Tag Archives: economics

Domestic Protectionism

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois State Congressman Michael Zalewski (D), after consulting heavily with General Motors, wants car makers to be able to operate self-driving taxis—which, of course, those same car makers would make.

However.

His bill, introduced February 8, would limit access to the business to companies that make their own vehicles. That means GM would be eligible, but not tech companies like Uber Technologies Inc that are developing their own self-driving cars and don’t make their own vehicles.

Nor would Google be allowed in.  Or Lyft, were they to want to get into the business.  Or an IBM, should it want to build a Watsonmobile.  Or….

After falling behind in self-driving cars, GM has unleashed its powerful lobbying team to cultivate relationships with statehouses. The largest US vehicle maker by sales has a long history of backing legislation to preserve its interests, including a bill in Indiana last year that would stop electric-vehicle maker Tesla Inc from operating its own stores there.

What a surprise.

Of course, GM is denying ulterior motives, but this is just internal protectionism—anti-competitive and monopolistic.  Rather than competition pushing car companies to produce better cars, including self-driving ones, the fearful ones like GM are pushing to squelch competition.

It’s no wonder that a bare nine years ago GM was facing bankruptcy up close and personal.

Immigration—Whose Rights?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Mexican Secretary of Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo, on the question of whether NAFTA should be renegotiated:

Logically, there wouldn’t be incentives to continue collaborating on the issues most important to national security in North America, such as the issue of migration[.]

And this:

[T]he Trump administration’s effort to step up deportations have already prompted an aggressive campaign by some Mexican officials, governors and public figures to fight the policy by jamming up US immigration courts.

That particular bit of business has been noted earlier.

Because foreign individuals or those who are part of a flow of migrants have their own right to enter another country, or to be in another country, just because they want to or are on the move?

This is, in many respects, the obverse of my piece yesterday: does a foreign national retain his home country’s rights when he’s inside the US (for instance, Mexico has made it illegal to prevent a Mexican citizen from leaving Mexico)?  Does a foreign national have an intrinsic right to be in our country, independently of our wishes, even our law?

Note to Self: Delete notes to self before publishing a piece.

The Left Gives the Game Away

Posted on by
Reply

Again.  Buried at the bottom of a Wall Street Journal piece on the auto industry’s effort to get the Obama administration’s last-minute (almost literally) attempt to make permanent fuel standards (also last minute because the underlying research wasn’t even going to be complete until 2018) is this rationale from Roland Hwang, at the National Resources Defense Council’s Director, Energy & Transportation Program, as paraphrased by the WSJ.

relaxing standards could hurt Americans depending on clean-car technology jobs.

Because EPA regulations are all about creating jobs and not about mitigating pollution.

Foolish

Posted on by
1

Bill Gates, the co-founder of  Microsoft and world’s richest man, said in an interview Friday that robots  that steal human jobs should pay their fair share of taxes.

He said, and he was serious,

Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, Social Security tax, all those things.  If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level.

No, I wouldn’t.  Leave aside his blithe assumption that that money is the government’s in the first place, and not the property of the human worker.  Leave aside his blithe assumption that the government needs the money.  Leave aside his blithe assumption that a human worker should be taxed for a stranger’s current retirement and medical needs (Gates omitted the Medicare-related taxes also collected) instead of his own future retirement and medical needs.  Leave aside Gates’ omission of the employer’s payroll taxes on that human worker’s labor.

The whole point of automation is to hold down costs, is to be competitive with other companies, and an outcome of all of this is lower costs to the consumers who are using—in some cases dependent on—the goods and services being sold.

Recode, citing a McKinsey report, said that 50% of jobs performed by humans are vulnerable to robots, which could result in the loss of about $2.7 trillion in the US alone.

Loss to whom?  One “loss” is to government revenues—but there is no submission of a justification for Government’s need for the revenue.  Another loss seems more real: to the private sector.  The money isn’t lost, though, it’s misallocated—to unnecessarily high cost labor, which translates into unnecessarily high cost to consumers.

Besides—the robots already pay taxes, at every company along the production path that leads to a completed robot: costs of acquisition of that stage’s components—from the mine on up—and income tax on their part of that stage company’s income, and on the final assembly’s cost allocation in the production of the final good or service.

Human workers don’t pay much of this at all.  This is just another backdoor effort to prop labor costs artificially above the value of the labor.  And it’s foolish.

A Thought on a Thought on Bank Reserves

Posted on by
Reply

Neel Kashkari, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and active member of the Federal Open Market Committee, had the thought that’s the object of my thought in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

…increase capital requirements on the biggest banks—those with assets over $250 billion—to at least 23.5%. It would reduce the risk of a taxpayer bailout to less than 10% over the next century.

No.  Have the banks publish their reserve holdings and the total of the loans outstanding in their portfolio together with the per centages of the latter that are current, late, or in default.  Let each bank’s creditors—depositors and other lenders—and investors make their own assessments of the bank’s viability.  Government need not be involved.

Beyond that, we have a bankruptcy court system that’s entirely adequate to the problem; there’s no need to excuse banks from the system.  Moreover, by doing this much, we would eliminate the too-big-to-fail monstrosity of Dodd-Frank, and we would reduce the risk of a taxpayer bailout by far more than Kashkari’s timid 10%: that risk would be reduced by 100%.

Beyonder than that, we have this seeming conflict.  Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan recently asked,

Do we have [to hold] an extra $20 billion in capital? Which doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s $200 billion in loans we could make.

To which Kashkari quite legitimately replied,

Borrowing costs for homeowners and businesses are near record lows. If loans were scarce, borrowers would be competing for them, driving up costs. That isn’t happening.

However, leaving aside the regulatory state that’s holding back our economy and with that depressing demand for big ticket items and so demand for loans (and interfering with the process of loan making, as described by Kashkari in his piece), the loan rates/demands vs freeing up those loanable funds is a chicken and egg thing.

I vote for the egg: free up those restricted funds in the private sector instead of freeing up funds via the Federal printing press.