Tag Archives: economics

Erroneous Analysis

Posted on by
Reply

John Cogan, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has one. In his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed regarding a suggestion for fiscal federalism in government spending—an otherwise sound idea for leaving State and local projects to be funded solely by the States and local jurisdictions doing the projects—he had this:

My analysis of federal budget data shows that the chronic federal budget deficits since the 1950s are due to the federal government’s failure to raise tax revenues required to finance its spending on state and local activities.

No. The chronic federal budget deficits have been caused by the Federal government nationalizing the spending on those State and local activities, not by any failure to raise taxes to pay for spending that ought not to have been done in the first place.

It’s not too late to go back to the restraints that federalism places on government spending, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that that federalism never should have been abandoned in the first place. That’s how we have a chance to learn the lessons of that error, rather than repeating it in future.

Why Would We Want To?

Posted on by
Reply

Toyota Motor North America’s COO, Jack Hollis, has a plan for how Trump Can Get EVs Back on Track. The question is why would Trump, or any of us average Americans, want to? Hollis’ subheadline is promising:

Ditch the mandates and subsidies. Let consumer choice drive the market.

Then he goes off the rails.

Our approach provides consumers with many choices: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel-cell electric, and battery-electric vehicles. We believe this is the best way to achieve meaningful emissions reductions while meeting customer needs.

What about the emissions from mining, transporting, smelting, transporting, transforming into relevant parts, transporting, assembling into the final vehicle that occur in the production of lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper—and all that oil that’s used for plastic materials production?

What about the other forms of pollution—from mining to spent battery disposal: all those tailings, the handling of those intrinsically toxic metals (lithium, cobalt, nickel, even copper), the pollution of landfills by all that lithium, cobalt, nickel in those spent batteries?

What about the false claim that atmospheric CO2—plant food—is a pollutant in the first place? That’s never addressed except via the pseudo-science of an erstwhile head of the EPA; this is an underlying assumption that is made only tacitly and conclusorily?

All of these are blithely elided by the pushers of EVs and the punishers of internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.

I haven’t even gotten to the need to expand our electric grid to support the demands a sound EV market would impose. We need to expand, upgrade, and harden our electric grid, along with our electricity production capabilities, for a whole host of reasons beyond just supporting battery-charging.

That brings me back to my opening question: why would we want to put EVs on any sort of track, much less on Hollis’ original one? Ditch the mandates and subsidies, and let consumer choice drive the market, indeed. Add into the free market decision that heretofore omitted information regarding the intrinsically destructive nature of EV production and disposal.

The Left loves to talk about externalities and the need for pricing them into the final product—except when that’s inconvenient to their demands on the rest of us.

Tariffs as Foreign Policy Tools

Posted on by
Reply

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Treasury, Scott Bessent, understands the nature of properly done tariffs. In a recent speech, he noted, as cited by The Wall Street Journal,

…Bessent argued for increasing tariffs on national-security grounds and for inducing other countries to lower trade barriers with the US. He criticized trade policy with China for enriching Wall Street, weakening domestic industrial might, and failing to lead to Chinese economic overhauls.
Bessent called for tariffs to resemble the Treasury Department’s sanctions program as a tool to promote US interests abroad. He was open to removing tariffs from countries that undertake structural overhauls and voiced support for a fair-trade block for allies with common security interests and reciprocal approaches to tariffs.
“President Trump is right that actual free trade is desirable,” Bessent said in prepared remarks at the time. “It might seem counterintuitive from a free market perspective, but he is also right that in order to actually create a freer and more extensive trading system over the long term, we need a more activist approach internationally.”

Yewbetcha, to coin a phrase. Bessent, and Trump, are among the few who understand that international trade is not only about economics—in fact it has little to do with economics—and is mostly about foreign policy.

Even protectionist tariffs—when not done solely for mercantilist reasons—have their foreign policy uses: that removing tariffs from countries that undertake structural overhauls and voiced support for a fair-trade block for allies bit, for instance.

Bessent has serious weaknesses, though, and I did not support his open, public campaigning for the position. That politicking, his penchant for speaking out of turn, is the sort of behavior that was so counterproductive in Trump’s first term. Hopefully, he’ll curb his tongue once installed (if he’s confirmed).

Still, I look forward to his reopening Trump’s proposal to the G-7, made during his first term, of a no-tariff-at-all free-trade agreement.

“No tariffs, no barriers. That’s the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, ‘no tariffs’,” the US president said, describing his meetings with fellow Group of Seven leaders as positive “on the need to have fair and reciprocal trade[.]”

That offer was wholly ignored at the time, except by the executives of the German car industry.

We’ll see.

Drilling and Restrictions

Posted on by
Reply

President-elect Donald Trump (R) wants to greatly relieve, if not eliminate, Federal restrictions on oil and natural gas producers so they can “drill, drill, drill.” Lots of folks, including shortsightedly, lots of major (and not so major) oil and gas producer executives think that’s a bad idea.

But some donors grimace when they hear Trump promise that under his watch, crude-oil producers would open the floodgates. He has also promised to cut Americans’ energy costs by 50% or more.
Oil backers’ skepticism stems from the fact that Wall Street has successfully pressured chronically indebted frackers to stop burning through cash, and return it to shareholders via buybacks and dividends instead of reinvesting it to frack more wells.
“Our stocks will be absolutely crushed if we start growing our production the way Trump is talking about it,” said Bryan Sheffield, a Texas oilman who contributed more than $1 million to Trump’s latest campaign.

That argument is a bit of a non sequitur, and so it presents no reason to not remove the restrictions. The removal wouldn’t force the oil and gas producers to drill with abandon or to increase drilling or to drill at all. It would, however, let the producers adjust their drilling from sound business reasons rather than be confined to Government’s political reasons for any adjustment.

Another Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

Some tax cuts are better than others goes the headline, and that’s true enough. But then the newswriter wanders afield.

…extending the lower individual tax rates that expire after 2025—by far the largest component of any likely tax bill and the one that directly affects the most voters—would put more money in consumers’ pockets without driving a meaningful change in the economy’s long-run trajectory. There is broad bipartisan support for retaining those lower tax levels that Republicans created in 2017, but keeping individual tax rates in place is unlikely to change most people’s decisions about whether and how much to work.

It’s certainly true that not all tax cuts would change, or have any effect, on us taxpayers’ spending behavior. So what? Those favoring higher taxes have yet to articulate a coherent government need for the money, beyond expansive welfare payments and expansive welfare transfers to the States—all without any sort of work requirement.

At bottom, too, it’s our money, not government’s, and we should be the ones who decide how to spend it, or not. Nor do the taxers and government bureaucrats and politicians get to tell us how or whether to spend our money—not directly (that’s part of the intrusiveness of Obamacare that has yet to be corrected), and not indirectly by taxing us and spending our money in government’s name. We’ll allocate our money to our financial needs and desires far more efficiently and with far more specificity than government can ever be capable of.

Full stop.