Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

An Independent Greenland’s Budget

Posted on by
Reply

Amid President-elect Donald Trump’s (R) rhetoric regarding buying Greenland from Denmark, there is concern in Greenland about that, but maybe not so much. Greenland already is a largely self-governing island within the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland already has been pushing for independence, and the Danish government, along with its monarch, is open to considering that, given sufficient interest in independence on the part of Greenlanders.

Greenlanders strongly want independence, they don’t want to be part of the US, but they are highly interested in a closer relationship with us than is politically possible as long as they’re part of the Kingdom—another factor underlying their push for outright independence.

One concern about independence is that with independence, the annual $600 million in transfers from Denmark to Greenland, roughly half the current Greenlandic budget, would stop. What to do about that?

Greenland is rich in a broad variety of natural resources, from oil and natural gas to rare earth minerals to graphite to uranium to precious stones, and on and on. These resources remain largely untapped. The fishing waters around Greenland and in what would become an independent Greenland’s Exclusive Economic Zone also are rich.

Extraction royalties from mining those land based natural resources would easily fill the budget gap, and more. Alaska has been paying dividends to its citizens for nearly 50 years just from oil and natural gas extraction. Texas charges a severance tax—its extraction royalty—on natural gas, oil, and condensate (a byproduct of natural gas production with its own commercial value) production. That tax covers a significant fraction of Texas’ annual budget. With proper (Greenlandic) management the fisheries (and undersea minerals) in Greenland’s EEZ would become another source of national revenue.

Greenland’s budget would more than make up for the loss of Denmark transfers with its own extraction royalties and exploitation fees—which needn’t be all that high to put the nation’s budget well into the black. A trade arrangement with the US that addressed all, or even most, of that would be highly beneficial to both nations.

Beyond that, the US is highly concerned about Russia’s and People’s Republic of China’s moves in the region and in the polar seas and so is interested in expanding existing bases and adding more. Basing rights could come with fees for Greenland, also.

A freely negotiated trade and basing arrangement with an independent Greenland would be a winning arrangement all around. That also would be more revenue positive for us than taking on Greenland as a territory, or even a protectorate.

What’s the Value?

Posted on by
Reply

Cities in the People’s Republic of China are running out of cash while their debts, already vastly excessive, are rapidly growing.

What to do?

In August, a gas supplier [Xinjiang East Universe Gas] in China’s far western Xinjiang region struck a solution to settle $25 million [¥183.3 million] of overdue gas bills racked up by a few state-owned entities in Changji city. Instead of cash, the gas supplier will effectively take over 260 unfinished apartments in a French-themed residential compound being developed by its clients.

That’s become the go-to technique for city governments to welch on settle their debts.

Starting last year, Monalisa Group, a Guangdong-based ceramic tiles manufacturer, accepted apartments as payment instead of cash from its real-estate clients. By September, it had accumulated $19 million [¥139.3 million] worth of investment properties on its balance sheet.
…
More recently in June, Shanghai Urban Architecture Design proposed to take over 115 apartments from developer Greenland Holdings—a Fortune 500 company that defaulted on its bonds in 2023—to settle some $10 million [¥73.3 million] of debts. In December, Sunfly Intelligent Technology, a producer of LED lighting and other electrical equipment, settled $50 million [¥366.6 million] of debts with a group of developers including Country.
In the past three months, three unusual debtors emerged—the county-level police departments in China’s poor, mountainous Guizhou province.

The PRC already has accumulated as many as 90 million empty housing units, units still unsold after all this time.

For companies like Xinjiang East Universe that provide services to China’s cash-strapped local governments, getting half-built apartments “is better than getting nothing[.]”

But only if those structures actually get sold. These unsold apartments are unsold for a reason. How does using them to pay debts make their creditors whole? All the move does is unload the borrower’s white elephant onto the creditor, leaving the creditor still out in the cold with no functional, practical repayment.

White elephants, indeed: most of those apartment structures aren’t even completely built. It’ll cost those creditors additional money to finish them and make them habitable. With that glut of finished housing units already clogging the market, peddling these for less than anything like what might pass for market rates, a depressed price necessary to get them sold, or even rented, will only further depress the PRC’s housing market.

