Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Get Rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Posted on by
Reply

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell thinks it’s a good idea.

I think it is really important for the longer run that we get the housing finance system off the federal government’s balance sheet.  I think it is very important for the economy longer term.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agrees.

I am determined that we have a fix to the GSEs and that we don’t leave them in conservatorship for the rest of time[.]

But this doesn’t go far enough.  It’s insufficient to kick these Government Sponsored Entities out of conservatorship.  Left as GSEs, they’d still be able to dip their fingers into our pocketbooks; Fannie Mae wants another $3.7 billion of our tax money already.

No.  These GSEs need to be released into the wild and left to stand or fall on their market merits in the economy.

Auto Tariffs

Posted on by
1

Auto makers, parts suppliers, and dealers are joining forces to push back against the Trump administration’s proposal to apply tariffs of up to 25% on vehicles and components imported into the US….

The auto industry is aiming at the wrong target.  The German auto industry and the US have already agreed in principle to a regime of no auto tariffs at all.  It’s the German government that’s waffling and the EU that’s ignoring the matter altogether.

These domestic execs need to be asking the German government and the EU why they’re so disinterested instead of whining about domestic matters.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

Congress is considering RESA, the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, a bill that would represent a massive change to our retirement system, in particular our 401(k) system.  This bill would, among other things,

encourage more small employers to offer retirement savings plans and make it easier for companies to offer annuities that turn workers’ savings into a guaranteed annual income.

Among specific things that the House wants in such a bill are

  • a universal savings account, funded with post-tax dollars but with tax-free earnings and more flexible withdrawal rules than existing retirement accounts.
  • allow[ing] small employers to band together to offer 401(k)-type plans. By joining a so-called multiple-employer plan, or MEP, small companies can spread plan administrative costs over more participants, lowering fees.
  • encourag[ing] 401(k)-style plans to offer annuities, which help participants transform their balances into a lifetime income stream.

And

[Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Kevin (R, TX)] Brady said any new ability for people to tap into tax-preferred savings would be “very limited.”

Despite the support of AARP, the same organization that full-throatedly supported passage of Obamacare, this is a good start.

The ability to convert a retirement savings plan, if left to the option of the saver, can have advantages, even if I do continue to hold that annuities are not as good, in the long run, as investing.  However, once retirement starts, stability and predictability of income becomes important, and the long run will be shorter.

Too, the general moves toward making it easier, mechanically and fiscally, to save for one’s own retirement should be heavily supported.  And controlled to prevent bells and whistles to satisfy this or that Congressman’s (or lobbyist’s) pet wish from being added, cluttering the reform to the point of prevention.  The more we as individuals save for our own futures (and by extension, the futures of our families), the less dependent we’ll be on a failing social “safety” net of Social Security and Medicare.  And the more we’ll be exercising our own responsibilities instead of relying on others.

Finally, as long as we’re modifying our retirement plans, of large importance to me is the removal of existing limits to contributions on IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, and 401(k)s—both traditional and Roth.  Let us put by as much as we want without Government limits.

An Example of Irrationality

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Donald Trump decrying Germany’s willingness make itself dependent on Russian energy supplies by pushing for Nordstream 2, which will mean that Germany will get 60% of its natural gas from Russia, to go with the 40% of its oil imports that already are from Russia.  Aside from becoming so dependent on an enemy for its energy, Germany will be paying Russia billions of euros for the privilege.

I have to say, I think it’s very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia, where you’re supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia.

The Progressive-Democrats went hysterical over Trump’s remark.  Here’s House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) in a joint statement:

President Trump’s brazen insults and denigration of one of America’s most steadfast allies, Germany, is an embarrassment.  His behavior this morning is another profoundly disturbing signal that the President is more loyal to President Putin than to our NATO allies.

Because not wanting billions of euros to go to Russia in return for dependency on Russian good offices is somehow being loyal to Putin.

Sure.

Not Far Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

In an interview with the British newspaper The Sun, President Donald Trump said that Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit “blueprint” for Brexit would likely kill any opportunity for special trade deals with the US.  A critical part of that blueprint would have Great Britain

stick[ing] to a common ­rulebook with Brussels on goods and agricultural produce in a bid to keep customs borders open with the EU.

The EU’s trade rulebook, not just on goods and ag products, but covering all trade, explicitly blocks nations from entering into unilateral trade deals with non-EU nations.  Trade deals with non-EU nations can only be EU trade deals.  Sticking to the EU’s trade rulebook, then, would make it impossible for Great Britain to enter into its own deals with other nations—including with the US.

If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.

If they do that, then their trade deal with the US will probably not be made.

Trump isn’t far wrong on that.

At a joint news conference the day after the Sun interview, though, May said that

the leaders had agreed to pursue an “ambitious” trade deal between the two nations that “works for both countries right across the economies.”

That would seem encouraging for Great Britain, implying as it does that May’s blueprint doesn’t, or will be modified to not, include a commitment to the EU’s trade rulebook.