…by this Texan. Except that, as Dizzy Dean said, “It ain’t braggin’ eff you can do it.”
Via AEIdeas:
Some Brag
Reply
Category Archives: Economics
The SEC and Judges
The SEC doesn’t like it when the ones it charges with miscreancy object to the cases being heard solely by SEC administrative judges. One statement in particular in the WSJ article at the link, though, jumped out at me.
The SEC accused several defendants of “judge shopping” by trying to get a case heard in a particular court and in another instance asked one of its own judges to submit a formal statement about whether he has ever felt pressure to favor the agency.
Never mind that the SEC is demanding that defendants use the SEC’s own already shopped-for judges. Never mind, either, the SEC’s cynicism in trotting out one of its employees to speak favorably about that employee’s employer.
International Trade and Hillary Clinton
Recall that the Democrats in the House of Representatives last week blew up their erstwhile favorite, a wealth transfer sub-bill to pay a bunch of money to American workers who would be “displaced” by the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade bill being negotiated by President Barack Obama and 11 other Pacific nations. This in turn blew up the fast track authority bill already passed in the Senate and of which the TAA was a part.
Hillary Clinton, late sitter in the Secretary of State’s chair and current Democratic Party Presidential candidate was asked at her subsequent Iowa campaign rally about that fiasco, and what she thought of the fast track authority and of the trade deal in progress. She said that Obama needs to “listen and work with” Nancy Pelosi to get “the best deal possible.”
The Wall Street Journal characterized her answer thusly:
It’s a classic Clinton non-answer.
The WSJ is being polite. What it really signifies is that Clinton is utterly ignorant of the economics of international trade, or she’s too disingenuous to say what her position is.
Either one means she’s not qualified to be President.
An Argument for Positive Immigration Flows
James Pethokoukis, writing in a different context, presented evidence in his AEIdeas piece for us doing better with our immigration policies. First, see the graph below, with particular attention to the “Increases in the workforce (labor inputs)” part of the bars.
Pethokoukis’ argument centered on Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s promise to work toward a 4% GDP growth annual rate if he’s elected; Pethokoukis argued that would be hard to achieve because of shortfalls in the availability of actual laborers.
[A]bout half of US growth in the postwar era has come from higher productivity, and half from a growing labor force. But American society is getting older and working less. Given much slower labor force growth, much higher productivity is needed to make up the difference. If productivity growth just stays at its postwar average—and it’s been much slower lately—the economy’s growth potential is much lower than in the past. As economics blogger Bill McBride writes, “Right now, due to demographics, 2 percent GDP growth is the new 4 percent.”
That’s the evidence and the argument. Pethokoukis and McBride based their argument regarding demographics on birth rates. The fact is, though, birth rates aren’t the only source of new labor. Immigration not only would fill the gap; immigrants would do so promptly: they’re already wanting in (and 11 million of them are already here awaiting some mechanism to let them come out of the shadows and be fully productive—for the US).
We need to quit messing around, and find a way to strictly secure our borders while making it far easier than it is now for immigrants to enter our nation legally (which, incidentally, would put a very serious hole in coyotes’ and other human traffickers’ business), and we need to find a way to help the illegals here already (actually, the majority of them whose only crime is their illegal entry and who have otherwise been solid, productive members of their communities) gain legal status.
And get 4% GDP growth. The idea that “2 percent GDP growth is the new 4 percent” is just the contemptibly defeatist attitude of a quitter.
Progressive Tax Credits
Targeting youth unemployment, Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to propose tax credits to encourage businesses to train young people and offer apprenticeships to develop lifelong job skills.
Clinton’s campaign said she would outline a proposed tax credit of $1,500 for every apprentice that a business hires….
Here’s a thought. How about lowering taxes altogether and getting the tax code out of the business of social engineering? With suitably low taxes, you wouldn’t need to play games with taxes as inducements to do this or as discouragements from doing that.
With suitably low taxes and the code out of the business of social engineering, businesses could spend their energies on sound business planning rather than on shopping around for a tax deal.
With suitably low taxes and the code out of the business of encouraging this or discouraging that, there’d be less need for special interest groups or lobbyists to push for this or that Very Important Consideration in our tax code. (Yeah, yeah, I know.)
There’s this, too, in Clinton’s plan:
The campaign said the tax credit proposal would require accountability for employment and earnings outcomes for businesses receiving the credit. Apprentices would need to be registered in order to be eligible.
The Progressive gives, and the Progressive takes away. The savings gained from her tax credit will be fully recouped in the costs of compliance. However, the government will grow, and more IRS bureaucrats will be hired, so it’s all good.
Note, too, that this doesn’t begin to address jobs availability in the ensuing robust, growing economy.