial coin offerings, or "ICOs", has been one such method, known as "smart Ponzis" per the Financial Times. Most schemes have a low recovery rate with investors losing their funds permanently.

The novelty of ICOs means that there is currently a lack of regulatory clarity on the classification of these financial devices, allowing scammers wide leeway to develop Ponzi schemes using these pseudo-assets. Also, the pseudonymity of cryptocurrency transactions and their international nature involving countless jurisdictions in many different countries can make it much more difficult to identify and take legal action (whether civil or criminal) against perpetrators.

The May 2022 collapse of TerraUSD, a stablecoin propped up by a complex algorithmic mechanism offering 20% yields, was described as "Ponzinomics" by Wired. Another example of a well known ponzi scheme involving cryptoassets was the ICO of AriseBank or AriseCoin, involving claims about founding the world's first "decentralized bank". The SEC successfully recovered the funds stolen in the ICO. A similar scheme was perpetrated by the founders of the fraudulent cryptocurrency Bitconnect.

In September 2022, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, described cryptocurrencies as "Decentralised Ponzi Schemes".

Economic bubble

Economic bubbles are also similar to a Ponzi scheme in that one participant gets paid by contributions from a subsequent participant until inevitable collapse. A bubble involves ever-rising prices in an open market (for example stock, housing, cryptocurrency, tulip bulbs, or the Mississippi Company) where prices rise because buyers bid more, and buyers bid more because prices are rising. Bubbles are often said to be based on the "greater fool" theory. As with the Ponzi scheme, the price exceeds the intrinsic value of the item, but unlike the Ponzi scheme:

• In most economic bubbles, there is no single person or group misrepresenting the intrinsic value. A common exception is a pump and dump scheme (typically involving buyers and holders of thinly-traded stocks), which has much more in common with a Ponzi scheme compared to other types of bubbles.
• Ponzi schemes typically result in criminal charges when authorities discover them, but other than pump and dump schemes, economic bubbles do not typically involve unlawful activity, or even bad faith on the part of any participant. Laws are only broken if someone perpetuates the bubble by knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting facts to inflate the value of an item (as with a pump and dump scheme). Even when this occurs, wrongdoing (and especially criminal activity) is often much more difficult to prove in court compared to a Ponzi scheme. Therefore, the collapse of an economic bubble rarely results in criminal charges (which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction) and, even when charges are pursued, they are often against corporations, which can be easier to pursue in court compared to charges against people but also can only result in fines as opposed to jail time. The more commonly-pursued legal recourse in situations where someone suspects an economic bubble is the result of nefarious activity is to sue for damages in civil court, where the standard of proof is only balance of probabilities and where the plaintiff need not demonstrate mens rea.
• In some jurisdictions, following the collapse of a Ponzi scheme, even the "innocent" beneficiaries are liable to repay any gains for distribution to the victims. In this context, "innocent" beneficiaries can include anyone who unwittingly profited without being aware of the fraudulent nature of the scheme, and even charities to which perpetrators often give to relatively generously while a scheme is in operation in an effort to enhance their own profile and thereby "profit" from the resulting positive media coverage. This typically does not happen in the case of an economic bubble, especially if nobody can prove the bubble was caused by anyone acting in bad faith, moreover a person whose own participation in an economic bubble is not particularly notable is not likely to enhance participation in the bubble and thus personally profit by donating to charity.
• Items traded in an economic bubble are much more likely to have an intrinsic value that is worth a substantial proportion of the market price. Therefore, following collapse of an economic bubble (especially one in a commodity such as real estate) the items affected will often retain some value, whereas an investment that is part of a Ponzi scheme will typically be worthless (or very close to worthless). On the other hand, it is much easier to obtain financing for many items that are the frequent subject of bubbles. If an investor trading on margin or borrowing to finance investments becomes the victim of a bubble, he or she can still lose all (or a very substantial portion) of his or her investment capital, or even be liable for losses in excess of the original capital investment.

Exit scam

A Ponzi scheme which ultimately terminates with the operator absconding is similar to an exit scam. The main difference is that an exit scam does not involve any sort of investment vehicle with the accompanying promised returns. Instead, exit scammers either accept payment for product which they never ship (usually after gaining a reputation for reliably shipping product) or steal funds held in escrow on behalf of third parties (the latter often involves the operators of illegal darknet markets that facilitate the sale of illicit goods and services).

