Tag Archives: economics

A Foolish Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has one.  She’s

proposing that large employers pay women on an equal basis with their male counterparts or face government fines, seeking a sweeping shift in the way the nation addresses pay inequity.

She wants to impose a 1% tax on “large” companies’ profit for every 1% disparity in pay.  The size of the disparity is an open question, though.  The favorite number of the Progressive-Democrats is that women are paid in the neighborhood of 70-75 cents for each dollar a man is paid for the same work; although the number Harris bandied was 80 cents.  That would make the Harris Payroll Tax run 20% or 25%-30% of profit.  The more valid, empirically derived number, though, puts that disparity between 0 and 7 cents less for the woman than the man, with a heavy lean toward the 7.  This more accurate number actually presumes to correct for time in the workforce, experience level on the job in question, and so on.

Beyond that, the Harris Payroll Tax is just plain bad finance.  Companies—small as well as large—pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wage they pay, and those same companies tie perks like health coverage, paid time off, bonuses, etc to the wage they pay.  An increase in wage would carry with it those added payroll costs.

It’d be cheaper for the companies to pay the Harris Payroll Tax than it would to raise the wage paid the woman.

Further, Harris would

put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination.

Because, typical of today’s Progressive-Democrats, we’re all guilty until proven innocent.  Especially when it’s difficult even to define the crime.

Trade Deals

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party has once again shown us its meld.

“It used to be Congress versus the administration; now it feels like the administration is at least coming around to the Republican point of view” on trade, a Democratic congressional aide said, adding that “it’s going to be hard for them to work with Democrats in a productive way.”

Never mind the Progressive-Democrats’ refusal to work with the White House or Republicans in a productive way.  “A productive way” means, as it always has, doing it the Progressive-Democrats’ way.

Take the present case.  The US, Mexico, and Canada have agreed to lift the metals and other tariffs the three had imposed on each other—per Progressive-Democrat demands.

It’s not enough.  Progressive-Democrats want to renegotiate the deal altogether because the labor parts of the agreement don’t suit them.  Never mind, here, that the agreement effectively mandates significant pay raises for Mexican workers.  Never mind, either, that the rules are supported by American unions.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and her cronies want to scuttle the Trumpian deal altogether.

It’ll never be enough.  It’s not just hard, it’s nearly impossible, to work with Progressive-Democrats in any productive way.

Trade Wars are Taxing

Posted on by
Reply

Indeed, they are, and the one the People’s Republic of China has been inflicting on us for years is especially so.  For the duration of the PRC’s economic war—of which its trade “war” is just one campaign—they’ve been conducting cyber espionage, stealing our intellectual property, extorting technology transfer as a condition of doing business inside the PRC, demanding government-approved backdoors into our companies’ core software as another condition of doing business there, even poisoning the powdered milk, pet food, and plywood they sell to us.

I sympathize with Farmer Blake Hurst and his fellows, but the sad fact is that no war is bloodless for either side, and often the winner suffers, in the near term, the greatest damage and casualties.  Beyond that simple fact, too, is this: the damage done Hurst, et al., is done by the PRC with its assault on our economy, it is not done by our resisting that assault.

So I ask: what’s the alternative? What would Hurst—and Progressive-Democrat naysayers (of which Hurst is not at all one)—have us do instead?

What if we lose this economic war?  How well does anyone think it would work out for us were the PRC to win and so to dominate?  What does anyone see as the benefit of a dominant PRC dictating terms to us?  Demanding not the transfer of our factories to them, but the transfer of our intellectual property and our technology to them?

A Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Je Biden gave a speech in Philadelphia Saturday at his first official rally.

I have some comments on excerpts from his speech—excerpts because he repeated a few themes time after time after time for 30 minutes.

Instead of debating our opponents, we demonize them.  Instead of questioning judgments, we question their motives.  Instead of listening, we shout.  Instead of looking for solutions, we look to score political points.  …  This politics is pulling us apart, ripping this country apart at the seams.  Our politics today traffic in division, and our President is the Divider in Chief.

This is textbook projection; it’s almost like he was looking in a mirror.  It’s been, after all, Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM who’ve smeared Tea Partiers as teabaggers; who’ve expressed their deep contempt for bitter gun and religion clingers in flyover country; who insist that Conservatives aren’t capable of the nuance of their Betters on the Left; who’ve expressed their hatred for millions of Americans as irredeemably deplorable homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, misogynists; who’ve called Republican Congressmen in discussions over the budget, national debt, and other topics hostage takers and terrorists (it was Biden, after all, who said it was like dealing with terrorists when working the debt ceiling some years ago).  It’s been Progressive-Democrats who smeared a Supreme Court Justice nominee and who currently are attacking an Attorney General.

Although there are exceptions, neither Conservatives nor Republicans have engaged or are engaging in these naked, baseless attacks on the character of those who disagree.

And

He’s just the worst practitioner in politics, that singles out, scapegoats, and demonizes. Holds out the other as the source of all our problems.  You hear it: the immigrants, the Muslims, anyone different in creed or color or conviction.  They’re the problem.  …  That’s been the scheme used by unscrupulous politicians for decades.

