Tag Archives: markets

States Competing for Corporations

Posted on by
Reply

Competition is at the heart of America’s economic success, but not every type of contest benefits society.  Consider the growing trend of businesses cajoling states and politicians to compete for who can dole out the most corporate welfare.  It’s especially frustrating because there are already plenty of ways to promote job growth without robbing taxpayers.

And

States could start with eliminating tax carve outs and replacing them with lower-overall tax rates and lighter regulatory burdens.  Federal lawmakers could also do their part by lowering America’s highest-in-the-developed-world corporate tax rate.

And

Embracing these policies would protect taxpayers…multinational firms with multimillion-dollar profit margins.

You bet.  Lower-tax rate policies, among other things, would directly increase those entities’ profit margins by reducing the size of a cost center.  They also would let these entities lower their prices (if only slightly), which would increase their sales (if only slightly), which would then increase their profits if not their profit margins.

In the end, States compete better on the basis of who has the lower tax and regulatory rates over all rather than who gets to the better carve-outs and special treatments.  In fact, the carve-out/treatment path, among other things, leads to an enormously byzantine tax structure within which it’s increasingly difficult to measure which State’s carve-outs/treatments are better.

The Fed’s Rule by Fiat

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Reserve officials strongly signaled they will be toughening big-bank capital requirements even further than they have since the 2008 crisis, a move that will further increase pressure on the largest US banks to consider shrinking.

Fed governors Daniel Tarullo and Jerome Powell, in separate public comments Thursday, said the Fed will require eight of the largest US banks to maintain even more capital to pass the central bank’s annual “stress tests.”

Notice that they’re acting by rule and moving sharply away from their knitting, which is to concern themselves with maintaining price stability and full employment.  With this rule, they’re nakedly broadening their interference in the free market place.

Here’s Tarullo:

“Effectively this will be a significant increase in capital,” Mr Tarullo said on Bloomberg television.  He recently said in an interview that he expected big banks to have to change their size, organization, or business model in response to the Fed’s regulatory moves.

Never mind that a business’ size, organization, or business model are solely the decision of the business’ owners—private citizen shareholders—and not the interest of any government in a truly free market economy.

Here’s Powell:

“I have not reached any conclusion that a particular bank needs to be broken up or anything like that,” he said.  The point is to “raise capital requirements to the point at which it becomes a question that banks have to ask themselves.”

This is disingenuous.  When it’s government rather than owners forcing the question onto a business, it’s government dictating the answer.  Especially when using this sort of tool for the forcing.  Capital requirements and associated risk handling are solely the decision of the business’ owners—private citizen shareholders—and not the interest of any government in a truly free market economy.  Assessment of the outcomes of those decisions are solely the province of the business’ owners, customers, and a free market; they are no concern of government.

Of course these two and their fellow Fed Governors know this.  The move, though, is consonant with the Left’s general move toward ever larger government with ever larger intrusions into private affairs, driven by their ideology that Government is the answer, and where it fails the proper corrective action is to increase Government.

Some Climate Thoughts

Posted on by
2

Here are the comments of a number of those pushing climate change/global warming/global cooling without regard to whether humans play any sort of significant role in…whatever it is.

Stephen Schneider:

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.  On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well.  …  So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Ottmar Edenhofer:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole….  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy[.]

Christiana Figueres:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution[.]

Timothy Wirth:

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…

In sum: lie, it’s for a good cause.

A British Exit from the EU

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an aspect of so what to the question: what would actually change if the Brits vote to go their own way in a few weeks?  One set of answers involves British influence on the continent or within the EU.

[I]f the British do vote for Brexit and then have to trade with the EU, the UK would in fact find itself isolated with very little influence over regulatory standards in the single market.

Great Britain already has very little influence over those regulatory standards: look, for instance, at the hue and cry from the rest of the EU over how the British comport themselves, and regulate others, in London’s financial markets.  Also, from outside, the British would be utterly free to set their own market regulatory standards without interference or “help” from their Continental betters.

It’s the same with welfare programs and immigration generally.  Although the British do fare quite a bit better here—as part of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s pre-British exit (Prexit?) negotiations with the EU, he won concessions (not enough, some would say) regarding the amount of British welfare payments would be paid to migrant (not immigrant) workers and their stay-at-home (country) families.  But the French already are up in arms over English impertinence at not letting immigrant/refugees to flow across the channel quickly enough to suit France.

Neither of those problems would be any worse with a British exit, and the British would be in absolute control over them were they to go their own way.

The upshot looks as though there is, indeed, a what to the so what—and it favors a British exit from the EU.  Which, in addition to giving Great Britain a great deal more flexibility and complete national sovereignty, would restore the British to their historical role of power broker among hegemon wannabes on the continent.

That last isn’t all bad for the British or for the continent.

What Hath Obamacare Wrought

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal provided an amazing graphic in its Wednesday edition.ObamacarePremiumIncreasesEven accounting for bad estimating by the health coverage plan companies, this is a clear illustration of the depth of President Barack Obama’s (D) lie when he said insurance costs would go down by roughly $2,500 per year.

It’s also going to get worse: a number of programs intended to buffer these providers against such increase needs expire in 2017, including “risk corridors,” which then will be funded solely by health coverage providers’ own wealth redistribution “premiums” paid into the program by profit-making providers for the sake of money-losing providers.