Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Whose Inheritance Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

A son wrote to The Moneyist, worried that because he makes so much more than his siblings and freely lives like it he’ll be cut out of his parents’ will. He closed his letter with this paragraph, and Quentin Fottrell seems to have made a meal out the distraction contained in it, instead of giving the short and sweet answer that the question needed.

My siblings don’t make nearly as much as me. They’d say I’m crass or rude for saying that. I’m concerned that my parents are going to strike me from any will/inheritance. If siblings earn different amounts, should that be the primary driver for how much they should get?

Fottrell opened with most of the right answer.

Your parents can divide their estate as they see fit.

Unfortunately, he went on to talk about siblings being differentially poorly- (or well-) off, and so the lesser well-off can receive a larger slice of their parents’ pie. He then proceeded to suggest, over several paragraphs, that the letter-writer’s arrogance and self-importance could well play a role in any parental inheritance decision. Never mind that Fottrell had no evidence in the letter that that played a role, although the letter-writer seems to have made no effort to hide his financial success under a bushel.

Fottrell would have done well to end his response with that opening sentence. He would have done better to add this short bit to that opening: the estate, the inheritance, is the parents’ money and assets and no one else’s. It’s their property to do with as they see fit, and no one else has any claim on it, whether child, parental sibling, or stranger. Parents have no intrinsic duty to leave their money, their assets, to anyone in particular, and they can leave it to no one at all and let the State sort it out.

Full stop.

Weasel Words

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s governing claque of men and women are engaging in them. Again. Or still. This is The Wall Street Journal‘s lede:

China will loosen its export restrictions on semiconductors made by Nexperia, its Commerce Ministry said….

However.

China will allow exports of Nexperia chips for eligible cases, the Commerce Ministry said Saturday, without specifying the criteria.

Meaning, I fearlessly predict, that Nexperia’s exports from the PRC will be slow-walked, blocked, and otherwise interfered with for the foreseeable future. Just as with any other non-PRC company doing semiconductor business from inside the PRC. Lacking export criteria, the PRC has left itself wiggle room for blue whale pods in which to employ those weasel words. The PRC’s Commerce Ministry also made no mention at all regarding loosening export restrictions on rare earth magnets or rare earth ore.

Nexperia—and everyone else outside of the PRC—would do well to move their raw material production, assembly, and manufacturing facilities—all of them, not just those related to rare earths—entirely outside of the PRC.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Bill Hagerty (R, TN) and Treasury Scott Bessent disagree with The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial How to Make Banks Less Safe, an editorial with which I also disagreed. However, Hagerty and Bessent are wrong in their proposed solution.

They insist that the recent intermediate-sized bank “failures” (my euphemism quotes) stemmed from an intrinsic imbalance in protection for banks.

What explained the flight? A competitive imbalance: the biggest banks benefit from a perceived government guarantee that smaller institutions lack.

That protection imbalance is the Dodd-Frank entrench[ment of] the biggest banks as “too big to fail,” as Hagerty and Bessent correctly identified. Their solution is wrong, though.

…fortify our community banks against existential headwinds by raising the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. limit. This would put community banks on a more even playing field with their larger competitors, and provide small businesses more certainty to maintain their payroll and other operating accounts with community banks in times of stress.

The correct answer is to take the “too big to fail” protection away from the allegedly systemically important banks and put them on the level of play on which their smaller competitors operate. There is no such thing as too big to fail in a competitive free market. Instead, hold all banks, regardless of size, to the quality of their management teams and those teams’ risk decisions. Do this further in large part by leaving the FDIC’s insurance cap at $250,000. The big players using the big banks will do a better job of moving among banks that are better led than others.

The market, which is individuals, small business, and international behemoths, will in its aggregate do a far better job of identifying well- and poorly-run banks, and imposing performance discipline on all of them, than can any government decision-making, which by design, is rife with political input rather than limited to economic input.

Two Mistakes at Once

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve has chosen to lower its benchmark interest rates by another quarter point, to a 3.75% to 4% band. At the same time, it has decided to call a halt to their 3½-year campaign to shrink the Fed’s $6.6 trillion asset portfolio on December 1.