See above.  Add to it some additional facts.  It’s the Progressive-Democratic Party who’ve been pushing the modern segregationist policies of identity politics.  It’s members of the Progressive-Democratic Party in Congress—Omar and Tlaib, for instance—who actively spew anti-Semitic slurs, and it’s that same Progressive-Democratic caucus who flatly refused to censor those bigots and who, instead, pretended to express their opposition to bigotry with a deliberately watered, saccharine “condemnation” of bigotry generally.  It’s Party leadership who say no one can be a Democrat and oppose abortion—solidifying Party’s willingness to kill babies in the womb.

And

America guarantees everyone—and I mean everyone—will be treated with dignity.  America gives hate no safe harbor.

Indeed, we try.  It’s why we fought WWII, it’s why we resist the PRC’s assaults on our economy and its sub rosa assaults on the nations surrounding the South China Sea, it’s why we’re in the Middle East—so all of those folks could, and can, be treated with dignity in their own lands, however clumsy our efforts often are. It’s the Progressive-Democrat Party that wants us to retreat from our responsibilities.  Domestic dignity? It’s the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage that traps minorities; the rest of us want everyone—and I mean everyone—to have the chance to see to their own ends, their own prosperity, rather than having to hold their hands out for Party alms.

And

Folks, I’m running to offer our country—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—a different path.  Not back to a path that never was, but to a future that fulfills our true potential as a country.

Because, like another Progressive-Democrat, his BFF New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, says, we were never great.  This is a sentiment, a disdain for our past, that’s held also by Eric Holder.  It’s a position actively pushed by the Left in our schools, as they move to purge our Founders, removing monuments to them and erasing names and murals.  All because our Founders had feet of clay; they didn’t measure up to Progressive-Democrat purity.

And

[F]olks say Biden just doesn’t get it.  You can’t work with Republicans anymore.  That’s not the way it works anymore.  …  I know how to make government work.  …  I’ve worked across the aisle to reach consensus.  Helped make government work in the past.

Now he’s also living in his past.  It’s not that Progressive-Democrats can’t work with Republicans today—it’s that they refuse to work with Republicans.  They reneged on a deal that would stabilized the status of DACA recipients plus an additional million similarly situated aliens, then they refused even to discuss DACA in later efforts.  Biden’s Party refuses to discuss spending cuts, refuse to discuss permanentizing individual income tax cuts.  Biden’s Party refuses to discuss border security in any serious fashion.

His past?  It’s a past of fighting for ever higher taxes, ever higher spending.  It’s a past of pushing through Obamacare—there was consensus—and then bragging about what a big…deal it was.

Then Biden launched into a litany of his Progressive-Democratic Party progressive goals.  Recall, by the way, that he said some weeks ago that he was more Progressive than anyone else in the race.

Let me be real clear.  Everybody listen. Democrats and Republicans.  If I’m elected your President, I’m going to do whatever it takes to make progress on the matters that matter most: civil liberties; civil rights; voting rights; women’s right to choose; national security; personal security; health care; an economy that rewards work, not just wealth; a climate change policy that will save our children and grandchildren and this planet.

Like the pen and phone he’ll borrow from his mentor, Barack Obama, “whatever it takes” can only mean he’ll rule by fiat if he can’t get Congress to rubber stamp him.  Get Congress to bring our economy to ruin with the Green New Deal; destroy citizens’ votes by eliminating voter identification requirements so anyone—and I mean anyone—can vote; push abortion-on-demand, even at birth; reduce our national security with open, undefended borders and reduced defense spending; one-size-fits-all Government-run health care provision and health care pseudo-insurance; redistribution of hard-earned income through expanded welfare caging.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party’s leading candidate for President.

Modern Monetary Theory, Taxes, and Inflation

Posted on by
Reply

Japan is examining MMT in its debate over its upcoming sales tax increase [emphasis added].

Some members of Parliament, led by ruling conservative-party lawmakers, argue Japan doesn’t need higher taxes because the country’s inflation is less than 1%. The theory suggests tax increases are needed only when inflation is out of control.

Notice that: MMT says increasing taxes is a means of controlling inflation.  The idea is that taking money away from the citizens reduces demand and so inflationary pressure.  There are a couple of problems with this concept.  One is that government revenue gets spent so Keynes’ aggregate demand goes unchanged, except for a bit of Government-as-middle-man friction.

The other is that, as our own Progressive-Democratic Party annually demonstrates, lowering raised taxes (or simply lowering taxes) is deucedly hard to do.

I offer an alternative solution to combatting out of control inflation, or even inflation that is simply higher than we want it to be.

To the extent Government (I’m omitting the Federal Reserve System on the naïve theory that it is independent of Government machinations—it is intended to be) intervention is useful at all in combating inflation (that utility is not established), here’s an intervention technique that any modern Keynesian should love: instead of raising taxes, cut Government spending.  After all, goes the Keynesian song and dance, Government spending is stimulative, so the increased demand is inflationary.  Cutting the stimulus ought to reduce inflation.