Category Archives: political economy

Managed Economies and Real Estate

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China offers a demonstration of the…complexities…involved in centrally managed a national economy, and the risks to those who attempt to operate in such an environment.

The present example centers on the Chinese real estate market.

Real estate was once one of the nation’s most successful industries. [D]evelopers plowed billions of dollars into huge developments—with apartments, commercial space, pools and golf courses—outside top-tier cities such as Beijing and Shanghai.

Now, having been drawn in by expansive government policies, those players are being damaged, if not destroyed, by that same government changing its rules.

Policies enacted since 2010 include restrictions on the purchase of second homes, higher down payments and tighter credit [, and] China’s two-year push to drive down property prices has punished many of the nation’s once highflying property developers and stymied a number of upscale projects.

And so we have this:

Today, the Xi Shui Dong development [for example, a 59-acre complex in Wuxi] stands less than half complete, hamstrung by its parent company’s high debt and tough new government restrictions. Last year, unit sales fell 25% from 2010, despite steep discounts. Construction cranes loom over mostly empty streets boasting only a handful of retailers.

Real estate developers are victims of the vagaries and capriciousness of government control over the nation’s real estate sector—controls which change as government changes its mind unpredictably, and as new members of government, anxious to make their own mark, decide they have a Better Idea and push it through.

Energy Then and Now

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been going back through a book I first read 30 years ago, the National Academy of Sciences’ Energy in Transition 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems.

At this point I’m less interested in specific predictions (over a future 25 year period?) than I am in the thinking and policies espoused by the NAS (and later by a variety of government administrations, as it will have turned out) to achieve the report’s goal of reduced energy consumption by the US.  Thus, the book leads off with this (remember, this is a 1980 copyright):

Slowing the growth of energy demand will be essential, regardless of the supply options developed in the coming decades.  In fact, the demand element of the nation’s energy strategy should be accorded the highest priority.  …this reduction could be accelerated by such explicit government policies as taxes and tariffs on energy and standards for performance….  [G]rowth of demand for energy in this country could be reduced substantially…by price-induced shifts toward less energy-intensive goods and services.

So much for recovering our manufacturing capacity.  The NAS continued [emphasis added]:

A major conclusion…is that technical efficiency measures alone could reduce the [energy/GNP [the earlier measure of US economic output]] ratio to as little as half its present value….  (This conclusion is sensitive to the prices assumed in the analysis,…result of this magnitude is attained only if prices…increase more rapidly than probable in a market at equilibrium.)

In some cases the price increases necessary…would have to be secured by taxes that would open up a wedge between consumer prices and the cost of producing and delivering energy.

The NAS had this to say about the impact of such measures [again, my emphasis]:

To avoid economic penalties, the rate of replacement must generally depend on the normal turnover of capital stock…though rising energy prices will accelerate this turnover in most cases.

“Normal turnover,” carefully manipulated by government interference with free market pricing through those taxes and tariffs and standards.

The real problem is finding a new balance between energy supply and energy demand, consistent with generally satisfactory overall economic performance. …

Tax, tariff, and price control policies…are important influences on the demand for energy.  But energy consumption can also be molded directly—for example, by imposition of mandatory standards for the efficiency of energy-using equipment….

Here is the NAS’ endorsement of economic management from the center—from government—preferring that to the clutter of a market of free actors freely interacting; i.e., we individual Americans acting in our own self-interest, unfettered by government, and achieving our own balance and defining for ourselves our “generally satisfactory performance.”  A free market at equilibrium is not to be tolerated.

Does any of this sound familiar in today’s political (I hesitate to say economic) environment?

A Wise and Practical Man

Posted on by
Reply

What he said.

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing today to urge your Administration to take overdue but necessary action to confront soaring gasoline prices. In the last three years, gas prices have doubled, draining the disposable income of millions of hardworking Americans. In 2011, the typical U.S. household already spent $4,155 on gasoline, almost 10 percent of their income. Yet some analysts now predict prices may rise this year to more than $5.00 per gallon.