Related concepts

Ponzi finance

The term "ponzi finance" generally designates non-sustainable patterns of finance, such as borrowers who can only meet their debt commitment if they continuously obtain new sources of financing, often at an accelerating pace and/or ever-increasing interest rates until the borrower cannot secure more financing at any interest rate and becomes insolvent. The term was first coined by economist Hyman Minsky.

Ponzi game

In economics, the term "ponzi game" designates a hypothesis where a government continuously defers the repayment of its public debt by issuing new debt: each time its existing debt arrives at maturity, it borrows funds from new and/or existing lenders in order to repay its existing debt.

Deregulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation 

As a result of deregulation, France Télécom (now Orange) operated phone booths in Wellington and across New Zealand in the 2000s

Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing state regulations, typically in the economic sphere. It is the repeal of governmental regulation of the economy. It became common in advanced industrial economies in the 1970s and 1980s, as a result of new trends in economic thinking about the inefficiencies of government regulation, and the risk that regulatory agencies would be controlled by the regulated industry to its benefit, and thereby hurt consumers and the wider economy. Economic regulations were promoted during the Gilded Age, in which progressive reforms were claimed as necessary to limit externalities like corporate abuse, unsafe child labor, monopolization, pollution, and to mitigate boom and bust cycles. Around the late 1970s, such reforms were deemed burdensome on economic growth and many politicians espousing neoliberalism started promoting deregulation.

The stated rationale for deregulation is often that fewer and simpler regulations will lead to raised levels of competitiveness, therefore higher productivity, more efficiency and lower prices overall. Opposition to deregulation may involve apprehension regarding environmental pollution and environmental quality standards (such as the removal of regulations on hazardous materials), financial uncertainty, and constraining monopolies.

Regulatory reform is a parallel development alongside deregulation. Regulatory reform refers to organized and ongoing programs to review regulations with a view to minimizing, simplifying, and making them more cost effective. Such efforts, given impetus by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, are embodied in the United States Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the United Kingdom's Better Regulation Commission. Cost–benefit analysis is frequently used in such reviews. In addition, there have been regulatory innovations, usually suggested by economists, such as emissions trading.

Deregulation can be distinguished from privatization, which transfers state-owned businesses to the private sector.

By country

Argentina

Argentina underwent heavy economic deregulation, privatization, and had a fixed exchange rate during the Menem administration (1989–1999). In December 2001, Paul Krugman compared Enron with Argentina, claiming that both were experiencing economic collapse due to excessive deregulation. Two months later, Herbert Inhaber claimed that Krugman confused correlation with causation, and neither collapse was due to excessive deregulation.

Australia

Having announced a wide range of deregulatory policies, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke announced the policy of "Minimum Effective Regulation" in 1986. This introduced now-familiar requirements for "regulatory impact statements", but compliance by governmental agencies took many years. The labor market under the Hawke/Keating governments operated under the Prices and Incomes Accord. In the mid-90s John Howard's Liberal Party began deregulation of the labor market with the Workplace Relations Act 1996, going much further in 2005 through its WorkChoices policy. However, this was reversed under the following Rudd Labor government.

Brazil

After Dilma's impeachment, Michel Temer introduced a labor reform, besides allowing up to 100% of foreign capital on Brazilian air companies and giving more protection to state-owned enterprises from political pressure. Bolsonaro administration also promoted deregulations (even the expression "Bolsonomics" was created), such as Economic Freedom Law, Natural Gas Law, Business Environment Law, Basic Sanitation Legal Framework, besides allowing the direct sale of ethanol by fuel stations and opening rail transport industry to private investment. and deregulating the use of foreign currency.

Canada

See also: Electricity policy of Ontario

Natural gas is deregulated in most of the country, with the exception of some Atlantic provinces and some pockets like Vancouver Island and Medicine Hat. Most of this deregulation happened in the mid-1980s. Comparison shopping websites operate in some of these jurisdictions, particularly Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The other provinces are small markets and have not attracted suppliers. Customers have the choice of purchasing from a local distribution company (LDC) or a deregulated supplier. In most provinces the LDC is not allowed to offer a term contract, just a variable price based on the spot market. LDC prices are changed either monthly or quarterly.

