Tag Archives: political economy

New Trick for Old Dogs

Posted on by
2

The old dogs being, in this case, old(er) jet engines and more-or-less purpose-built jet engines.

There is a move afoot to convert commercial aircraft jet engines to produce electricity for AI-centered data centers. The conversion is relatively straightforward: replacing the fuel nozzles to utilize natural gas instead of jet fuel, and replacing the large fan on the front of the flight engine with a much smaller fan that is better suited for power generation.

FTAI has said it expects to be able to deliver about 100 turbines, or 2.5 gigawatts, a year. Boom Supersonic said its goal is to have 4GW of manufacturing capacity or more annually by 2030.

If jet engines can do this—and they can—they also can be used, or ganged together to be used, as electricity generators for localized needs other than AI centers in much the same way small modular reactors are planned for localized electricity needs.

One GW is enough electricity to power a city with a population of 1.8 million people. That works out to enough electricity for towns of 18,000 for each of FTAI’s turbines. They’ll gang together and scale for this, just as they will for AI centers, and just as SMRs will for either purpose.

Trumpian Tariffs, Who Pays Them, And So What?

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve now is saying that us Americans are paying 90% of the tariffs put in place by President Donald Trump (R).

In an analysis on the [Federal Reserve] bank’s website, four researchers write that last year “nearly 90 percent of the tariffs’ economic burden fell on US firms and consumers.”
They reach that conclusion by examining import data, to see whether foreign suppliers cut their prices in response to Mr Trump’s added tariff costs. Over the first eight months of 2025, “94 percent of the tariff incidence was borne by the US,” the analysis says, meaning “a 10 percent tariff caused only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices.”

Say that’s accurate—and, frankly, I have no reason to dispute it—it seems that the tariffs’ impact on the prices us American consumers face has been effected already, that impact is minimal inflation, and that inflation seems to be coming under control. That’s the case even as individual items—furniture, for instance—do seem to have ongoing price increases that are more closely related to tariff rates.

Overall, that leaves other causes also impacting inflation at least as much, if not more, than tariffs: supply chains dependent on distant foreign nations with the attendant shipping costs, those shipping costs themselves dependent on container rates and fuel costs, and especially our dependency on critical items like rare earth ores and refined rare earths that are controlled by an enemy nation that already is squeezing our economy with greatly reduced and heavily controlled exports to us. Even those rising furniture prices are, in addition to tariffs, strongly impacted by Canadian charges for exporting timber to the US—which costs impact house construction costs as well as costs for the furniture to put into them.

Missed in the Discussion?

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China has a “national team” of investors who work at the government’s behest to maintain a measure of stability in the PRC’s stock market.

The group is known by market players as the “national team,” and it functions as a market stabilization fund. It has been a fixture in the Chinese stock market for more than a decade, usually buying exchange-traded funds, and was widely noted when it intervened to prop up prices during a 2015 crash. After Trump announced his “liberation day” tariffs in April 2025, triggering a global stock selloff, the national team stepped in to relieve the pain as a buyer of index funds.

On the other hand,

The CSI 300 benchmark, which tracks shares listed in both Shanghai and Shenzhen, has risen more than 20% over the past year, despite the April dip. Last month, trading volume across mainland Chinese stock exchanges reached a record high.
…
“Substantial yet well-paced selling by the national team is curbing—but not killing—the positive market momentum,” analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note earlier this month.

Maybe this is the government doing a slow pump-and-dump, which is one way to make money (not legally in most western nations), maybe not. In any event, it’s also textbook investing: buy low and sell high. Either way, this is making a lot of money for the PRC government, which in turn provides serious money for subsidizing its cost of goods production and for offsetting the effects of foreign (mostly US) tariffs on PRC exports. More the former, most likely, since the PRC has been able to increase its exports to Europe and South America, to their economic dependency peril.

“Shouldn’t We Care?”

Posted on by
Reply

A MarketWatch op-ed writer is worried about grown, adult American citizens having more retirement funds in our IRAs than in our 401(k)s.

The shift from 401(k)s to IRAs moves employees’ money to a different regulatory environment. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which covers 401(k) plans, requires plan sponsors to operate as fiduciaries who always act in the best interest of plan participants.
In contrast, the standards of conduct for broker-dealers selling IRA investments are much less protective than the ERISA fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, which have consistently been characterized by the courts as “the highest known to the law.”
In addition, in the 401(k) environment, much greater emphasis is placed on the disclosure of fees in an understandable format than is the case for IRAs. And most important, 401(k)s place much more emphasis than IRAs on keeping the funds in the plan until retirement.

Those are, no doubt, useful items and anyone investing for his own retirement should care about them. The problem arises, though, when the system—here employer 401(k)s—uses these to interfere with an employee-investor’s decisions regarding what is supposed to be his own money.

As the opinion writer notes in her piece, withdrawals from either program that are made prematurely or outside of a very few exceptions (there are fewer in 401(k)s than in IRAs), are subject to a 10% tax penalty in addition to Federal and State income tax assessments. Those guardrails and limits are well-known to us Americans, and they’re all we need to make our own decisions regarding our money. If our decisions are ill-informed, that’s on us, or should be.

The opinion-writer closed her piece closed with this:

Shouldn’t we care that only 45% of assets in the private sector are protected by ERISA? And what should we do about it?

No, we should not care. We do not need Big Brother constantly looking over our shoulders, constantly using that perch to interfere with our decisions.

Americans are too dumb to manage our own fiscal affairs? One way to try to push that on us is to keep interfering with our decisions instead of letting us make our own mistakes and—critically importantly—learn from them.

That leads into what we should do about it. TL;DR: nothing. Complete answer: nothing at all. Stay out of our way.

“aren’t subject to Congressional appropriations”

Posted on by
Reply

In the house editorial, The Wall Street Journal editors wrote about the burgeoning tax revenues accruing to the Federal government over the first third of the present fiscal year, the reduction in spending in several government departments and agencies, and the burgeoning spending on welfare entitlement programs.

Then they added this risible claim:

…continuing boom in the giant retirement and healthcare entitlements that aren’t subject to Congressional appropriations.

The editors might want to review their junior high Civics class notes. Here’s our Constitution’s requirement for Federal spending:

Art I, Sect 9: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

All spending is subject to Congressional appropriations, and that includes “retirement and healthcare entitlements.” There are no caveats in that Section’s clause, no “except for programs inconvenient to alter or eliminate.”

Cutting spending on entitlements may be politically difficult but that’s not what the editors claimed. If the editors can’t find their notes, they need to listen better to their junior high interns when those kids brief them in preparation for expounding on government spending.