Category Archives: markets

This is News?

Posted on by
Reply

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday urged Britain and the European Union to manage their divorce responsibly for the sake of global markets and citizens….

Kerry said

The most important thing is that all of us, as leaders, work together to provide as much continuity, as much stability, as much certainty as possible[.]

Empty remarks by the motorboat skipper who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair.  After all, what else would he say—that the EU and Great Britain should go for each other’s throats, and the first slash wins?

On the other hand, after President Barack Obama threatened the Brits should they go against their Betters and vote to leave, maybe this is news.

Boeing, Iran, and Aircraft Sales

Posted on by
1

Iran reportedly reached an agreement Sunday to buy 100 planes from Boeing, pending the final authorization from US Treasury officials.

These are passenger aircraft, ostensibly destined for Iranair and other Iranian airline companies.

There are a couple of questions about this deal, though.  One is where will the money (in the neighborhood of $17 billion) come from with which Iran will pay for these aircraft?  Who will lend Iran the money?

The second question has more dire possibilities.  Regardless of Boeing’s motives (and I do not doubt them), in the end, these are fundamentally transport aircraft.  What assurances can there be that Iran won’t turn them over to their military for transport of equipment and soldiers, whether to support Iranian military adventurism (Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, for instance) or to support Iranian terrorist clients (Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance)?

Laughingstock

Posted on by
Reply

The Pentagon held a video-teleconference with Russian defense officials Saturday, two days after Russia bombed Pentagon and CIA-backed rebels not once, but twice on Thursday near Syria’s border with Iraq and Jordan.

And especially [emphasis added]

The second wave of strikes occurred after the US military called Russia on an emergency byline established following Russia’s deployment of dozens of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Syria in late 2015.

This is how seriously Russia takes President Barack Obama’s (d) administration.  This is the contempt Vladimir Putin has for this President and for Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her Reset that she wants to extend.  A Reset that is too expensive, indeed.

Elections have consequences.

States Competing for Corporations

Posted on by
Reply

Competition is at the heart of America’s economic success, but not every type of contest benefits society.  Consider the growing trend of businesses cajoling states and politicians to compete for who can dole out the most corporate welfare.  It’s especially frustrating because there are already plenty of ways to promote job growth without robbing taxpayers.

And

States could start with eliminating tax carve outs and replacing them with lower-overall tax rates and lighter regulatory burdens.  Federal lawmakers could also do their part by lowering America’s highest-in-the-developed-world corporate tax rate.

And

Embracing these policies would protect taxpayers…multinational firms with multimillion-dollar profit margins.

You bet.  Lower-tax rate policies, among other things, would directly increase those entities’ profit margins by reducing the size of a cost center.  They also would let these entities lower their prices (if only slightly), which would increase their sales (if only slightly), which would then increase their profits if not their profit margins.

In the end, States compete better on the basis of who has the lower tax and regulatory rates over all rather than who gets to the better carve-outs and special treatments.  In fact, the carve-out/treatment path, among other things, leads to an enormously byzantine tax structure within which it’s increasingly difficult to measure which State’s carve-outs/treatments are better.

The Fed’s Rule by Fiat

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Reserve officials strongly signaled they will be toughening big-bank capital requirements even further than they have since the 2008 crisis, a move that will further increase pressure on the largest US banks to consider shrinking.

Fed governors Daniel Tarullo and Jerome Powell, in separate public comments Thursday, said the Fed will require eight of the largest US banks to maintain even more capital to pass the central bank’s annual “stress tests.”

Notice that they’re acting by rule and moving sharply away from their knitting, which is to concern themselves with maintaining price stability and full employment.  With this rule, they’re nakedly broadening their interference in the free market place.

Here’s Tarullo:

“Effectively this will be a significant increase in capital,” Mr Tarullo said on Bloomberg television.  He recently said in an interview that he expected big banks to have to change their size, organization, or business model in response to the Fed’s regulatory moves.

Never mind that a business’ size, organization, or business model are solely the decision of the business’ owners—private citizen shareholders—and not the interest of any government in a truly free market economy.

Here’s Powell:

“I have not reached any conclusion that a particular bank needs to be broken up or anything like that,” he said.  The point is to “raise capital requirements to the point at which it becomes a question that banks have to ask themselves.”

This is disingenuous.  When it’s government rather than owners forcing the question onto a business, it’s government dictating the answer.  Especially when using this sort of tool for the forcing.  Capital requirements and associated risk handling are solely the decision of the business’ owners—private citizen shareholders—and not the interest of any government in a truly free market economy.  Assessment of the outcomes of those decisions are solely the province of the business’ owners, customers, and a free market; they are no concern of government.

Of course these two and their fellow Fed Governors know this.  The move, though, is consonant with the Left’s general move toward ever larger government with ever larger intrusions into private affairs, driven by their ideology that Government is the answer, and where it fails the proper corrective action is to increase Government.