Ontario began deregulation of electricity supply in 2002, but pulled back temporarily due to voter and consumer backlash at the resulting price volatility. The government is still searching for a stable working regulatory framework.

The current status is a partially regulated structure in which consumers have received a capped price for a portion of the publicly owned generation. The remainder has been at market price and there are numerous competing energy contract providers. However, Ontario is installing Smart Meters in all homes and small businesses and is changing the pricing structure to Time of Use pricing. All small volume consumers were scheduled to shift to the new rate structure by the end of 2012.

Alberta has deregulated its electricity provision. Customers are free to choose which company they sign up with, but there are few companies to choose from and the consumer price of electricity has increased substantially as it has in all other Canadian provinces.. Consumers may choose to remain with the public utility at the Regulated Rate Option.

European Union

In 2003, there were amendments to EU directive on software patents.

Since 2006, the European Common Aviation Area has given carriers from one EU country the freedom of the air in most others.

Ireland

The taxi industry was deregulated in Ireland in 2000, and the price of a license dropped overnight to €5,000. The number of taxis increased dramatically.

However, some existing taxi drivers were unhappy with the change, as they had invested up to €100,000 to purchase licenses from existing holders, and regarded them as assets. In October 2013 they brought a test case in the High Court for damages. Their claim was dismissed two years later.

New Zealand

Since the deregulation of the postal sector, different postal operators can install mail collection boxes in New Zealand's streets.

See also: Economy of New Zealand

New Zealand Governments adopted policies of extensive deregulation from 1984 to 1995. Originally initiated by the Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand, the policies of deregulation were later continued by the Fourth National Government of New Zealand. The policies had the goal of liberalizing the economy and were notable for their very comprehensive coverage and innovations. Specific policies included: floating the exchange rate; establishing an independent reserve bank; performance contracts for senior civil servants; public sector finance reform based on accrual accounting; tax neutrality; subsidy-free agriculture; and industry-neutral competition regulation. Economic growth was resumed in 1991. New Zealand was changed from a somewhat closed and centrally controlled economy to one of the most open economies in the OECD. As a result, New Zealand, went from having a reputation as an almost socialist country to being considered one of the most business-friendly countries of the world, next to Singapore. However, critics charge that the deregulation has brought little benefit to some sections of society, and has caused much of New Zealand's economy (including almost all of the banks) to become foreign-owned.

Russia

Russia went through wide-ranging deregulation (and concomitant privatization) efforts in the late 1990s under Boris Yeltsin, now partially reversed under Vladimir Putin. The main thrust of deregulation has been the electricity sector (see RAO UES), with railroads and communal utilities tied in second place. Deregulation of the natural gas sector (Gazprom) is one of the more frequent demands placed upon Russia by the United States and European Union.

United Kingdom

The Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher started a programme of deregulation and privatization after the party's victory at the 1979 general election. The Building Act 1984 reduced building regulations from 306 pages to 24, while compulsory competitive tendering required local government to compete with the private sector in delivering services. Other steps included express coach (Transport Act 1980), British Telecom (completed in 1984), privatization of London bus services (1984), local bus services (Transport Act 1985) and the railways (Railways Act 1993). The feature of all those privatizations was that their shares were offered to the general public. This continued under Thatcher's successor John Major.

From 1997 to 2010, the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown developed a programme called "better regulation". This required government departments to review, simplify or abolish existing regulations, and a "one in, one out" approach to new regulations. In 1997, Chancellor Brown announced the "freeing" of the Bank of England to set monetary policy, so the Bank was no longer under direct government control. In 2006, new primary legislation (the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006) was introduced to establish statutory principles and a code of practice and it permits ministers to make Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs) to deal with older laws which they deem to be out of date, obscure or irrelevant. This act has often been criticized and was described in Parliament by Lord (Patrick) Jenkin as the "Abolition of Parliament Act".

New Labour privatized only a few services, such as Qinetiq. But a great deal of infrastructure and maintenance work previously carried out by government departments was contracted out (outsourced) to private enterprise under the public–private partnership, with competitive bidding for contracts within a regulatory framework. This included large projects such as building new hospitals for the NHS, building new state schools, and maintaining the London Underground. These were never privatized by public offer, but instead by tendering commercial interests.

