Tag Archives: markets

Get Rid of the EV Subsidy Altogether

Posted on by
Reply

Allied and friendly governments object to the Biden administration’s battery-operated car tax subsidy requirements that these vehicles be assembled substantially in the US or they’re not eligible for the subsidy. That puts battery-operated cars assembled in Europe, Japan, and the Republic of Korea at a substantial disadvantage in the competition for sales in the US.

They’re right, but for a different reason than they think.

The Biden administration should get rid of the battery-operated car subsidies altogether. If battery-operated cars truly were ready for market, they’d need no subsidy: Americans would buy them on the merits of the cars. If we don’t want them, or don’t want them in large numbers, government intervention (via subsidies here) is no more appropriate than is government intervention in any other section of our free market marketplace.

Full stop.

Controlling

Posted on by
Reply

Naked self-promoting advertisement….

My latest (as of 22 Nov 22, anyway) Peter Hunt novel is out, available here.

Peter Hunt’s lady is brutally assaulted, and Hunt has to go after the mastermind who set the thing up.

Donahugh was involved in DPA Donason’s kidnapping and personally involved in her rape.
More quiet. Then Freyman said, “I’ll be handling the prosecution. Keep me current as this business proceeds.”
“Of course,” Jankuwicz said.
Freyman turned to me. “I’ve also heard about you. There will be persons to prosecute as this winds up?”
“Before I could answer, Jankuwicz said, ‘That depends on the perpetrators.'”

Jankuwicz drummed his fingers on his desk for a moment. Then he said to me, “What do you need from me?”
“‘Keep Freyman out of my way.’
“‘hat would be easier to do if you keep in mind what I said earlier.”

But that’s not all Hunt had to deal with. His pseudo-niece Trang Thi Thao is back and they’ve found a line on the…person…who bought her missing older sister, Trang Thi Khiem, for his personal use and through him they hope to locate her sister.

A thin mattress, only slightly more than a mat, covered in a dirty red sheet, was on the floor…. Suarez was standing on the other end of the mattress, trying to pull his pants up. He was still shirtless, his brown skin glistening with the sheen of his sweat in the light from the ceiling light bulbs. Bare light bulbs; the ceiling fixture had long since lost its cover. Clumps of dark hair spilling down over his ears from their original sweep back. Thick chest gone soft.
Another thin mattress, with no sheet at all or pillow, was on the floor, too…. The two mattresses filled most of the small room’s floor, leaving just enough space for the door to open when Suarez wanted in—or when it was kicked in. Half Pint was standing on the bare mattress, holding a small Asian girl in front of him. His bush of blond hair was messed and twisted. Big, striped t-shirt wadded on the mattress. The girl might have been Thao’s age when she’d been sent to me by Pilsner. She was pale and emaciated, so it was hard to tell. She was wearing a too-big, dirty, pale blue t-shirt that came to the tops of her thighs.

The Cost of Food

Posted on by
Reply

Saturday’s Wall Street Journal had an article centered on the difficulty of passing a farm bill that, among other things, continues subsidies for farmers. The article included some words on the bill’s food stamp program and funding, including this remark:

...SNAP, the food-stamps program is generally aimed at helping low-income households afford to buy food.

There are at least two ways to help low-income households afford to buy food. One is to restore work/train for work/school requirements to the program, which in the end, increases those families’ income.

The other way is to get rid of the ethanol subsidies and requirements. Converting food to fuel additives drives up the costs of a whole range of foods, creating a closed loop of increasingly expensive food driving increasing need for food stamps. Cut that out.

Getting rid of the subsidies will help the farmers, too, by encouraging them to grow more food more cheaply and with their lower cost (already significantly lower than the cost of farming in other nations), gain global market share. And more income for farmers.

Financial Reporting

Posted on by
Reply

A little bit in the weeds, here, but necessary for future understandings by some investors. The proximate matter is FTX’ collapse and bankruptcy (with possibly criminal activities associated).

