Tag Archives: markets

How Terrible Is That?

Posted on by
Reply

Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Party’s MFWIC, has “accused” British PM Boris Johnson of pushing for US-style deregulation of health care.  The horror.

As the UK election campaigns got underway, Corbyn said his rival wanted to “unleash Thatcherism on steroids” once the country was no longer bound by EU trading treaties and regulations.

Channeling our own Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT), Corbyn thinks “capitalism” is a dirty word.

He went further:

Corbyn also said…that Johnson wants to strike a trade deal with US President Donald Trump to sell off parts of the UK’s National Health Service, or make it easier for US pharmaceutical firms and medical companies to sell into the UK healthcare market.

Because all that foul capitalism would lower health costs to British citizens and deprive Government of control over their health choices.

Then Corbyn made plain the breadth of the wicked that the Brits’ way comes:

They want to move us towards a more deregulated American model of how to run the economy.

It’s clear that Corbyn—and his fellow Labourites—think British citizens are just too blind stupid to make their own health decisions; he and his insist those unwashed masses must be led by his Know Betters.  Just like our own Progressive-Democrats.

Boeing and Foolish Questions

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article on the tortuous path to criminal prosecution that prosecutors would have in bringing Boeing to criminal trial over its 737 MAX crashes, Andrew Tangel, Jacob Gershman, and Andy Pasztor asked what seems to me to be a very narrow, short-sighted question.

Should prosecutors weigh Boeing’s importance to the economy and national security when deciding how to proceed with a criminal case over the 737 MAX crashes?

Of course prosecutors should—must—not. What’s truly important is the concept of weighing the risks to liberty and to national security of criminals being too big to be punished. We can never allow such a thing to enter even the run-up to criminal prosecutions.

If criminal actions can be seriously alleged against Boeing—based on the company’s behaviors—the company must come to trial. Only if found guilty, so there’d be a criminal sanction phase, could Boeing’s importance to our economy and our national security legitimately be considered—and then, not on the magnitude of the penalty(s), which absolutely must fit the crime(s), but only on the penalty(s)’s schedules of application, with interest accruing on any fiscal penalties not paid “promptly.”

The question of criminal trials for various individuals of Boeing’s management (and its aircraft testing function?) is an entirely separate matter.  The company’s importance to anything is wholly irrelevant here; the company can easily survive any number of its managers being locked up in a Federal hoosegow.

Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal led off one of its Wednesday editorials with this gem.

The great counterfactual of the Trump Presidency is how much faster the economy would be growing without the damage of his trade protectionism.

Never mind that the great counterfactual of the FDR and Wilson Presidencies (among others) is how much better off the nation would be without the damage of their warfighting.

Once again, WSJ Editors choose to misconstrue the nature of tariffs as tools of international diplomacy and conflict with the nature of tariffs as protectionism. International conflict unavoidably involves domestic damage.

The real consideration is whether today’s temporary damage from deploying tariffs as tools is worth the long-term gain. Was the damage suffered in those wars worth avoiding the damage of abject surrender to brutal conquerors, worth the gains from winning those wars?

Would these Editors prefer abject economic surrender to the PRC, the payment of our intellectual property and technological advances to the PRC as tribute, to be followed inevitably by political subjugation after the collapse of our economy, to the long-term gains of getting a more honest trade regime?

PRC Personal Savings Rate

Posted on by
Reply

James Areddy had an extensive article on this in a recent Wall Street Journal.  It seems that the personal savings rate of People’s Republic of China’s citizens peaked around 2010 and has been trailing off ever since.  Areddy posited a number of reasons for this, and why it’s likely to continue.  Chief among them is the usual suspect of an increasingly less poor, if not increasingly prosperous, population wishing to live better rather than save more.  Another major reason seems to be the PRC’s one-child policy, lately relaxed legally, but not socially.  With fewer kids in the family, there’s less reason for parents to save against those kids’ future.

I see another reason, though, for the continuation of the fall-off in savings rate, and that continuation running to disastrously low levels, from a national economic perspective.  This is the aging of the PRC’s population.

That aging is driven by a couple of things. One is that folks get old before they die (duh), and today’s PRC population being healthier than yesterday’s, these folks are living longer.  The bookend to this is the shrinking—across generations—of the population of working age citizens.  This stems from that one-child policy, emplaced explicitly to shrink a population that had severe trouble feeding and housing itself and from the continued social lack of desire for more than one child in a family, and from the desire to live better materially today, now that folks are better off (or at least not so bad off).

With fewer folks working relatively to aging and retiring, this means there’ll be less public money to pay for old folks’ retirement (and retired) needs, so the old folks will need to spend their savings even faster than might be the case otherwise.

Another feedback loop likely is inflation.  This will accelerate the fall-off in personal savings. This inflation will be driven by that same shrinking labor force, this time reducing production output—the availability of goods and services—even as spending increases across all age demographics: a classic case of (relatively) too many yuan chasing (relatively) too few goods.

Fiscally Sound Socialism

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Rubin posited, in his Wall Street Journal article, some hypotheticals for how Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) might pay for her Medicare-for-All plan. He suggested that one of the ways toward this goal of Medicare-for-All that all the Progressive-Democrats running for President need to do was to

find[] ways to reduce health-care costs

Were Progressive-Democrat candidates serious about this, though, they’d stop conflating health care costs with health care coverage costs, get government out of the way of both industries, and put them both (back) into competitive, free market environments.

Rubin also asked whether

(I) would…support Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-All plan if she presented a fiscally sound option to fund it[.]

The question as phrased is a bit of a non sequitur since it’s virtually impossible for such a thing to be funded in anything remotely approaching a fiscally sound manner.  Leaving that aside, though, no, I would not support her or her “fiscally sound” plan.

Warren’s plan, as with her other plans, are fundamentally socialist. There might—might—be a way to make such a thing fiscally sound, but socialism can never be economically or morally sound.

Socialism can never be economically sound because it caps the performance of the most successful, reducing the incentive to work to one’s potential, and so leads to erosion of output, both individually and in the aggregate across a national economy. Beyond that, socialism puts government in control of production, sales, and purchasing decisions, and government can never be as efficient or as prompt in responding to changing conditions as the totality (or subsets of the total) of private citizens acting on their own needs and wants.

Nor can socialism ever be morally sound. By transferring the responsibility for those production, sales, and purchasing decisions to government and away from the individuals who otherwise would make them, socialism eliminates personal initiative and personal responsibility, indeed, the very concepts of personal initiative and personal responsibility.  Instead of letting men be moral actors in their own right, socialism simply reduces them to wards of the socialist state—which is to say to subjects of the men who populate the socialist state from time to time.