United States

History of regulation

One problem that encouraged deregulation was the way in which regulated industries often come to control the government regulatory agencies in a process known as regulatory capture. Industries then use regulation to serve their own interests, at the expense of the consumer. A similar pattern has been seen with the deregulation process itself, often effectively controlled by regulated industries through lobbying. Such political forces, however, exist in many other forms for other lobby groups.

Examples of deregulated industries in the United States are banking, telecommunications, airlines, and natural resources.

During the Progressive Era (1890s–1920), Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson instituted regulation on parts of the American economy, most notably big business and industry. Some prominent reforms were trust-busting (the destruction and banning of monopolies), the creation of laws protecting the American consumer, the creation of a federal income tax (by the Sixteenth Amendment; the income tax used a progressive tax structure with especially high taxes on the wealthy), the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the institution of shorter working hours, higher wages, better living conditions, better rights and privileges to trade unions, protection of the rights of strikers, banning of unfair labor practices, and the delivery of more social services to the working classes and social safety nets to many unemployed workers, thus helping to create a welfare state.

During the Presidencies of Warren Harding (1921–23) and Calvin Coolidge (1923–29), the federal government generally pursued laissez-faire economic policies. After the onset of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented many economic regulations, including the National Industrial Recovery Act (which was struck down by the Supreme Court), regulation of trucking, airlines and communications, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. These regulations stayed largely in place until Richard Nixon's Administration. In supporting his competition-limiting regulatory initiatives President Roosevelt blamed the excesses of big business for causing an economic bubble. However, historians lack consensus in describing the causal relationship between various events and the role of government economic policy in causing or ameliorating the Depression.

1970–2000

Deregulation gained momentum in the 1970s, influenced by research by the Chicago school of economics and the theories of George Stigler, Alfred E. Kahn, and others. The new ideas were widely embraced by both liberals and conservatives. Two leading think tanks in Washington, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, were active in holding seminars and publishing studies advocating deregulatory initiatives throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Cornell economist Alfred E. Kahn played a central role in both theorizing and participating in the Carter Administration's efforts to deregulate transportation.

Transportation

Nixon administration

The first comprehensive proposal to deregulate a major industry, transportation, originated in the Richard Nixon Administration and was forwarded to Congress in late 1971. This proposal was initiated and developed by an interagency group that included the Council of Economic Advisors (represented by Hendrik Houthakker and Thomas Gale Moore), White House Office of Consumer Affairs (represented by Jack Pearce), Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Department of Labor, and other agencies.

The proposal addressed both rail and truck transportation, but not air carriage. (92d Congress, Senate Bill 2842) The developers of this legislation in this Administration sought to cultivate support from commercial buyers of transportation services, consumer organizations, economists, and environmental organization leaders. This 'civil society' coalition became a template for coalitions influential in efforts to deregulate trucking and air transport later in the decade.

Ford administration

After Nixon left office, the Gerald Ford presidency, with the allied interests, secured passage of the first significant change in regulatory policy in a pro-competitive direction, in the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.

Carter administration

President Jimmy Carter – aided by economic adviser Alfred E. Kahn – devoted substantial effort to transportation deregulation, and worked with Congressional and civil society leaders to pass the Airline Deregulation Act on October 24, 1978 – the first federal government regulatory regime, since the 1930s, to be completely dismantled.

Carter also worked with Congress to produce the Staggers Rail Act (signed October 14, 1980), and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (signed July 1, 1980).

1970s deregulation effects

These were the major deregulation acts in transportation that set the general conceptual and legislative framework, which replaced the regulatory systems put in place between the 1880s and the 1930s. The dominant common theme of these Acts was to lessen barriers to entry in transport markets and promote more independent, competitive pricing among transport service providers, substituting the freed-up competitive market forces for detailed regulatory control of entry, exit, and price making in transport markets. Thus deregulation arose, though regulations to promote competition were put in place.

Reagan administration

U.S. President Ronald Reagan campaigned on the promise of rolling back environmental regulations. His devotion to the economic beliefs of Milton Friedman led him to promote the deregulation of finance, agriculture, and transportation. A series of substantial enactments were needed to work out the process of encouraging competition in transportation. Interstate buses were addressed in 1982, in the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982. Freight forwarders (freight aggregators) got more freedoms in the Surface Freight Forwarder Deregulation Act of 1986. As many states continued to regulate the operations of motor carriers within their own state, the intrastate aspect of the trucking and bus industries was addressed in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, which provided that "a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of two or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) (Supp. V 1999).

