Daily Archives: 10 January 2020

Population and Income Redistribution

Posted on by
Reply

People are moving from politically blue States to politically red ones, and they’re taking their money with them.

Four states have lost population since 2010 including West Virginia (-3.3%), Illinois (-1.2%), Vermont (-0.3%) and Connecticut (-0.2%), but 10 experienced declines last year. New York was the biggest loser as a net 180,000 people left for better climes. Over the last decade New York has lost more of its population to other states (7.2%) than any other save Alaska (8%), followed by Illinois (6.8%), Connecticut (5.6%) and New Jersey (5.5%).

And

[Illinois] lost $5.6 billion in adjusted gross income last year to other states, about twice as much as in 2012.
…
In the last two years New York has lost a net $18 billion in adjusted gross income.
…
Last year California lost $8 billion in adjusted gross income to other states, up from about $135 million in 2012.

And

Where are high-tax state exiles going? Zero income tax Florida drew $16.5 billion in adjusted gross income last year. Many have also fled to Arizona ($3.5 billion), Texas ($3.5 billion), North Carolina ($3 billion), Nevada ($2.3 billion), Colorado ($2.1 billion), Washington ($1.7 billion) and Idaho ($1.1 billion).

Just so long as those transplants don’t bring with them the same foolish politics that generated the economic failures of the States they’re leaving.

European Keynesianism

Posted on by
Reply

Europe’s investors are hoping for some Keynesian stimulus—or what passes for Keynesian stimulus—in the coming year to continue 2019 boomlet in stocks.

Getting stocks to propel higher however, may require faster growth. Some see that slug of faster economic activity coming from a possible government ramp up in stimulus spending.
“Whichever way you slice it, there is a much greater burden on governments to do more” said Anik Sen, Global Head of Equities at PineBridge Investments.

That’s not stimulus; that’s investors addicted to government spending.  Not even Keynes (to stimulate this horse once again) said higher spending was stimulative. He held that it was the spike in spending that did that, following which spending needed to go back to its original level and the debt resulting from the spike soon repaid.

Which brings me to the second item in this European Keynesian nonsense.

During the European sovereign-debt crisis in the early part of the last decade, governments in the region adopted austerity budgets to rein in spending and calm bond markets. Many investors now say such frugality has been counterproductive….

Again, no. It’s not austerity to lower government spending and thereby get government to stop competing with private enterprises for resources, which is inflationary, and to get government to stop competing with the private economy for borrowable funds, which applies upward pressure on interest rates (for all that governments fix rates by arbitrary fiat), which is also inflationary.