Category Archives: markets

Thoughts on European Inflation and Tax Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Heise, Chief Economist at Allianz SE, had some in his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, but I want to focus on just a couple, for the mindset implied as he—and Europe’s politicians—address inflation and tax policy.

They [tax and ultralow-interest rate policies] encourage risk taking among investors searching for yield, potentially leading to malinvestment. They affect the distribution of income and wealth between the less affluent, who are most affected by low returns on bank deposits, and the wealthier, who tend to benefit most from rising share prices. Finally, perhaps most important, ultralow interest rates discourage savings for retirement and slow down the growth of existing pension assets.

“Ultralow rates encourage risk taking.” Yeah? And? That’s a business decision; no government need be—no government should be—involved in that. A free market will do a far better, far more efficient, with far prompter sanction application job of regulating risk taking businesses.

“Affect the distribution of income and wealth.” Yeah? And? To the extent such distributions can ever be bad, a free market is the best way to raise the prosperity of the least, and if the wealthy get wealthier, so what? The poor still are less poor. No government mandates or regulations can hope to match the prosperity creation that is freedom in the market.

“Ultralow interest rates discourage savings for….” This is true, and the ECB’s decision to artificially depress interest rates is negligently harmful to the poor, the retired, and those trying to save for retirement. Further, ECB and sovereign nation interferences in the market for debt instruments is purely political, and so it’s wholly unpredictable (who can tell when a politician will decide it’s in his interest to do something different?). That unpredictability seriously damages the ability of anyone to save for their future.

Tax policy shouldn’t be used for social engineering; optimally, it should be used only to fund basic government. The free market is a better place—more efficient, and faster acting—than government from which to regulate interest rates and risk. Even in social democrat Europe.

Economic Viability of Wind Energy

Posted on by
Reply

Tim Phillips, in The Wall Street Journal, quoted Christopher Flavin, of the Worldwatch Institute, as saying in 1984,

Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.

It’s been a few years. It’s been 30 years’ worth of “few.”

In all, wind energy “generators” get $56.29 per MW-Hr in Federal subsidies. To put that in perspective, natural gas gets $0.64, and nuclear power $3.14.

These guys are free-loading off you and me, and it’s time to put a stop to it. They need to stand or fall in the free market: if their technology is ready for prime time, they’ll have no trouble. If their technology isn’t—after 30 years—they’ve had enough of our prop-up money.

Cut off the subsidies—or more accurately, do not renew them (they expired in 2013) with finality. While the new Congress is about it, it should cut off those natural gas subsidies (those for oil, too, even though they’re similarly just walking around money) and the nuclear energy subsidies, also.

The free market is a much better watchdog for energy production than the Federal government ever can hope to be, no matter how honest or diligent those bureaucrats and regulators might be.

Why the PRC Cannot Succeed Economically

Posted on by
Reply

…and why it’s feeling the need to go out from the Center of Heaven and seize the East and South China Seas, to expand into the Siberian oil and mineral fields (this time peacefully, but no less to the detriment of Russia), why it steals intellectual property.

One interview with an environmental engineering student at Tsinghua University stuck with me. His parents grew wealthy by building companies that made shoes and water pumps. But he had no desire to follow in their footsteps—and they didn’t want him to either. Better that he work for the state, they told him: the work was more secure, and perhaps he could wind up in a government position that could help the family business.

There’s more in the article, but this pretty much is the sum and total of it.

Economics and the AP

Posted on by
Reply

The backdrop is this: last spring, Japan enacted a tax hike in an effort to start covering its public debt and bring that under control for the benefit of the Japanese economy and the Japanese citizen. The country promptly fell into recession as even more money was taken out of the citizens’ hands, removed from the private sector of the economy. As a result of this, Prime Minister “Shinzo Abe called a snap election for December and put off a sales tax hike planned for next year until 2017.”

Here’s the AP’s lack of understanding of basic economics, as demonstrated on the other side of the link above.

Japan needs more tax hikes to get its swollen government debt under control, but the April tax increase, to 8% from 5%, crushed consumer and business spending.

Their own statement ignores both the nature of debt and reason the current Japanese national debt is so far out of hand (an error the present American administration has been making for these last six years). Debt is created by borrowing, which is the result of spending more than income. Certainly one way to address that is by increasing income: in (the Japanese) government’s case, by raising taxes. That well, though, can only be gone to so much, as the AP illustrates without understanding. Raising taxes takes money away from the employers and employees—the folks who power any economy by buying stuff and so creating demand for producers of stuff, who produce more stuff, and so hire more folks, and so…. After a point, too much money is taken out of the economy through taxes, and the thing stalls—as Japan’s economy has just done, from last spring’s tax bump.

The other way to address national debt, though, is to stop borrowing by stopping spending so much. This is the step the AP has demonstrated, via that quote above, that it does not understand.

If Japan wants to get its government under control, if Abe and his Liberal Democrats want to break Japan out of its new recession and its decades-long stagnation, they need to reduce spending below current revenues, not attempt to raise revenues above current spending. This is necessary for two reasons. One is that the latter is open-ended: there is no incentive to cap spending; spending always will rise, necessitating ever increasing taxes.

The other reason is one I keep harping on. Taking money out of the private sector, out of the hands of the drivers of economies, stunts the economy. Taking money out of the private sector and using government to spend it creates a vicious circle: it crowds out the private economy and, keeping the money out of the private economy, government spending shrinks the private economy even further.

And this claim by the AP:

Eventually, Japan must boost taxes to cover rising costs for health and elder care in this aging society.

No. Japan must reduce taxes and reduce spending even further, thereby letting the resulting robust and growing economy generate the money to cover those costs.

One last bit of understanding lack, this time by Abe, but a thing about which the AP writes approvingly is this:

Abe reportedly plans to announce tens of billions of dollars in new stimulus….

This is just more spending and borrowing, though. Look for it to fail as completely as have the repeated spendulus episodes our own administration has inflicted on us these last six years.