Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

The Federal Reserve Bank and Presidential Pressure

Posted on by
Reply

“A string of central bankers,” the entire Precious lot of them, at last weekend’s IMF conference expressed their concerns over the independence of our Federal Reserve Bank System and the members of its Board of Governors.  They think the BoG is being unduly pressured by President Donald Trump because he demurs—enthusiastically—from the interest rate regime they’re setting.

I have to ask, though: what pressure? Trump has certainly spoken zealously and forcefully about what he thinks the Fed ought to do, but he’s made no threats.  He’s just argued.

For others to say Fed personnel feel pressured and the Fed’s independence is threatened is to insult the Fed personnel involved and further, to Congressmen—who in their aggregate are the only ones who can impact the Fed’s independence.

All a President can do is force the resignation of this or that Fed governor (following which, the Senate would have to approve any replacement).  If a Fed man feels pressured by rhetoric or by the thought of not being a Governor anymore, he either puts too much ego in having that particular job, or he’s too timid. Either of those makes him unfit for the job in the first place.

Budget Surpluses and the IMF

Posted on by
Reply

…and the US, at the just concluded International Monetary Fund meetings in DC.

The IMF, backed by the US, has pressed Germany and others with budget surpluses to cut taxes or raise spending to prop up growth. Countries with budget surpluses “should certainly make use of it and have the space to invest and to participate in the economic development and growth,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said, “but not enough has been done on that front.”

The IMF has begun pressing Switzerland to spend more, too.

A little bit of this is accurate.

Several US States have set up rainy day funds into which they put budget surpluses in order to build up the resources for State emergencies or to tide them over during a recession without having to borrow excessively.  There’s no reason nations can’t do the same with their surpluses; indeed, such a savings pile should come first.

Once the savings have been built to a satisfactory level, though, surpluses should be used to cut taxes and to pay down debt (which is future taxes), never to increase spending.  Leave the citizens’ money in their hands; they know more about how to use it than Government.

Above all, don’t use surpluses in any effort to counteract the forces of a free, capitalist market.  For the vast majority of cases, market problems are self-correcting and only made worse by activist government intervention.

Lost Brexit?

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, went begging to the EU for a delay on Great Britain’s date of departure from the EU, and she got it—31 October, with a caveat that if the Brits can get their act together sooner, they can leave sooner.

European Council President Donald Tusk:

…the call for action will be entirely in the UK’s hands.
… But he added that the UK can also use the time to “reconsider the whole Brexit strategy.”
Tusk…warned the UK: “Please do not waste this time.”

Especially with that “reconsider” bit, I’m no longer convinced Great Britain will leave the EU.  Instead, it’s increasingly likely they’ll meekly beg forgiveness, and with their humiliation plain, simply ask, wide-eyed, “Please, Sir, I want some more.”  Please, let me stay.

EU-PRC Trade Relations

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new tone in the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the European Union. The two have agreed the following:

  • A commitment toward “broader” and “non-discriminatory” market access
  • On surrendering intellectual property to gain access to China’s market, both sides agreed “there should not be a forced transfer of technology”
  • Increase efforts to strengthen international rules against state subsidies for industries

A commitment. We’ve seen in US-PRC trade discussions over the years, in the PRC’s responses to WTO rulings—indeed its own commitments made as conditions to its accession to the WTO—in its treatment of those with whom it deals along its Belt and Road efforts, in its treatment of South China Sea rim nations the value of PRC commitments.

No forced transfer of technology.  But perhaps some encouragement.  “Nice company you got there. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”  And not a word about required backdoors into a company’s proprietary or operating software so the PRC’s government men can come and go on the claim that those men need to ensure the company is…behaving.

Increase efforts regarding state subsidies.  The PRC will try very hard.

We’ll see if there’s more than just a change in tone.  I’m not holding my breath.  The EU, and the US, has a venerable history of credulity regarding the PRC’s rhetoric.

Regulating State Tax Incentives

Posted on by
Reply

There Ought to be a Law was the title of an old Reader’s Digest humor column: every little pet peeve came in for a jokingly recommended law barring it.  Because More Government is always the solution.

Barton Swaim, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, actually takes that seriously, and he wants to apply it to the idea of States and cities offering businesses tax incentives to get them to build in those jurisdictions.  He wants the Federal government to…regulate…what those State and local jurisdictions can do to entice businesses.

He’s even holding up the European Union as a paragon in this venue.

The European Union imposes significant restrictions on how much member states or regional governments can offer companies to entice them to expand or relocate.

This is the same EU, keep in mind, that is constantly trying to bully low-tax member nations to charge more and higher taxes, rather than encouraging high-tax member nations to lower and lessen theirs.

Never mind that, though.

Why couldn’t Congress impose a simplified version of this principle on state and local governments?

It’s true enough that many of those incentive deals the States and locals turn out to be lousy from the States’ and locals’ perspective.  Why, then, shouldn’t the Federal government dictate to the States and local governments what those bodies should do with their own citizens’ and residents’ money? For their own good, you see.  Besides, isn’t it the Federal government’s money, anyway, and not those citizens’ and residents’?

Be more like Europe, and be more infested with central diktats than we already are. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Because, after all, States (and the local jurisdictions within them), to paraphrase John Jay, have the same relationship to the Federal government that counties have to the States: mere political jurisdictions set up to facilitate enforcement of Federal laws.

Federal republic be damned.

Sure.