That’s two mistakes in the same meeting. With inflation near (albeit less near than in the last couple of months) the Fed’s goal of 2% inflation, it’s been past time to leave its benchmark alone and to let market forces handle inflation and interest rates. Past time, because the benchmark rate historically consistent with 2% inflation has been in the range of 4½% to 5%. The Fed needs to sit down and stop tweaking with the rates.

The other mistake is to stop unloading its far too bloated asset portfolio. The Fed currently holds $6.6 trillion in Treasury assets. That’s the Fed funding too much of Treasury borrowing. The market should handle that, not the government borrowing from itself via a purely on paper accounting trick.

It’s true that unloading those assets might—even likely would—put the short term credit market into a turmoil. That especially would upset the overnight and short-term repo markets that are important to businesses’ ability to make payroll or pay other bills in the gap between irregular receipts payable and the clockwork due dates of paychecks and bills. That turmoil would be short-lived, though, as the markets readjust to a market-driven debt facility. The volatility of the turmoil would be mitigated, too, were the Fed to unload its Treasury assets simply by not replacing them until they mature, and to limit itself thereafter to holding a relative few longer-term Treasury assets—10-year Notes and bonds.

That, too

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats are keeping the government shut down over their demand to extend—permanently, no negotiations—the Obamacare subsidies that the Progressive-Democrats during the Biden reign had scheduled to expire in November of this year, pretending at the time that the subsidies were just temporary, to tide people over during the Wuhan Virus situation. Their core claim on this aspect is that Obamacare premiums, as paid by the policy holder (carefully excluding, per those same Progressive-Democrats, the premium costs paid for by us taxpayers via those subsidies), will explode.

What the press, with equal care, ignores is that the purported need for those subsidies is a direct result of the cost of the government-run health care coverage program that is the Affordable Care Act. Government-run because these are coverage policies whose coverage suites are mandated by government, including the worst mandate of them all: the requirement to charge premiums (within narrow government set bands) for ailments and potential ailments without regard for the risk of the ailment being covered, and for some of those ailments at no cost to the policy holder at all.

The Wall Street Journal has pointed out an additional price to us average Americans:

If Republicans don’t extend the turbocharged subsidies, she [Minnesota Progressive-Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar] warned, “early retirees like Bill & Shelly [who live in Meridian, ID] will see their health insurance premiums increase nearly 300%—from $442 to $1,700.”

And [emphasis added]

This is a tacit admission that ObamaCare encourages Americans to stop working. The Biden subsidies turbocharged that incentive by making subsidies larger and available even to those with incomes above 400% of the poverty line. The couple in Ms Klobuchar’s example had north of $130,000 of income in 2024….

This demand for permanentizing the ObamaCare subsidies is just one more aspect of big government taking over our lives, reducing individual liberties (the health coverage industry does not exist in a free, competitive market where individuals can make their own choices of what coverages they want, at prices that competition would make possible) and taking the flip side of individual liberties, individual responsibilities, away from the individual and, instead, spreading them across all of us together, as brokered by Government.

The editors offer some solutions that would be a good beginning toward correcting the failure that is the ObamaCare essay into socialized medicine.

  • codifying association health plans that let small businesses join up to form a larger risk pool to improve the economics of offering insurance
  • continuing to expand plans that can be paired with tax-preferred health-savings accounts
  • fix[ing] some ObamaCare regulations like the medical-loss ratio that obliges insurers to spend 80% of premiums on claims, which in practice is a profit cap

Also needed, I claim:

  • allowing health coverage plan providers to sell policies that cover preexisting conditions at premiums consistent with the risk involved. The risk here is not certainty since the preexisting conditions will not all flare up and require medical intervention simultaneously; the risks can be amortized across time, if government only got out of the way
  • allowing individuals to choose from, and insurers to offer, tailored coverages: only primary care—annual exams, for instance, and the occasional flu or broken bone
  • coverages only for catastrophic health potentialities
  • reducing the regulatory burden on doctors who want to eschew being reimbursed via health coverage providers by doing cash reimbursements, perhaps by annual subscriptions

But to do any of that, it’s necessary for the Progressive-Democrats to end their extortionate demand on subsidies as a condition or reopening, so those discussions can begin; it’s necessary for the Progressive-Democrats to release from their basements us American people, especially the poor and their children, whom they’ve taken hostage against their demand.