I’ve been trying, I really have, to give a flying flatulence about Paul Burrell, former butler to the late Princess Diana, having some shares in an offshore trust based in the British Virgin Islands called Black Dragon.

But I’m afraid I find myself caring as much as I do about the Lithuanian shoe polish industry, maybe. No, I exaggerate. Not that much.

What we should care about very much though, I think, is the way that this “Panama Papers” story is being a manipulated to a particular end by politicians and the left-leaning media.

Look at Sen. Bernie Sanders – or try to without laughing, for after all his initials are BS.  The leftie media is now proclaiming that the Panama Papers are his keys to the White House.

For it plays perfectly to that notion Socialists like Sanders are obsessed with these days: that there’s a corrupt, uncontrollable elite who can only brought to account by a good old fashioned dose of the kind of hard-left politics which worked so well for Cuba, East Germany, and the USSR.

The secret world of offshore banks and money-laundering has been under the microscope ever since the financial crisis. Now it is the turn of lawyers, registrars, and the hidden network of facilitators.

The treasure trove of 11.5 million documents leaked – or more precisely stolen - from the Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca lifts the lid on the extraordinary practices of the global elites, and on the alleged services of off-shore legal cabinets for terrorist organizations, drug cartels, sanctions busting, and front companies of all kinds.

The files on 213,000 firms first slipped to the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and then shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) is the biggest data leak in history. It will have long-lasting ramifications.

The avalanche of allegations has barely begun. The red-hot dossier on US citizens has not even been released. Yet the scandal has already triggered a string of criminal investigations around the world, kicking off in Australia and New Zealand within hours. 

The Panama firm has responded:  “We believe there's an international campaign against privacy. Privacy is a sacred human right that is being eroded more and more in the modern world. Each person has the right to privacy, whether they are a king or a beggar.”  Mossack Fonseca has a point.

The late Sir George Martin, “the man who made The Beatles,” created substantial British exports.

Had the import of his music to America been banned to save the jobs of US musicians, Britain would have missed out on some revenue but the American consumer would have been the biggest loser, missing out on the music. Trade benefits the importing country: that’s why it happens.

Frankly, we might as well be living in the 17th century, so antiquated are our current debates over trade, both here over Brexit and in America over the presidential nominations. Many current assumptions about trade, such as Mr. Trump’s, were debunked more than two hundred years ago and then tested to destruction in the mid-19th century.

In the 17th and 18th centuries European governments were in thrall to “mercantilism”.  They sought to restrain imports with tariffs and bans, while encouraging exports with monopolies and gunboats.

Along came Adam Smith and made a different argument, that mercantilism punished consumers and the poor, while rewarding protected producers and the rich; that imports were a good thing because they raised people’s standard of living by giving them what they wanted at lower prices. It’s a shame Donald Trump never read Adam Smith.

In her speech to the Economic Club of New York yesterday (3/29), Fed Chair Janet Yellen vowed to move with extreme care before tightening monetary policy in the face of lingering global deflation and trouble in China.

She swatted aside vociferous hawks on the Fed’s voting committee (FOMC), more or less pledging to flood the economy with excess stimulus in order to guarantee a safety margin against any further deflationary shocks.  Her dovish comments set off wild moves on the currency markets and a powerful relief rally on Wall Street.

Mrs. Yellen is taking a major gamble.

A chorus of critics have warned that the Fed is falling behind the curve as the labor market tightens and commodity prices start to firm again, fearing a repeat of the 1970s when the institution repeatedly found excuses to delay taking action on the grounds that there was still plenty of hidden slack in the economy.

“The longer the Fed dithers, the higher rates are eventually going, ” said Paul Ashworth from Capital Economics.