That’s not good for an economy where so much private wealth—family wealth—already is tied up in real estate from the housing boom of a few years before the Wuhan Virus Situation. Residential property represents some 25%-30% of the PRC’s GDP.

So What?

Posted on by
Reply

Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund, is worried that if the incoming Trump administration cuts off subsidies for battery cars, we’ll be ceding battery car leadership to the People’s Republic of China.

Leave aside the fact that our battery car component supply chain (as with so many other of our industry production) remains dependent on the PRC. Pushing battery cars on Americans will increase our dependence on that enemy nation.

Be that as it may, Americans don’t want battery cars. This is demonstrated by the continued need for government subsidies—the tax monies us average Americans remit to our Federal government—in an ongoing effort to con us into buying them anyway, along with outgoing Biden administration efforts to dragoon us into buying these white elephants by raising fuel and emission “standards” to usurious levels intended to ban ICE vehicles.

More than that, satisfying the so-called need for battery cars, the blandishments of left-wing climate Know Betters like the EDF notwithstanding, will not have any material effect whatsoever on slowing the non-existent existential climate crisis that the climatistas are on about.

The subsidies are a waste of our tax money and badly want elimination.

Let the PRC be saddled with—dare I say hobbled by—that transportation dead end and its enormous costs.

Retreating from Net-Zero?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of The Wall Street Journal editors.

The climate policy retreat is accelerating as Citigroup, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley this week joined an exodus from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. Energy reality can bite.

The “retreat” consists of five banks out of the 140 that are members of the NZBA, a gang of banks sworn to refuse the business of any enterprise that isn’t sufficiently climate-sensitive and -activist enough to suit the syndicate. It’s true enough that the five are major players in the world of banking, but they’re still only five.

The editors wrote, also, that mutual fund manager Vanguard had pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers pledge. That’s one out of 350 enterprises that took that pledge. The editors wrote further that JPMorgan Asset Management, BlackRock, and State Street Global Advisors have left Climate Action 100+, a collection of some 600 investors who pressure businesses to comply. Three are part of this “retreat.”

However.

Leaving these syndicates and changing their ways of climate-woke behaviors are two different things. We need to see these banks’, investors’, and business’ altered behaviors over some period of time before it’s believable that they’ve changed more than their public rhetoric.

A Flat Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, and Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation economist, proposed last Monday.

Collapsing the personal-income and corporate tax rates to 15% would have huge economic benefits. America would suddenly have one of the lowest tax rates in the world, resulting in trillions of dollars of new capital flow and a spike in take-home pay.

And this:

The simplicity of a flat tax would reduce the deadweight costs associated with tax compliance—and the headaches. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs calculates that Americans spent almost eight billion hours filling out tax forms in 2024.

Using a naïve estimate of 97.2 million households (and even more naively assuming all households pay taxes, which provides an upper bound on the number of households relevant here), that works out to over 80 hours per household—two working weeks—of tax compliance labor.

This, too:

The Tax Foundation estimates that this cost the economy $413 billion in lost productivity, and the Internal Revenue Service estimates that we spent $133 billion on out-of-pocket compliance costs.

That’s $4,250 per year in lost productivity for each household, with an added $1,370 per year per household of unreimbursed spending just to comply with current tax law. Most households could find other uses for those $5,620.

Still, I don’t think Forbes and Moore go far enough.

I’d add getting rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Business’ customers pay the bulk of those taxes, anyway, rather than the taxed business; for the taxed business, the tax is just another cost center to be covered proximately through product/service pricing and indirectly through reduced spending on innovation, expansion, hiring, and raises.

Forbes and Moore suggest getting rid of some deductions, but I’d go farther here, too. Get rid of all deductions, subsidies, and credits, too, and tax all income from all sources as ordinary income. Let businesses make their expansion and financing decisions based on purely business and market criteria instead of having to game the tax implications of borrowing or stock issuances. Individuals also would go back to making their spending and investing decisions based on what’s good for their individual/family situations instead of having to game a byzantine tax system in the course of their decisions.

And those optimal decisions would include how to use those $5,620.