Ocean transportation was the last to be addressed. This was done in two acts, the Ocean Shipping Act of 1984 and the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. These acts were less thoroughgoing than the legislation dealing with U.S. domestic transportation, in that they left in place the "conference" system in international ocean liner shipping, which historically embodied cartel mechanisms. However, these acts permitted independent rate-making by conference participants, and the 1998 Act permitted secret contract rates, which tend to undercut collective carrier pricing. According to the United States Federal Maritime Commission, in an assessment in 2001, this appears to have opened up substantial competitive activity in ocean shipping, with beneficial economic results.

Energy

The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act was a regulating law, consisting of a mix of regulations and deregulation, which passed in response to OPEC price hikes and domestic price controls which affected the 1973 oil crisis in the United States. After adoption of this federal legislation, numerous state legislation known as Natural Gas Choice programs have sprung up in several states, as well as the District of Columbia. Natural Gas Choice programs allow residential and small volume natural gas users to compare purchases from natural gas suppliers with traditional utility companies. There are currently hundreds of federally unregulated natural gas suppliers operating in the US. Regulation characteristics of Natural Gas Choice programs vary between the laws of the currently adoptive 21 states (as of 2008).

Deregulation of the electricity sector in the U.S. began in 1992. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 eliminated obstacles for wholesale electricity competition, but deregulation has yet to be introduced in all states. As of April 2014, 16 U.S. states (Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas) and the District of Columbia have introduced deregulated electricity markets to consumers in some capacity. Additionally, seven states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming) began the process of electricity deregulation in some capacity but have since suspended deregulation efforts.

Communications

See also: Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Concentration of media ownership

Deregulation was put into effect in the communications industry by the government at the start of the Multi-Channel Transition era. This deregulation put into place a division of labor between the studios and the networks. Communications in the United States (and internationally) are areas in which both technology and regulatory policy have been in flux. The rapid development of computer and communications technology – particularly the Internet – have increased the size and variety of communications offerings. Wireless, traditional landline telephone, and cable companies increasingly invade each other's traditional markets and compete across a broad spectrum of activities. The Federal Communications Commission and Congress appear to be attempting to facilitate this evolution. In mainstream economic thinking, development of this competition would militate against detailed regulatory control of prices and service offerings, and hence favor deregulation of prices and entry into markets. On the other hand, there exists substantial concern about concentration of media ownership resulting from relaxation of historic controls on media ownership designed to safeguard diversity of viewpoint and open discussion in the society, and about what some perceive as high prices in cable company offerings at this point.

Finance

The financial sector in the U.S. has been considerably deregulated in recent decades, which has allowed for greater financial risktaking. The financial sector used its considerable political sway in Congress and in the political establishment and influenced the ideology of political institutions to press for more and more deregulation. Among the most important of the regulatory changes was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which repealed the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act regarding interest rate regulation via retail banking. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

Such deregulation of the financial sector in the United States fostered greater risktaking by finance sector firms through the creation of innovative financial instruments and practices, including securitization of loan obligations of various sorts and credit default swaps. This caused a series of financial crises, including the savings and loan crisis, the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis, each of which necessitated major bailouts, and the derivatives scandals of 1994. These warning signs were ignored as financial deregulating continued, even in view of the inadequacy of industry self-regulation as shown by the financial collapses and bailout. The 1998 bailout of LTCM sent the signal to large "too-big-to-fail" financial firms that they would not have to suffer the consequences of the great risks they take. Thus, the greater risktaking allowed by deregulation and encouraged by the bailout paved the way for the financial crisis of 2007–08.

Related legislation

• 1976 – Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act PL 94-435
• 1977 – Emergency Natural Gas Act PL 95-2
• 1978 – Airline Deregulation Act PL 95-50
• 1978 – National Gas Policy Act PL 95-621
• 1980 – Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act PL 96-221
• 1980 – Motor Carrier Act PL 96-296
• 1980 – Regulatory Flexibility Act PL 96-354
• 1980 – Staggers Rail Act PL 96-448
• 1982 – Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
• 1982 – Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
• 1989 – Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
• 1992 – National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
• 1996 – Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
• 1999 – Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102

Controversy

See also: Anti-globalization movement, Globalization, and Neoliberalism

The deregulation movement of the late 20th century had substantial economic effects and engendered substantial controversy. The movement was based on intellectual perspectives which prescribed substantial scope for market forces, and opposing perspectives have been in play in national and international discourse.

