Tag Archives: markets

Another Outcome of Supreme Court’s Abuse of the Takings Clause

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Takings Clause of our 5th Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now recall three critical Takings cases decided by the Supreme Court.  Berman v Parker was a 1954 case in which the Supremes explicitly rewrote that clause to say for public purpose, not use.  Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff was a 1984 case in which the Supremes ruled that it was perfectly fine for a State government to take private property away from a private enterprise and give it to private citizens who leased the property from the business.  Kelo v City of New London was a 2005 case in which the Supremes said it was jake for a State government to seize a private citizen’s property and give it to a private business for that business’ purposes.

That last shameful ruling led to a large number of States passing their own laws or State Constitutional amendments severely restricting the conditions under which eminent domain can be used.  The Federal government’s power as distorted by the Supremes in that trio of cases, however, remains the law.

This brings me to New York and New York City and amazon.com’s HQ2 move into the city.

In their bid for Amazon.com Inc’s second headquarters, New York City and state officials dangled prime real estate at the tech giant and offered to use eminent domain to scoop up any necessary properties for a campus, newly disclosed documents revealed Monday night.

These worthies planned the theft confiscation eminent domain seizures in four areas: Midtown West, lower Manhattan, along the Brooklyn waterfront, and Long Island City.

Such an offer wouldn’t have been possible except in the aftermath of Berman, Midkiff, and Kelo.  This is the extent of the destruction of private property the Supremes have wrought.

Google’s Boss Testified

Posted on by
Reply

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week.  In the course of his testimony, he made some interesting claims.

“Even as we expand into new markets we never forget our American roots,” Mr Pichai said in his opening statement.

Not just roots, though. It’s important that Pichai and his team remember our American culture and values, too.  It’s not at all clear that he/they do.

As an American company, we cherish the values and freedoms that have allowed us to grow and serve so many users.  I am proud to say we do work, and we will continue to work, with the government to keep our country safe and secure.

Just how, exactly, does Pichai and his team propose to do that when they refuse to work with our defense establishment while enthusiastically working with our enemies—in particular, the People’s Republic of China and so with the PRC’s defense establishment?

Brexit Botch

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister Theresa May yesterday pulled today’s planned Parliament vote on her Brexit deal with Brussels when it became clear that not even her fellow Tories supported the deal in sufficient numbers to pass.  What’s more, she’s not suggested a new date for the vote, even though something is required to be presented to Parliament by 21 Jan 2019.

The deal as it stands is a terrible one, worse IMNSHO than a plain, unadorned breakout from the European Union.  It represented May’s meek submission to Brussels on nearly every one of their demands—including functional retention of EU immigration “rights” and EU court rulings within what used to be sovereign Great Britain for several years after the British nominal departure.

Nevertheless, May’s failure before Parliament represents further damage to Great Britain.

And this:

[May] will tour European capitals and then go back to Brussels to try to secure sweeteners that might buy off huge opposition to the package.
She insisted her blueprint was still the “best deal negotiable”, and said she still planned to put it to a vote once “reassurances” had been secured on the Irish border backstop.

Never mind that the Brussels “negotiators” have already said the present deal is a done deal and there will be no further negotiations on the matter.  There can be no sweeteners, as a result, nor can there be any reassurances: in particular, Brussels has already given all the assurances on the Irish border matter that they intend to putter around with.

Stand by for further May surrender to Brussels.

Still a Foolish Tax

Posted on by
Reply

The EU’s usurious digital tax on international tech companies that they had proposed has met with sufficient resistance from low-tax member nations—Ireland and several northern European nations—that France and Germany, the drivers of the proposal, have offered a modified version.  This new effort would

  • limit the tax to a 3% levy on online advertising revenues rather than all online revenues
  • effectively exempt Amazon, AirBnB, and Spotify—a sop to non-EU administrations, especially Trump
  • run until 2025

The beef underlying this drive to tax techs centers on tech firms paying less tax than putatively traditional firms on their EU earnings.

The European Commission estimates traditional companies pay 23% tax on profits—compared to just 8 to 9% for internet firms, with some paying effectively none.

Given that low tax rate nations like Ireland and Luxembourg are attractive to businesses, including tech firms, the foolishness of this new proposal is exposed.  It tries to get a common, high, tax imposed on tech firms at least.

Maybe not foolishness, so much as cynicism.  It remains inconceivable to the EU to lower its overall taxes to competitive levels rather than trying to suck those low-tax members into raising theirs to uncompetitive levels.

What’s So Hard?

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain is agonizing over how to deal with the People’s Republic of China’s Huawei Technologies Co and the latter’s desire to supply the nation’s 5G mobile network.  On the matter of Huawei’s having supplied the predecessor 4G network, Great Britain thinks it had arrived at “an understanding” with Huawei concerning the latter’s behavior vis-à-vis the installed 4G—which, astonishingly, allowed Huawei to monitor “aspects” of 4G tech.  Britain’s MI6 head, Alex Younger, seems to be the chief agonizer.

5G will by and large be based on Chinese technology, chiefly with Huawei. We need to decide whether we are comfortable with the ownership of these platforms in the case where our allies take quite a definite position…This is not straightforward[.]

Why must Huawei be the supplier of Britain’s 5G network?

And: Huawei is an arm of the People’s Republic of China government—how is this not a straightforward decision?  Why is it so hard to decide whether the nation wants to let the PRC government spy on every aspect of the British government, its defense, its economy, its citizens?