Category Archives: political economy

Federal Redistributions of State Funds

Posted on by
Reply

In response to Robert Poole’s Wall Street Journal bit about making some aspects of our infrastructure more affordable, a couple of folks wrote Letters to the Editor.  And so I have my own response.

[A]sset recycling is not about finding more efficient ways to modernize and expand infrastructure. It’s about raising money for cash-starved treasuries….

and

The solution is to allow all states to retain the federal gas tax generated by each state.

These are only half-solutions, though, if that much. Asset recycling and other ways to find efficiency need to take the whole of spending into account, not just spending on infrastructure. Treasuries are starved for cash because the governments spend way too much. Spending needs to be cut to within revenues collected.

Along that line, there shouldn’t be any gas tax (and very few other taxes collected intrastate) sent to the Federal government for redistribution in accordance with Federal politicians’ and bureaucrats’ whims. Those monies should be retained by each State for spending on that State’s imperatives, without the friction of the (even well-meaning) middleman.

This is Meeting a 2% Commitment?

Posted on by
Reply

This is a pretty ugly performance by what used to be a top-drawer defense establishment.

Germany’s Defense Ministry said on Wednesday that only 39 percent of large items, such as tanks and helicopters, delivered to the Bundeswehr in 2017 did not require improvement before deployment.

That’s against an already shockingly low goal of a 70% Operational Ready status for already delivered military equipment—like those tanks and helicopters.

And this:

Only 27 of the 71 Pumas delivered last year; half of the eight A400M delivered; two among seven Tiger combat helicopters; and four among seven NH90 transport helicopters, were operationally ready last year….
Among four new Eurofighter combat jets delivered in 2017, one could be used.

Germany’s Left Party parliamentarian Matthias Höhn is right that this, as paraphrased by Deutsche Welle, is:

a scandal that [German Minister of Defense Ursula] von der Leyen “tolerates this arms industry’ slovenliness at the cost of taxpayers.”

Is Germany really serious about its NATO commitments?

Fairness

Posted on by
Reply

Various nations around Europe and Asia are looking at ways to add to the tax burden on multinational technology companies doing business in those nations.

Bruno Le Maire, French Minister of the Economy and Finance, rationalized the movement this way:

It is a question of fairness.

Leave it to a European politician to not understand the concept.

No. Fairness is cutting taxes, not raising them, thereby leaving more of the citizens’ money in their hands.

Fairness is cutting spending.  This would greatly reduce Government’s crowding out pressures against citizens’ businesses through competition for “customers.” This also would greatly reduce Government’s competition for inputs to production, competition which drives up the cost of those inputs to private businesses.

Fairness is cutting spending especially to be less than tax revenue, reducing the need for Government borrowing and its twin outcomes: driving up the cost of money for private businesses and increasing the likelihood of future tax increases for both the citizens and their private businesses.

And this is the Europe our very own Progressive-Democrats want us to emulate.

Right Answer, Wrong Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling favorable to the State’s charter schools last Thursday.  The question before the court was whether those charter schools were violating the State’s constitution by receiving funding from the State’s lottery facilities.  Writing for the court, Justice Mary Yu wrote in plain words,

Charter schools are not rendered unconstitutional just because they do not operate identically to common school[.]

She expanded on that in addressing the plaintiffs’ argument that the charter schools lacked voter control, holding that, as The Seattle Times paraphrased her,

…”it makes sense” for charter schools not have local voter control because their funding source, unlike traditional schools, does not include local property tax levies.

Justice Barbara Madsen in dissent, wrote

They [charter schools] are not subject to local voter control and lack any direct accountability to the communities they purport to serve….

This is mistaken.  Charter schools are especially accountable to the communities “they purport to serve” because, unlike the case with public schools, those parents, those members of the served communities, those voters, easily can remove their children from a charter school and enroll them elsewhere.

Trade and the People’s Republic of China

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal wrote in its Thursday edition that the US was “refusing” to resume trade negotiations with the PRC until the latter made a formal offer to us.  That’s a bit of a misnomer, though, since there’s nothing about which to negotiate until the PRC makes an offer.  Absent that, any discussion about trade would be just idle musings over an afternoon tea, a whiling away of some time between more important things.

A couple of other things jumped out at me in that article, too.

For Beijing, making a formal offer presents a number of risks, according to individuals briefed by the Chinese. First, it would reveal their negotiating position. Second, Beijing fears that Mr Trump could make any offer public in a tweet or statement as a way to lock in any concessions by China.

First, honest negotiating requires positions being known to both participants.  If the PRC wants to keep its position hidden, it could only be to keep moving its demands, keep adjusting its goals as we make offers more and more in its direction.

Second, if the PRC doesn’t want to commit to this or that concession—or to any other aspect of its negotiating position—it doesn’t matter whether any of that is public.  The nation wants to be able to walk away from any of its negotiating commitments at its convenience, and that makes the PRC untrustworthy.

As the WSJ noted,

There is history behind Beijing’s concerns. During negotiations over China’s entry to the World Trade Organization in 1999, President Clinton turned down an offer by China’s premier at the time, Zhu Rongji, that included deep concessions and a reorganization of the Chinese economy. The Clinton administration made Mr Zhu’s offer public, hoping to prevent the Chinese from backsliding. Instead, Mr Zhu was pilloried at home by hard-liners, and it took months of negotiations to finally convince China to accept a deal similar to the one it initially offered.

There are two lessons from this bit of history that we still need to learn.  The first is that the PRC’s intent of walking away from its commitments even as they’re made—that hardliner pillorying—is a long-standing policy of dishonesty.  The second lesson is that, in the realization, the PRC walked away from that “similar deal;” it has no concessions from the deal extant and no serious reorganization of its economy even tried.

The Trump administration is wise to waste no time on empty negotiations over a chimera.  It’s chancy enough to negotiate a hard proposal with them, but that’s still infinitely preferable to negotiating PRC fog.