In a speech this Thursday, you stated that “there are no quick fixes to this problem. You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.” While we should explore a variety of energy resources—most especially those which do not put taxpayer dollars at risk—I respectfully disagree that we cannot utilize our remarkably vast untapped energy reserves to provide Americans with much-needed relief. I reject the defeatist view that says the nation that won two world wars, pioneered space travel, and overcame the Soviet Empire is now helpless in the face of high prices at the pump. We are not at the mercy of dictators, cartels, and events beyond our control.

Simply by removing the bureaucratic barriers imposed by your own administration we can begin to make progress. But we can go much further than that. Powerful action to harness America’s untapped oil and gas resources would place downward pressure on prices and speculation in the short-run and, by surging global supply, would serve to keep prices low in the future. Crucially, it would also provide millions of Americans with good-paying private-sector jobs; produce substantial royalties for local, state, and federal governments; reduce our enormous trade imbalance; and put an end to our huge wealth transfer from America to competitors oversees.

I therefore recommend the following proposals for immediate implementation:

1. Restore the bipartisan 2010–2015 offshore lease plan to ensure that the 31 lease sales called for in that plan are completed expeditiously. Your Administration only directed one lease sale in 2011 and has announced just one lease sale for 2012, far short of the number of sales that would have occurred over this period under the original 2010–2015 plan that your Administration discarded.

2. Take all necessary steps to accelerate the leasing and permitting process for domestic shale oil production. The United States has recoverable shale oil reserves estimated at 800 billion to 1.2 trillion barrels, meaning our nation has potentially three to four times more recoverable oil than any other country in the world except Canada.

3. Maximize energy production from federal lands. As I and 21 other Senators noted in a January 25, 2012 letter to you, actual oil production on federal lands is now just 714 million barrels per year, a 16 percent decline from what was projected just five years ago. This decline must be reversed.

4. End the de facto moratorium on permitting for offshore oil and gas production.

5. Direct the EPA, the Department of Energy, and other federal agencies to grant all necessary waivers and approvals to oil and gas refineries to facilitate maximum production at minimum cost. Refinery expenses comprise 11 percent of the price for gasoline that Americans pay at the pump, but your Administration has imposed numerous regulations that have driven refining costs up, not down.

6. Abandon your proposal to increase taxes and fees levied on U.S. energy production by more than $40 billion. These additional costs would be passed along to consumers, taking money out of their pockets and discouraging needed domestic production.

7. Approve the Keystone XL pipeline and grant necessary waivers, licenses, and permits, where possible, to ensure expedited completion of this important North American energy project. The pipeline would carry 700,000 barrels a day to U.S. refineries, which is nearly half what the U.S. currently imports from the entire Middle East.

America has the potential to fundamentally shift the balance of power in global energy production—to produce more energy, more efficiently and more cheaply, than your Administration has recognized. Such bold steps will broadcast an unmistakable signal to the world that not only places downward pressure on prices in the near-term but helps deliver a future of abundant, affordable energy. Moreover, unlike costly short-term stimulus, achieving energy independence would provide long-term relief to both struggling families and our indebted treasury.

I look forward to working with you on this important matter.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Sessions
U.S. Senator

Hmm….

Do We Really Need This Sort of Thing?

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, according to The Wall Street Journal, is looking at the development of a system that could replace both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose continued financial existence is an open question.

Given the lack of coherence in Congressional or Executive support for reform in this arena (beyond agreeing that “something” ought to be done “real soon now”), the FHFA wants to maintain flexibility in its own views of how deeply the government should support the $10.3 trillion mortgage market.

One of the things the FHFA is considering is combining the several forms of mortgage-backed securities (all those MBS, CMOs, etc. of not-so-long-ago fame) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac write into a single, standardized (mortgage-backed) security that each would issue.  The idea is that with this single instrument issued by both, it would be easier to eliminate both FMs in favor of a single agency.  Simplification is a step in the right direction, but this seems just a variation on a theme, and not real reform—it would retain the concept of a government agency in the mortgage business.

Another option under consideration is the transfer of mortgage portfolio responsibility to a third-party investment firm, but FHFA says that doing this would likely be more expensive and come at higher risks for the regulator.   But this perpetuates the myth that a government regulator should be involved at all.

In the meantime, in the administration’s usual vague manner, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner “pledged to lay out more detail on the administration’s approaches to reforming the U.S. housing finance system this spring.”

