Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Some Thoughts on Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors have twisted their panties on tariffs, again, this time showing their lack of understanding of tariff rebates to us low- and middle-income American citizens (in addition to their lack of understanding of tariffs as foreign policy tools. That President Donald Trump (R) has muddled that use is not an excuse for the editors’ failure).

Begin with a couple of things the editors have elided.

President Donald Trump (R) early on said tariffs would let him reduce income taxes—something the editors completed ignored in their present missive. Trump wants to give a $2,000 tariff rebate to us American citizens. While this isn’t a direct reduction of our income taxes, it certainly offsets that much of each of our income tax bills. As a first step in reducing income taxes, it’s not bad.

Then there’s this:

In arguing [before the Supreme Court] that tariffs aren’t really taxes and are mainly a tool of foreign policy, Mr Sauer said “these tariffs, these policies, it is clear that these policies are most effective if nobody ever pays the tariff. If it never raises a dime of revenue, these are the most effective use of these—of this particular policy.”

Sauer went on to say that these foreign policy tariffs do, in fact, generate revenue, but that’s deeply secondary to their purpose, which is to persuade the tariffed nation to change its ways. The editors acknowledged that in an earlier editorial, though only by deeply burying it near the end of that piece. This time, the editors completed elided it.

Then there’s this bit of illogic, even as the editors deride the Trump administration’s logic.

If tariffs are most effective if no one ever pays them [as Sauer also argued], then how are they going to raise the revenue Mr Trump needs to pay those rebates?

Here the editors are exposing the fantasy of their world. “No one” ever pays tariffs because they work perfectly, nations are persuaded, and Hallelujah. No. The world isn’t an ideal place, no foreign policy measure ever works perfectly, friction occurs, and nations adapt according to their own imperatives. Foreign policy tariffs will still raise revenue, even as they do move nations to change, if not completely so, in desired directions.

Finally, this bit of editorial foolishness.

This is a teaching moment for a high school logic class. Start with the contradiction that Mr Trump can both pay a tariff rebate and pay down the national debt. The annual federal budget deficit is roughly $1.8 trillion even with tariff revenue, so paying a rebate would add to the national debt, not reduce it.

Start with the derision of Trump both paying a tariff rebate and paying down the national debt. Of course, both can be done. The rebate won’t, of necessity, absorb all of the current tariff revenue raised, and there’s no reason to expect it to do so in the future. Tariff revenue easily can be committed to, and split between, both goals.

And this: paying a rebate would add to the debt? The editors announce this as received wisdom, declining to provide any facts or logic to support their announcement. That’s because they cannot. The debt arises from spending more of individual and business taxpayer money than the government receives in individual and business taxpayer money. Tariff money is outside of that path. Even if foreign policy tariff revenue were taxes, their expenditure is outside the citizen and business tax revenues the government receives, and spending that revenue adds nothing to our national debt, even if all of the foreign policy tariff revenue were committed to rebates.

And this, straight from the horse’s mouth (which postdates the editors’ missive):

All money left over from the $2000 payments made to low and middle income USA Citizens, from the massive Tariff Income pouring into our Country from foreign countries, which will be substantial, will be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT

Interesting Idea

Posted on by
2

This one from President Donald Trump (R), who has one on occasion.

I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over[.]

The idea wants study to identify any hidden implications, good or bad. It also wants a couple of criteria attached. One is a means test for eligibility for the payments. The Federal Poverty Guidelines do a good job of locating the threshold for poverty. Anyone or any family with income above the poverty guideline is, by definition, not living in poverty, and so should be ineligible.

The other criterion is a sunset clause. The subsidies, even as direct payments to the individuals, should have a hard expiration date beyond which they end, irrevocably (or as nearly so as a Congress can make a statute, which frankly isn’t much). The duration of the payments should be only long enough to allow the individual and family make their own budgetary adjustments, plus what might be called an engineering slop cushion—perhaps six months.

All in all, though, this is a good initial consideration.