The movement toward greater reliance on market forces has been closely related to the growth of economic and institutional globalization between about 1950 and 2010.

For deregulation

Many economists have concluded that a trend towards deregulation will increase economic welfare long-term and a sustainable free market system. Regarding the electricity market, contemporary academic Adam Thierer, "The first step toward creating a free market in electricity is to repeal the federal statutes and regulations that hinder electricity competition and consumer choice." This viewpoint stretches back centuries. Classical economist Adam Smith argued the benefits of deregulation in his 1776 work, The Wealth of Nations:

[Without trade restrictions] the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man...is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.... The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty [for which] no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.

Scholars who theorize that deregulation is beneficial to society often cite what is known as the Iron Law of Regulation, which states that all regulation eventually leads to a net loss in social welfare.

Against deregulation

Critics of economic liberalization and deregulation cite the benefits of regulation, and believe that certain regulations do not distort markets and allow companies to continue to be competitive, or according to some, grow in competition. Much as the state plays an important role through issues such as property rights, appropriate regulation is argued by some to be "crucial to realise the benefits of service liberalisation".

Critics of deregulation often cite the need of regulation in order to:

• create a level playing field and ensure competition (e.g., by ensuring new energy providers have competitive access to the national grid);
• maintain quality standards for services (e.g., by specifying qualification requirements for service providers);
• protect consumers (e.g. from fraud);
• ensure sufficient provision of information (e.g., about the features of competing services);
• prevent environmental degradation (e.g., arising from high levels of tourist development);
• guarantee wide access to services (e.g., ensuring poorer areas where profit margins are lower are also provided with electricity and health services); and,
• prevent financial instability and protect consumer savings from excessive risk-taking by financial institutions.

Sharon Beder, a writer with PR Watch, wrote "Electricity deregulation was supposed to bring cheaper electricity prices and more choice of suppliers to householders. Instead it has brought wildly volatile wholesale prices and undermined the reliability of the electricity supply."

William K. Black says that inappropriate deregulation helped create a criminogenic environment in the savings and loan industry, which attracted opportunistic control frauds like Charles Keating, whose massive political campaign contributions were used successfully to further remove regulatory oversight. The combination substantially delayed effective governmental action, thereby substantially increasing the losses when the fraudulent Ponzi schemes finally collapsed and were exposed. After the collapse, regulators in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) were finally allowed to file thousands of criminal complaints that led to over a thousand felony convictions of key Savings and Loan insiders. By contrast, between 2007 and 2010, the OCC and OTS combined made zero criminal referrals; Black concluded that elite financial fraud has effectively been decriminalized.

Economist Jayati Ghosh is of the opinion that deregulation is responsible for increasing price volatility on the commodity market. This particularly affects people and economies in developing countries. More and more homogenization of financial institution which may also be a result of deregulation turns out to be a major concern for small-scale producers in those countries.

Evolutionary grade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The green box (central) may represent an evolutionary grade (paraphyletic), a group united by conservative anatomical and physiological traits rather than phylogeny. The flanking red and blue boxes are clades (i.e., complete monophyletic subtrees).

A grade is a taxon united by a level of morphological or physiological complexity. The term was coined by British biologist Julian Huxley, to contrast with clade, a strictly phylogenetic unit.

Phylogenetics

In order to fully understand evolutionary grades, one must first get a better understanding of phylogenetics: the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among or within groups of organisms. These relationships are determined by phylogenetic inference methods that focus on observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences, protein amino acid sequences, or morphology. The result of such an analysis is a phylogenetic tree—a diagram containing a hypothesis of relationships that reflects the evolutionary history of a group of organisms.

Definition of an evolutionary grade

An evolutionary grade is a group of species united by morphological or physiological traits, that has given rise to another group that has major differences from the ancestral group's condition, and is thus not considered part of the ancestral group, while still having enough similarities that we can group them under the same clade.^{[clarification needed]} The ancestral group will not be phylogenetically complete (i.e. is not a clade), and so will represent a paraphyletic taxon.