Why not carry out real reform, and get government out of the housing market entirely, while freeing the lenders to lend according to actual risk assessments, with no favoritism forced for government-approved groups of borrowers?

Obama’s Tax Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Wednesday morning, Fox News predicted a wonderful new tax plan from the administration:

…long-awaited corporate tax reform plan on Wednesday, lowering the top income-tax rate for corporations to 28 percent from 35 percent while eliminating deductions.

Corporations with overseas operations would also face a minimum tax on their foreign earnings, new tax benefits would be given to incentivize U.S. manufacturers while taxes on oil and gas companies would reportedly see their taxes go up while losing many large deductions and subsidies.

Now we can see what President Obama actually is proposing.  Although he offers to lower the top corporate rate from 35% to 28%—and that’s the headline—the proposal represents a net tax increase.

Moreover, he wants to make permanent his tax credits and other subsidies for his favored “green” energy products; although in a cynical offering to conservatives, the proposed Obamatax also contains the Santorum manufacturer’s tax subsidy.  Obama never seems to understand that if a product, company, or industry can’t compete on a level playing ground—in an actual free market—that product, company, or industry isn’t ready for market at all.

Along these lines of special treatments according to whether Obama approves or disapproves of an industry, the Obamatax would eliminate oil and gas tax preferences (while maintaining those “green” subsidies).  This, though, will drive up gasoline prices and home (and business) heating costs—and those manufacturers’ energy costs—to the detriment of our struggling economy and of the Americans trying to get by in it.  Despite this, the subsidies should, indeed, be gotten rid of, but the “green” subsidies should be eliminated, too.  With a truly level playing field, the effects will spike and ripple quickly, and costs ultimately will stabilize at lower levels from the overall simplification and the lack of “green” costs being absorbed by the oil and gas—and all other—industries and energy consumers.

The Obamatax applies a tax to business’ overseas profits, a first in American history—and a dramatic increase in the taxes owed by American businesses.  The administration justifies this with claims like:

If foreign earnings of U.S. multinational corporations are not taxed at all, these firms would have even greater incentives to locate operations abroad or use accounting mechanisms to shift profits out of the United States[.]

On the other hand, Intel, just to take one example, earns 85% of its revenue from its overseas computer chip and other manufacturing facilities—facilities that are devastatingly expensive to build or operate here.  Now Intel’s overseas profits will be taxed.  Since Intel makes its money overseas, though, why would it want to remain a US-headquartered corporation under the Obamatax regime?

There’s also the small matter of who gets this tax “cut.”  It isn’t the sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter S, and so on firms whose profits are passed on to the business’ owners, who then pay ordinary income taxes on that passed through income.  Obama’s own IRS data indicate that over half of American business income is earned by these “noncorporate” companies.  But that needn’t concern an administration bent on raising taxes any way it can get away with.

True to form (this form is not unique to the present administration), the Obamatax dictates to businesses what their policies and paradigms must be.  It intends to eliminate “last in first out” accounting, disallow the use of life-insurance policies as a tax shelter, tax carried interest as ordinary income, and eliminate depreciation for corporate aircraft (this last is chump change, but it’s an important bone for the President’s base).  Even more intrusively, though, the Obamatax interferes with debt financing decisions by reducing the deductibility of interest on business’ borrowings.

There’s the underlying mindset, too.  The Obamatax justifies the “minimum tax on foreign earnings” by saying it would

discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.

as if low taxes, or having the lowest taxes globally, is somehow bad.  As if it’s really the government’s money, and they’ll magnanimously let our companies have what government deems appropriate.

In touting this tax change (it’s hardly a reform), Secretary Geithner said that the overhaul should be fiscally responsible (the Obama definition of “responsible,” of course) and,

A key test of any reform should be whether the net impact of the changes improves the incentives for investing in the United States.

If he really meant that, why is this the proposal?  Answer: he really does believe it; the proposal’s structure simply displays, again, the administration’s breathtaking lack of understanding of economics.

Obama is masquerading this as a tax cut, but it’s plainly another of his tax increases, and it’s commensurately hard on our already weakened economy.  It’s a good idea to lower the tax rate, and it’s a good idea to eliminate (though reductions are a good start) tax credits, loopholes, subsidies, and the like.  But these must be across the board—no company or industry should be getting special government treatment, good or bad.