Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Some Labor Questions

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal asked these on Labor Day, and supplied some answers.  Here are some of those questions and answers.

  • Q: How are America’s workers doing? Not good. Over the past decade, over the ups and downs of the economy, taking inflation into account, the compensation of the typical worker — wages and benefits—basically haven’t risen at all. … The Labor Department recently said that 6.1 million workers in 2009-2011 have lost jobs that they’d had for at least three years. Of those, 45% hadn’t found work as of January 2012. … Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday that unemployment is still two percentage points higher than normal….
  • Q: Things ARE getting better, though. The U.S. economy is creating jobs, right?  Back in December 2007 when the recession began, there were about two jobless workers for every job opening.  When the economy touched bottom in mid-2009, there were more than six unemployed for every job.  At last count, the BLS says there were 3.4 jobless for every opening.
  • Q: How much of this elevated unemployment is because the unemployed just don’t have the skills that employers are looking for right now?  Some.  …the bulk of the evidence is a lot of the unemployment really is the old-fashioned kind: the kind that would go away if the economy was growing at a stronger pace. Mr. Bernanke said as much at the Jackson Hole conference….

The Democratic Presidential Candidate has taken a bad situation and done little to improve it.  He has, though, actively attacked businesses—the hirers—demonizing them, (over)regulating them, demanding to raise taxes on them.

Tomorrow

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll kick the habit tomorrow.  I promise.  I need to get ready, get my mind right, build up to the effort.

That’s what Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama said last Sunday about his spending addiction.  Speaking through his senior campaign advisor, David Axelrod, on “Fox News Sunday,” he said,

You can’t balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy.

What an awesome display of economic ignorance, even for someone who’s never worked in a real economy in his life.

The economy isn’t already ratcheted down?  With 23 million Americans still out of work or actively underemployed (as in, scratching with part-time jobs, but wanting full-time work)?  With fewer Americans employed today than at the start of his term?  With unemployment above 8% for his entire term?  With a “recovery” since that Panic’s definitional end in early 2009 the worst in American history?  With the Obama tax increases and the rest of his “taxmageddon” set to hammer us in a shade over three months?  With three years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits?  With the nation’s debt $5 trillion larger—one-third larger—than at the start of his term?

Then Obama insisted, again using Axelrod’s mouth, that he’s created 4.3 million jobs since the Panic.  Never mind that while accepting that figure there remain those fewer Americans employed today than then.  Never mind that Obama continues to decline to offer any evidence that he’s responsible for those “added” jobs, that they were not added by what would otherwise be an ordinary business cycle recovery, suppressed by his policies.

Obama insisted, also (through Axelrod, again), that our auto industry was “saved” by his bailout.  Never mind that of the seven major car companies in the American auto industry (GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan—all of which import their constituent parts from overseas, and all of which assemble those parts in their plants in the US), only two took his bailout money, and those two are still suffering under significant government ownership.  The other five car companies—albeit generally without significant union employment, and so not in league with Obama—didn’t need “help” at all; the industry was never at risk.  And never mind that had GM and Chrysler been allowed to go through bankruptcy, they would have recovered much faster, without government encumbrances, and without stiffing senior creditors in favor of Obama’s unions.

If the time to balance the budget isn’t now, then when will it be time?  Oh, yeah.  Tomorrow.  I just need another day.

(Over)regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an example, from The Des Moines Register.  Federal banking and mortgage company employment “guidelines,” issued in May 2011 and February 2012, respectively, require these institutions to not employ

executives and mid-level bank employees guilty of transactional crimes, like identity fraud or mortgage fraud.

Fear of Federal litigation, though, has driven these enterprises to apply the regulations across the board to all employees, even the most junior.  Natasha Buchanan, an attorney with Higbee & Associates in Santa Ana, CA notes that

Banks are afraid of the FDIC and the penalties they could face[.]

The results include this one, involving a customer service rep making the princely sum of $30,000 per year.  Richard Eggers is a 68-year-old Vietnam veteran with a conviction, 50 years ago, of using a cardboard dime to try to fool a washing machine in a Laundromat.  He spent two days in jail way back then, and he’s been an upstanding citizen ever since, including that tour in Vietnam.