The most commonly cited example is that of reptiles. In the early 19th century, the French naturalist Latreille was the first to divide tetrapods into the four familiar classes of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In this system, reptiles are characterized by traits such as laying membranous or shelled eggs, having skin covered in scales or scutes, and having a 'cold-blooded' metabolism. However, the ancestors of mammals and birds also had these traits and so birds and mammals can be said to "have evolved from reptiles", making the reptiles, when defined by these traits, a grade rather than a clade. In microbiology, taxa that are thus seen as excluded from their evolutionary grade parent group are called taxa in disguise.

Paraphyletic taxa will often, but not always, represent evolutionary grades. In some cases paraphyletic taxa are united simply by not being part of any other groups, and give rise to so-called wastebasket taxa which may even be polyphyletic.

Grades in systematics

The genus Australopithecus is ancestral to Homo, yet actively in use in palaeoanthropology.

The traditional Linnaean way of defining taxa is through the use of anatomical traits. When the actual phylogenetic relationship is unknown, well defined groups sometimes turn out to be defined by traits that are primitive rather than derived. In Linnaean systematics, evolutionary grades are accepted in higher taxonomic ranks, though generally avoided at family level and below. In phylogenetic nomenclature evolutionary grades (or any other form of paraphyly) are not accepted.

Where information about phylogenetic relationships is available, organisms are preferentially grouped into clades. Where data is lacking, or groups of uncertain relationship are to be compared, the cladistic method is limited and grade provides a useful tool for comparing organisms. This is particularly common in palaeontology, where fossils are often fragmentary and difficult to interpret. Thus, traditional palaeontological works are often using evolutionary grades as formal or informal taxa, including examples such as labyrinthodonts, anapsids, synapsids, dinosaurs, ammonites, eurypterids, lobopodians and many of the more well known taxa of human evolution. Organizing organisms into grades rather than strict clades can also be very useful to understand the evolutionary sequence behind major diversification of both animals and plants.

Evolutionary grades, being united by gross morphological traits, are often eminently recognizable in the field. While taxonomy seeks to eliminate paraphyletic taxa, such grades are sometimes kept as formal or informal groups on the basis of their usefulness for laymen and field researchers. In bacteriology, the renaming of species or groups that turn out to be evolutionary grades is kept to a minimum to avoid misunderstanding, which in the case of pathogens could have fatal consequences. When referring to a group of organisms, the term "grade" is usually enclosed in quotation marks to denote its status as a paraphyletic term.

Grades and phylogenetic nomenclature

With the rise of phylogenetic nomenclature, the use of evolutionary grades as formal taxa has come under debate. Under a strict phylogenetic approach, only monophyletic taxa are recognized. This differs from the more traditional approach of evolutionary taxonomy. The difference in approach has led to a vigorous debate between proponents of the two approaches to taxonomy, particularly in well established fields like vertebrate palaeontology and botany. The difference between the statement "B is part of A" (phylogenetic approach) and "B has evolved from A" (evolutionary approach) is, however, one of semantics rather than of phylogeny. Both express the same phylogeny, but the former emphasizes the phylogenetic continuum while the latter emphasizes a distinct shift in anatomy or ecology in B relative to A.

Examples

• Fish represent a grade, in as much as they have given rise to the land vertebrates. In turn, the three traditional classes of fish (Agnatha, Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes) all represent evolutionary grades.
• Amphibians in the biological sense (including the extinct Labyrinthodonts) represent a grade, since they are also the ancestors of the amniotes.
• Reptiles represent a grade composed of the cold-blooded amniotes; this excludes birds and mammals.
• Dinosaurs were proposed to be the ancestors of birds as early as the 1860s. Yet the term sees popular use as an evolutionary grade excluding birds, though most scientists use a monophyletic Dinosauria.
• Lizards represent an evolutionary grade, defined by their retention of limbs relative to snakes and amphisbaenians. However, defining lizards by the presence of limbs is incorrect, as there are many species of legless lizards, which are considered true lizards.
• Green algae represent a grade, since they are the ancestors of land plants.
• Prokaryotes, which include cellular organisms lacking a nucleus, represent a grade, since they are the ancestors of eukaryotes, which includes animals, plants, fungi, and protists; and the last of these four groups also represents a grade, since it excludes the previous three groups.
• Crustaceans represent a grade, since they are the ancestors of hexapods, which includes insects and related taxa.
• Monkeys represent a grade, since they include the ancestors of apes (including humans).
• Likewise, apes represent a grade in common usage, but are a clade if humans are included.