Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Democrats in the Way, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Interest rates on student loans are set to double on Monday after lawmakers failed to find a bipartisan solution to keep the federally subsidized borrowing costs down.
…
[T]he current, 3.4% interest rate on Stafford loans—the most popular funding for college students—set to expire on July 1….
…
The higher rates would add about $3,000 to the total interest on a $23,000 student loan repaid over 10 years.

In fact, the rates will double to nearly 7%.  However, those $3k are mostly partisan hype: they work out to an extra $12.50 per month on the loan payment for graduates with jobs.  Oh, wait….

On the other hand,

In May, House Republicans passed a bill that would index rates on new loans to the rate on 10-year Treasurys (currently about 2.6%), plus 2.5 per centage points, with an 8.5% cap.  But with little Democratic support in the Senate, that bill is dead in the water.

Thus, the Senate Progressives are perfectly willing to burn students and their loans because these self-important Democrats couldn’t get their way.

Then there’s this minor set of details, courtesy of Glenn Harlan Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee, in that same Wall Street Journal op-ed:

According to an extensive 2012 analysis by the Associated Press of college graduates 25 and younger, 50% are either unemployed or in jobs that don’t require a college degree.  Then there are the large numbers who don’t graduate at all.  According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, more than 40% of full-time students at four-year institutions fail to graduate within six years.  The National Center for Education Statistics reports that almost 75% of community-college students fail to graduate within three years.  Those students don’t have degrees, but they often still have debt.

And

Now here’s where the real immorality kicks in.  The skyrocketing cost of a college education is a classic unintended consequence of government intervention.  Colleges have responded to the availability of easy federal money by doing what subsidized industries generally do: Raising prices to capture the subsidy.  Sold as a tool to help students cope with rising college costs, student loans have instead been a major contributor to the problem.

In the end, the way to work the student debt problem is to reduce the need for the borrowing: get school costs down to saner levels.  Reynolds suggested a way:

Remove the incentives for universities to accept government-subsidized student-loan money regardless of a student’s prospects of graduation or gainful employment.

To which I add the following:

  • the schools shouldn’t receive the subsidized loan monies—i.e., the schools would have to be reimbursed after the fact—until the borrowing student has actually graduated and begun working
  • subsidized loan monies—taxpayer funds—should not be available at all except to students in majors that have serious prospects of bettering our nation’s strength and prosperity (stated differently, making better off the taxpayers on the hook for those monies).  STEM majors would qualify; Gender, Women’s, and Sexual Studies majors or majors in General Literary Studies need not apply.

Naturally, Progressives will have a herd of cattle over such criteria; money grows on the trees of the rich, after all.  Too bad.

“All of the Above” is just Obamatalk

Posted on by
Reply

Kelly David Burke has the sorry tale in a recent Fox News article.

The Bush administration had set aside 1.3 million acres for oil shale and tar sands development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.  The new Bureau of Land Management plan cuts that amount by two-thirds, down to 700,000 acres….

I’ll elide Burke’s poor arithmetic—the 600,000 acre reduction amounts to a reduction of a bit under 50%–he is, after all, a journalist; his point remains valid: this is an enormous reduction in oil resource availability.

President Barack Obama’s BLM has its excusesrationale all lined up though.  It’s

…not against oil shale and tar sands development, but will restrict the amount of public lands available for leasing until the processes are proven, and proven safe.

Never mind that Canada has been successfully and safely extracting oil from shale and from tar sands for decades, and US companies have been extracting from shale for nearly as long with similar success and safety.

This is, in the end, just part of Obama’s effort to artificially suppress the price of otherwise unviable solar and wind energy sources with enormous subsidies and loans while trying to restrict the supply of oil (and gas) in an attempt to price these sources up into the stratospheric range of even the subsidized “green” energy…sources.

It’s all of a piece with his decision elsewhere to slow walk oil leases and drilling permits.

Rakoff Was Both Right and Victorious

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Federal District Judge Jed Rakoff’s decision a while ago rejecting an SEC-Citibank settlement, in which Citibank agreed to pay an enormous vigfine to the SEC in return for the latter’s desisting from harassinghectoring the former any further.  Rakoff’s heartburn concerned the lack of statement by either party of guilt or innocence by Citibank—Citi would simply pay the protectionfine and the SEC would stop its threats.

Now there’s an update to the SEC side of this.

The Securities and Exchange Commission intends to make companies and individuals admit wrongdoing as a condition of settling civil charges in certain cases, or be forced to fight the charges in court, the agency’s Chairman Mary Jo White said Tuesday.

Is this a direct result of Rakoff’s rudeness in holding out for actual culpability before a fine gets assessed?  Maybe, but not directly.  This change didn’t occur until after a review of the overall situation initiated by SEC Chairman Mary Jo White when she took over last spring.

It does, though, come after Rakoff’s argument that the ability to avoid admitting liability allows companies to treat settlements as just a “cost of doing business.”  He didn’t argue this explicitly, but I do: it also allows government agencies to extort money and other…concessions…from businesses and individuals with whom those agencies have a disagreement of any sort.  Sort of like the IRS and the DoJ do.

“Victorious” may be too strong, but this clearly is a step in the right direction.

Too Big to Handle

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before about the morality of government welfare as a first resort.  Here’s a practical reason for cutting back: it’s too big to manage effectively.  Here are some failures from that too big to handle:

A postal worker who ran marathons found her race times improved after she began drawing federal disability checks for an alleged back injury.

Another disabled federal employee went scuba diving, skied in Switzerland and did flips on a trapeze.  She spent part of her $193,000 in disability payments on a boat named “Free Ride” before she was caught.

A Justice Department lawyer collected $90,000 in annual disability checks after claiming the stress of his job kept him off the job.  Apparently the cable TV show he began hosting while drawing disability pay wasn’t so stressful.

And

15,000 recipients are 66 or older.  Six of them are over the age of 100—well past retirement age.

The Federal government compounds this by being disinterested in controlling the failures and the resulting waste of taxpayer wealth being redistributed.

funding for all agencies—about $3 billion per year—is automatically appropriated and run through the Department of Labor.

And

the federal [disability] program does not require employing agencies to order a second opinion. The claimant can pick his own doctor.

If his claim is rejected, he can file for a different disability, as often as he likes.

And

The Department of Labor, which administers FECA for 70 federal entities, doesn’t track fraud referrals and convictions[.]

The program is too large to be properly controlled, and it needs drastic paring back for economic and legal reasons as well as moral.

Farm Bill Fail

Posted on by
Reply

One of the more controversial provisions the Senate bill [a farm bill that will cost $955 billion if passed] covers is crop insurance.  In the past, farmers have been able to purchase an insurance safety net if their crops fail.  Under the bill, the government would kick in another $5 billion of insurance per year—bringing the total to $12 billion a year—which would cover the deductibles and cushion the blow farmers would have to pay.

And

The House version spends more money on crop insurance, but less for food stamps and conservation efforts.

No, the farm bill needs to eliminate the crop insurance aspect altogether (I’m ignoring here the food stamp wastage), not increase it or even maintain it.  Government has no business interfering with the private market, or protecting any business—including farmers—from the consequences of their decisions.  If the farmers want a safety net against crop failure—an eminently reasonable desire—they should be free to buy it on the open market from crop insurers competing for their business.

Americans, either as taxpayers or as farm customers, should not be forced to pay for farmers’ decisions except through market effects.