Now it’s true enough that the FDIC, for instance, has a waiver process that (fired) employees can follow, but it’s a six month-to-a-year effort that might end in denial. Even with gaining a waiver, though, six months is a long time for a low-wage ex-employee to be without a job, especially when it’s caused by Uncle Sugar.  The FDIC also has an “automatic waiver” that supposedly works “faster,” but it’s limited to people sentenced to less than year in jail and who never actually were locked up.  Those two days disqualify Eggers even from this government largess.

This has got to be stopped.

Who Built That?

Posted on by
1

A private enterprise built the car—a Ford—that I drive.  Private enterprise drilled the oil well for the oil, private enterprise refined the oil into gasoline, private enterprise shipped the gasoline to my local filling station—itself a private enterprise.

Private individuals, and collections of private individuals—businesses—built all of those.  And it was my own private industry that enabled me to earn the wherewithal to buy my Ford.

I built that.  All of us in that chain can say that.

Now, it’s true enough that infrastructure facilitated all of that.  It’s nice to have decent bridges and paved roads on which to drive my car and on which those fuel shippers could drive their trucks.  It’s good to have a communications system (vis., the Internet, a technology developed by a private enterprise to solve an internal data management problem) through which to talk with others and do some research enabling me to choose the car I’d end up buying.  It’s nice to have a set of laws that enables these private enterprises to compete with each other in a fair way, free of the depredations of brigands.

From where did this infrastructure come, though?  Some have insisted that Government built that.  Private individuals, private enterprise, had nothing to do with any of that.  More, that without that Government-provided infrastructure, private effort would have been impossible, and so by extension, I—and you—didn’t build our companies, either.

But without the desire to have a car, without private enterprise providing that long chain of support for the car, there would be no demand—and so no need—for that infrastructure.  Private enterprise—I, and all the other private entities—created that need.

Private enterprise built the roads and communications networks, and all the other infrastructure items.  Not the Navy’s Seabees, not the Army’s Corps of Engineers, not the USAF’s Civil Engineers—none of these were out there building that.  Those were private construction firms and private communications companies building that.

That legal system?  The courts are manned by individuals, not some nebulous “government” thingie, albeit those individuals are government employees.  Private individuals, choosing to lead for a time public, political lives, deliberate and enact the laws of that legal system.  They’re elected—and fired—by private individuals voting at the polls.

But surely government paid for all that.  No.  Government has no money of its own; it has only the money we private individuals and our private enterprises allocate to government in our tax payments.  It’s our privately originating money, pooled for the purpose, that paid for the construction of that infrastructure.  And that pays the salaries of those government employees and elected politicians.

Government didn’t build anything; it just acted as middle man for a small part of all that private building.

A Tax Reform Idea

Posted on by
1

Close, but no cigar.  Here are some ideas that are being kicked around.

…the president is pushing for tax incentives for making products, especially high-tech ones, in the US.  He also wants more focused federal research programs, including funds for new privately run institutes to study advanced manufacturing techniques.

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D, MI):

…legislation that would give tax breaks to help companies cover the cost of moving production back to the US and ban tax deductions for the expenses of moving operations abroad.

Congressman David Cicilline (D, RI):

…federal grants to help companies upgrade equipment and retrain workers.

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has these:

…repealing “excessive” regulation in such areas as environmental protection.  He also wants to require secret ballots for union-certification votes, which might make it harder for organized labor to win.”

The Democrats want Big Government solutions—that are careful to keep government’s hands in business’ pockets—and solutions that simply make an already excessively convoluted tax code even more so.  Romney’s ideas don’t even address the tax question; although they would help business.

No.  Instead of that claptrap, simplify and reduce.

Get rid of the tax subsidies.  Get rid of the tax credits.  Get rid of business regulations that do not actively support productivity improvement or enforce contract law—contracts between businesses and suppliers, businesses and customers, business management and business employees.

Lower—if not eliminate—tax rates on businesses.  They’re not the ones paying the taxes, anyway; their customers pay them in the form of higher prices, so that a tax on business is simply a second tax on private American citizens.  Including those 50% who pay little to no income tax of their own; including seniors who have only a fixed income with which to pay for their necessities.