Well, Yeah

Posted on by
Reply

David Malpais, Treasury Undersecretary during Trump I’s first two years, has misunderstood what the Federal Reserve Bank must do. He undergirded his misunderstanding with this:

…the Fed’s demand-side model treats economic and job growth as inflation risks and prescribes higher interest rates.

Well, yeah. Economic growth in demand, without a parallel growth in economic supply is inflationary, and job growth increases business’ costs and so applies upward pressure on prices businesses must charge.

The correct answer for the Fed, given its dual mandate of price stability and full employment, is not just to stop reducing its benchmark interest rates—they’re too low already—but to raise them a quarter point to the level (4.75%-5%) historically consistent with its price stability goal of 2% inflation. Then the Fed should sit down and let the market fluctuate interest rates and let the inflation rate bounce around those 2%. A free market, in an environment of reduced regulatory constraints (over-regulation being one of President Donald Trump’s (R) bugaboos) will easily correct on its own, both those market interest rates and that inflation rate. That will allow the market to flourish, and that, in turn, will produce full employment.

Artificially suppressing interest rates is far more inflationary than are stable rates in the 4.75%-5% range. Lowering the cost of money artificially, rather than letting market forces deal with that, only stimulates demand without stimulating production (which by the nature of the two, strongly lags changes in demand), and that’s directly inflationary; it’s the textbook basic cause of inflation.

A Mixed Message

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s (R) tariff program is before the Supreme Court (oral arguments were heard last Wednesday), it appears to be in trouble, and I claim it’s due to his mixed messaging to us in the public.

I have long argued, especially during Trump II’s tariff implementations, that there are two purposes for tariffs, and so two kinds of tariffs. One kind is protectionist tariffs, tariffs implemented to protect domestic industries, especially those in their nascent stages and those that are national security critical. Protectionist tariffs are, in the main, badly mistaken for a variety of reasons; although, an argument can be made that protectionism related to national security is a cost of national security that must be paid if we’re to remain free as a nation.

The other kind of tariff is that used as a foreign policy tool, tariffs applied in order to persuade another nation or bloc of nations to desist from their unfair trade practices, viz., dumping product at below cost, unfair subsidies of their own domestic industries, withholding export of products critical to the importing nation’s economy or national security, or other policies to which the tariffing nation might object.

Trump has been busily touting both the revenue raised by all of his tariffs, of both kinds, while also insisting that they’re necessary foreign policy tools intended to get other nations to leave off their unfair trade practices, to “stop ripping off America,” and to mend their ways on other matters.

Which brings me to the present article by The Wall Street Journal‘s Greg Ip.

Lawyers often stretch the facts to make their case, but even so, this was quite the howler from US Solicitor General John Sauer in defense of President Trump’s tariffs at the Supreme Court on Wednesday: “They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”

Ip, with that lede, stripped his Sauer sentence of its context. The rest of what Sauer was saying is that their purpose, as a foreign policy tool, is to persuade the targeted nations to change their ways. That these foreign policy tools also happen to produce money is deeply secondary. Ip later acknowledged that, but not until deep into his piece. Sauer again, originally:

“The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no person ever paid them,” because they would have achieved their goal of changing another country’s behavior, or diverting all American purchases away from imports to domestic goods[.]

And that’s the problem with Trump’s rhetoric here. He’s made no distinction in his program between tariffs as protectionism and revenue-raising, the latter which is a Congressional prerogative and not Executive, and tariffs as foreign tools, which is an Executive prerogative and not Congressional.

This is a milieu where Trump’s studied vagueness in his rhetoric may well backfire. Keeping adversaries suitably confused as to our intentions through ambiguity can be highly useful. However, American law, and so our courts—especially our Supreme Court—deal in clearly stated specifics within each case that comes before them. Vague, especially, internally conflicting, speech is properly disdained by judges and Justices.

Trump’s contaminating his use of tariffs as foreign policy tools with his use of tariffs as protectionist policy may well produce the elimination of his tariff program in toto. That would be to our nation’s economic ill, and to our nation’s national security detriment.

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.