Artificial Markets

The Car Battery and battery car industries are two, and the situation hasn’t gotten any better in the three years since Mike Ramsey’s piece in The Wall Street Journal.

Since 2009, the Obama administration has awarded more than $1 billion to American companies to make advanced batteries for electric vehicles. Halfway to a six-year goal of producing one million electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, auto makers are barely at 50,000 cars.

Two of those companies, in fact, have since gone bankrupt: Fisker Automotive and A123 Systems now are wholly owned by People’s Republic of China’s Wanxiang Group Corporation. Without repaying us American taxpayers.

The underlying problem isn’t unique to the Obama administration; his has just been the most recent and most egregious. The plain fact is that government stinks at creating industries and at creating markets. Only free markets—only people acting voluntarily and freely in accordance with their own wishes and needs—can do that. Free markets won’t always succeed at that, either, but in that case, the only ones who suffer losses are those who (voluntarily) made the bet. On the other hand, if they succeed, everyone gains to some degree.

When governments fail at this, though, everyone loses to some degree. Worse, while the same universal gain results from a government success, even neglecting greater friction losses from government involvement, there will have been no choice in the matter.

If the thing can’t survive without government intervention, it’s not ready for market. If it’s not ready for market, it’s…inappropriate…for taxpayers to be forced to prop it up with their tax money.

“Discrimination”

The Supreme Court on Monday said a Muslim woman who applied to work at Abercrombie & Fitch Co can raise discrimination claims without proving the company intentionally avoided hiring her because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

So, I can cry discrimination on no better complaint than that I have one? I don’t even have to show that there’s a foundation for one?

Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, thought there ought to be a reason.

I agree with the Court that there are two—and only two—causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as understood by our precedents: a disparate-treatment (or intentional-discrimination) claim and a disparate-impact claim. Our agreement ends there.   Unlike the majority, I adhere to what I had thought before today was an undisputed proposition: Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.” Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie’s application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.

The majority should have listened better to Thomas.

The Supreme Court’s ruling can be seen here.

Containing Iran

This actually came up three years ago, in Jay Solomon’s piece in The Wall Street Journal, but dismayingly, it’s even more urgent now, not less so.

United Nations inspectors reported the discovery of traces of uranium enriched to higher purity levels than previously found at a fortified nuclear-fuel facility in Iran….

And

Nuclear experts say the enrichment process snowballs, meaning the most extensive technical work is required in the earlier stages—moving to 20% purity from 3.5% levels. Uranium enriched to 27% is considered highly enriched.

If President Barack Obama can’t contain a non-nuclear Iran, and prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, how does he expect to contain a nuclear Iran?

Overcomplexifying

That’s what the Federal Reserve is doing.

Many Federal Reserve officials entered 2015 thinking they likely would start raising short-term interest rates by midyear. That idea got put on ice after a winter economic slowdown, partly attributed to the dollar’s rapid rise in previous months.

And

Fed officials say they won’t act until they see more labor-market improvement and are confident that inflation will rise toward their 2% goal.

Wrong.

The Fed’s mission, by statute, is to manage inflation and work toward full employment. It also has a requirement to maintain moderate interest rates, the subject here, but that’s largely subsumed in managing inflation. Inflation, for the last several years, has been held artificially low by the Fed’s holding interest rates artificially low and by this historically slow recovery and slow-growth economy in which we’ve been mired since the Panic of 2008.

The artificially low interest rates are not “moderate” by any stretch: they’re much too low and for entirely the wrong reason. Normal interest rates are in the 5%-7% range, and they’re not there because of Fed diktat, not because—properly—of market forces.

The inflation rate extant these last few years have been below the Fed’s target rate, and the most effective tool the Fed has is its interest rate management. Hence, interest rates must rise, in order to facilitate the inflation rate rising to the Fed’s preferred range (which isn’t a hard 2%, it’s a range from 2% to around 3-3.5%).

There are additional reasons rates need to rise. Borrowers are reluctant to borrow, for all the low rates, because the economy remains sluggish: there are too few buyers, whether consumers or other companies, because there’s too much uncertainty in the economy’s future. A robust, growing economy will take care of that. That requires the government generally get out of the way of the economy, and it requires the Fed to get out of the way of the market and, among other things, interest rates.

The other reason is that too many folks are dependent on fixed income instruments for their own income. These last six years of suppressed interest rates have depressed those folks’ income.

A strong dollar has nothing to do with any of this. The dollar is strong for two reasons: one is that we pay interest rates, low as they are, are higher for dollar denominated debt instruments than for other currencies. The other is that, sluggish as our economy is, it’s still doing better than much of the rest of the world. Neither of those are going to change anytime soon, but notice the key factor in both of those: the dollar’s strength is a reaction to those factors, not a driver. The dollar is strong in response to interest rates, a strong dollar is not driving rates.

The Fed needs to let rates rise and ignore the dollar. Full stop.

With moderate interest rates and inflation under control, the economy will have a chance to grow. From that, employment will improve, and not just the headline number; the labor participation rate will improve, too. The dollar will take care of itself.

Oil and Pricing

From a recent Wall Street Journal article:

“If OPEC or Saudi Arabia or anyone else wants to call” the US to curtail production, “there is no one to call,” said Amos Hochstein, coordinator for international energy affairs at the US State Department, in May. “You will have to call 4,000 companies operating in the United States as producers. For the first time, there is an element of real free market.”

Indeed. It’s about time, too. Now all we have to do is get rid of the export limits.