By Simon Black
In the late 1920s, the economy of the Weimar Republic was beset by numerous fiscal troubles. The global depression spread quickly to Germany, undermining the government's ability to make its reparation payments from the Great War.
Fearing a return to hyperinflation, many Germans who had spent the last decade building up a small fortune during the Weimar Republic's own 'Roaring 20s' decided to pack up and leave; they remembered the days when banknotes were used as wallpaper and had no desire to repeat the experience.
In 1931, Chancellor Heinrich Bruning imposed a 'flight tax', which levied a 25% tax on the value of all property and capital for Germans leaving the country.
Total revenue collected from this tax amounted to roughly 1 million Reichsmarks (RM) in its earliest days ($56 million today). By the late 1930s under Hitler's rule, flight tax revenue soared to RM 342 million ($21.5 billion today) as more people headed toward the exits.
This flight tax constitutes one of the earliest modern examples of capital controls. They've evolved substantially since the days of Hitler, but the end goal is the same-- governments controlling the flow of capital across borders.
Governments impose these for a variety of reasons-- rapidly developing nations may want to restrict the flow of capital into their country, preventing 'hot money' from pumping up prices and affecting local markets. We see this today in places like Brazil and Thailand.
In other instances, bankrupt governments seek to trap capital within their borders, maximizing the amount available for subsequent taxation or other forms of confiscation. This tactic is usually employed when lost confidence has impaired the government's capability to borrow.
We're seeing strong indications of both examples today, though the latter is the most alarming. As I scan the headlines and hear from colleagues in the US and Europe, it's clear to me that the march towards stricter capital controls is quickening its pace.
The British government, for example, just announced an increase to its bank levy that taxes UK-domiciled banks on their worldwide balance sheets. In response, HSBC has indicated that it may move its headquarters elsewhere.
I suspect the British government will enact legislation to discourage or prevent this from happening, likely with a modern day corporate flight tax (albeit with a more patriotic sounding name).
Capital controls can take a variety of other forms-- including taxation on outward remittances, restrictions on the movement of financial instruments, bureaucratic approval processes for foreign transactions, reporting requirements for foreign assets, and government control over banks.
This last is important-- when politicians and bankers are in bed with each other, banks can be compelled to loan a portion of their deposits to the treasury at unrealistic terms, sticking bank customers with sub-optimal yields below the rate of inflation.
In the US, I think retirement accounts will be the first to go. They're the easiest to grab because most people hold their retirement accounts domestically with a large financial institution that will happily sell every customer down the river when the government comes calling.
The way they'll do this is simple-- the next time there's a market meltdown (bear in mind that insiders are selling like crazy right now...), the government will step in with new legislation that requires these institutions to invest a portion of their accounts in the 'safety' of government securities.
Insider politiconomists like Teresa Ghilarducci have already strongly advocated for government managed retirement accounts in the US, and we've seen numerous examples of other bankrupt nations from Argentina to Hungary moving to seize their citizens' pensions.
Read more here.
Simon Black writes SovereignMan.com: Notes From The Field, a free newsletter dedicated to individual freedom,internationalization, asset protection and global finance. For a
complimentary subscription, visit http://www.sovereignman.com