In a footnote to the financial statements, the company said its “primary shareholder is also the primary shareholder of several related entities which do business with the company.” It didn’t say who the related parties were for any specific transaction it disclosed.
The standard accounting rules for disclosing related-party transactions are vague and have long been considered a weakness in the system. There is no clear-cut rule requiring companies to disclose the players in a related-party transaction. The rules do say, “If necessary to the understanding of the relationship, the name of the related party shall be disclosed.”

Some questions arise. Whose definitions of “necessary” and “understanding?” The way the rule is written, those definitions are left to the company—FTX, here—to determine, and what an investor or customer or client needs or wishes for his own understanding is unimportant.

FTX’s new CEO John Ray exposed part of the much larger problem in his FTX bankruptcy-court filing, in which he acknowledged that FTX’s financial information wasn’t trustworthy and that it was controlled by

 a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated, and potentially compromised individuals.

That potentially compromised part is key. Compromised by whom? In what way? That would seem clearly related to who those “related parties” are.

There’s more, related to arm’s length transactions, which are statutorily required in many business arrangements. Here’s a working definition of arm’s length transactions that’s good enough for our purposes:

A transaction in which the buyer and the seller have no significant, prior relationship. In an arm’s length transaction, neither party has an incentive to act against his/her own interest. That is, the seller seeks to make the price as high as he/she can, and likewise the buyer seeks to make it as low as he/she can. The negotiations for an arm’s length transaction result in the arm’s length price, which is almost always close to the market value of the asset being sold.

That drive for each party to work toward his own interest, and especially the resulting essentially market price for the things being transacted, also is key. How can an investor or a customer or a client know that a particular transaction within an FTX is legitimate or problematic under arms’ length requirements if the investor or customer or client can’t know who the related party is that’s do[ing] business with the company? And why is the investor or customer or client being actively denied this information? What’s being hidden?

This is, as RG Associates founder and member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Emerging Issues Task Force, Jack Ciesielski, said,

a hole that needs to be fixed. The auditors would have to know who the related party is. Why not just put that in there? How hard can it be? By keeping it purposely opaque it’s defeating the purposes of the footnote.

And so do investors, customers, and clients need to know—hence the footnote, even if carefully vague in the present case. And hence the need to plug that loophole: require the related parties to be explicitly identified. There’s no free speech question here, no political speech would be chilled by this. Documenting business arrangements in a purely investment environment has nothing to do with our 1st Amendment.

Why Do the Workaround?

Posted on by
Reply

NVIDIA Corp is busily looking for ways to circumvent newly enacted rules barring export of computer chips and chip technology to the People’s Republic of China.

Nvidia Corp has begun offering an alternative to a high-end chip hit with US export restrictions to customers in China, after the new rules threatened to cost the American company hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
Nvidia said the new graphics-processing chip, branded the A800, meets US restrictions on chips that can be exported to China under new rules rolled out last month. The chip went into production in the third quarter, the company said.

On the other hand,

According to a memo Nvidia sent to its channel distributors last Thursday, the A800 has the same computational performance but a narrower interconnect bandwidth, the capacity of a chip to send and receive data from other chips, crucial for training large-scale AI models or building supercomputers.

It’s not the data rates, though, that matter; it’s the computational techniques and the technology used to implement those techniques that are important.

NVIDIA claims,

The A800 meets the US government’s clear test for reduced export control and cannot be programmed to exceed it.

This is disingenuous. The chip can be reverse-engineered to learn how the computational techniques are achieved. Indeed, simply programming the chip—accepting, arguendo, NVIDIA’s claim about programmability—would be a useless enterprise when the goal is to gain the technology itself.

It’s true enough that it takes some little time to relocate manufacturing/assembly sites and to move supply chains. However, why should NVIDIA or any American company, especially our technology-based companies, do business with any PRC company beyond a—adjusted apace—period of transition away from that nation?

Why would an American company be so willing to transfer, or risk transferring, American technology to an enemy nation by doing business with that nation or any business domiciled in it?