People who do not trust their government to refrain from
confiscating their wealth often want to keep some of their money in a foreign
country where it would be impossible or at least more difficult for their home
country’s larcenous officials to get ahold of it. People who only fear their
government might react to its future economic difficulties by blocking its
residents from or limiting their ability to move or spend money outside of the
country often want to do the same thing. Most financial experts and people in the financial media have dismissed such
worries by people in the United States
and most of the rest of the world’s “developed economies” as misplaced or even
paranoid. They have argued that democratic governments can be trusted since
they do not expropriate, and it has been a long time since the postwar currency
controls in western Europe ended with no
one planning to bring them back. The skeptics among them – some cryptocurrency
enthusiasts, some gold bugs, and a few libertarian
financial writers here and there - are a
small minority arguing that expropriation or currency controls are
possibilities to take seriously enough to justify precautions, because
politicians and bureaucrats just about everywhere are vicious, avaricious, and
untrustworthy. At least they have been a small minority.
Justin Trudeau may be
changing that, both for some experts and writers and for some ordinary
investors. According to reports in the news, his government in Canada is
blocking activity on bank and other financial accounts of protesters and people
who donated money to support the
protesters and perhaps expropriating the money in those accounts. (He is also stealing people’s trucks,
threatening to murder their dogs, holding protesters without bail, and sending
in thuggish cops to beat up peaceful protesters and their supporters, including
women. Fidel would be proud of the boy.) Now people not only have arguments for
the untrustworthiness of even democratic
govenrments, but also an important example of it to consider.
After considering that example many people may decide they
would like to have some of their assets in places where it would be harder for
their civil masters to steal or interfere with them. They may find such places
hard to find. Americans with investment income have to report their foreign
bank accounts, brokerage accounts, and
trusts to the IRS on their income tax returns.
The difficulty in American officials getting their hands on those accounts would
vary from place to place, but I would guess
the feds usually could do it if they really wanted to. They have
certainly been able to bully the Swiss into abandoning their principles in
regard to privacy.
Some people think cryptocurrencies are a solution to the
problem. Cryptocurrency balances probably are harder to find and grab than bank accounts, and
transactions are more nearly private.
However, people should note that
every American who files an income tax return has to tell the feds under
penalty of perjury whether he uses cryptocurrencies, and flocks of potential
regulators are circling. Cash is hard to
trace and easy to hide, but it is not always easy to store safely. There are
limits on how much cash an American can take out of the country at one time
without telling the feds, and a person moving cash out of the country might
have trouble finding a safe place to keep it if he did not want to use a
foreign bank or brokerage house. Jewels and precious metals have the same drawbacks
for storage as cash. Some people have suggested buying real estate in a foreign
country. As far as I know, foreign property that does not generate income does
not have to be reported to the IRS. However real estate is usually expensive
and sometimes illiquid, and rules for foreigners owning real property vary by country.
If the remarkable events in Canada lead to many more people in North America making financial privacy and keeping some assets out
of officials’ reach an important goal, it will be interesting to see what they
can work out to accomplish it, if anything. The deck is stacked against them,
and the house rules change in the middle of the game whenever the house decides
to change them.
Labels: Canada, investing, politics, privacy