Tag Archives: markets

Middle Class, Luck, and American Power

Posted on by
Reply

George Friedman, writing for Stratfor (he’s also their Founder and CEO), has an article out concerning the American middle class and American global power.  The whole article is well worth reading, but for now, the relevant remark comes near the end:

It would seem to me that unless the United States gets lucky again, its global dominance is in jeopardy.  Considering its history, the United States can expect to get lucky again….

The luck to which Friedman refers concerns some fortuitous unintended consequences, and he offers three examples:

The GI Bill was designed to limit unemployment among returning serviceman; it inadvertently created a professional class of college graduates. The VA loan was designed to stimulate the construction industry; it created the basis for suburban home ownership. The Interstate Highway System was meant to move troops rapidly in the event of war; it created a new pattern of land use that was suburbia.

The threat to our status as a global power—and by extension to our freedom of action as a nation—stems from a generation of the failure of a long-standing belief in American culture—the faith in the availability of economic upward mobility.  For instance, median household income in 2011 was $49,000, just below the level in 1989 in real terms; it seems that upward mobility has stagnated.

Luck matters, but to a very large extent, we make our own luck.

Underlying this making is individual responsibility, individual initiative, and individual risk-taking.  In all of our past booms, including those in which fortune played a role through those unintended consequences, the freedom to exercise those individual characteristics was both broadly present and not very much circumscribed by government intervention.

Here’s a present example of the role played by fortune, this time negatively: those individual characteristics, and parallel ones in business, are severely circumscribed by government regulation in all aspects of our lives.  We’re restricted in what we’re permitted or required to buy or to throw away (see Obamacare and CFL bulbs), in the decisions businesses are permitted to make in their own interests rather than government’s (see Obamacare and Dodd-Frank with its CFPB abomination), in what businesses are permitted to release as by-products of production or sales.

Our ability to make our own luck, today, is severely limited by government.  Fortuitous unintended consequences are a lot less likely in an environment of rapidly increasing government control over the economic environment which underlies the making of that luck.

There’s another factor at play, too: those government restrictions also have the unintended consequence of restricting upward mobility.  The poor become trapped in their stratum and cannot move up into the middle class due to those restrictions’ effect on job creation and hiring.  This not only works to the detriment of those poor, it shrivels the remaining middle class.

Excuses

Posted on by
Reply

During the Great Depression, in an effort to help farmers, the FDR administration got legislation passed that put a floor under the prices farmers could collect for their produce.  At roughly the same time, in order to help out the working man in a time of enormous unemployment (ranging from nearly 16% to over 25%), FDR got legislation passed that put a floor under the prices a man could charge for his work.  With this combination of artificially inflated food prices and a unemployment exacerbated by artificially inflated labor prices, it became exceedingly difficult for Americans to buy food for their families.

The FDR administration “cured” this, not by removing their harmful pricing controls, but by inventing and issuing food stamps—subsidies for purchasing food.

Fast forward to the present, and look at Oregon.  In an era of government mandates for fuel efficiency in our cars (not all of which originated in Oregon, to be sure), governments are seeing falling tax revenue from decreasing private sector fuel purchases.  In Oregon, in particular, though, folks are buying fuel-efficient automobiles, with some vehicles getting over 55 mpg.  The Oregon state government is looking at “curing” this, not by stimulating its economy tax and spending reductions, but instead at creating a new tax.

Beaver State lawmakers, in their upcoming session, are expected to consider legislation that would impose a charge on vehicles that get at least 55 miles per gallon of gasoline, in an effort to make up for lost gas-tax revenue[.]

After 2015, owners of these high-efficiency vehicles would either have to pay an undetermined per-mile tax calculated by GPS technology, or some alternative flat rate option.

Hmm….

Any excuse to grow government, it seems, is a good excuse to grow government.

Japan’s Sovereign Debt

Posted on by
Reply

With our just completed tax “deal” adding $4 trillion to our national debt by 2022, I thought it might be interesting to look at the debt load of another country that used to be an economic powerhouse, but whose economy has been stagnant while its population ages: Japan.  In no particular order, we see the following:

  • Japanese administrations have accumulated debt worth $14.6 trillion, roughly 230% of GDP.
  • Since the 1990s, administrations have bailed out failed banks and insurance companies.
  • Tax revenues are less than half of expenditures.
  • Interest on Japanese debt has been held to 0.75% by the Bank of Japan, their central bank.
  • Since 2011, the BoJ has fed emergency programs a total of ¥213 trillion ($1.2 trillion).
  • The BoJ Governor, Masaaki Shirakawa, acknowledges
    • At the moment, the effect of our monetary policy in stimulating economic growth is very limited.
    • Fully one-quarter of the government’s overall budget currently goes toward servicing debt.  Were Tokyo forced to pay higher interest rates, it’s mountain of debt would grow even more rapidly.
  • The new Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, wants more of the same: a new ¥14.4 trillion ($120 billion) economic stimulus program, this time for the construction sector.  At the same time, Abe wants Shirakawa to pump unlimited cash into the economy.

This graph illustrates:

Any of that look familiar?

The data and graph are via Spiegel Online International.

Anthropogenic Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

…and dishonesty.  More is beginning to leak out, this time from of all places the UN.  That august body’s IPCC has had leaked a draft of its latest “study” on the man-caused disaster in climate, and it isn’t a pretty example of the outcome of climate “scientist” incestuousness.

High points on the leak are from Matt Ridley, in The Wall Street Journal, and they concern a “pollutant” that our present administration is going after, and damn the economy—and damn the

poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats[.]

The question at hand:

How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce?

Ridley’s information comes from Nic Lewis.

A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

Per Lewis [emphasis added]:

[T]he latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written.  The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest.  In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

Thus [again, emphasis added],

We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide.  We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models.  Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in “radiative forcing” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC’s current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

In the end,

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm.  It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report.  Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland’s ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.

There’s more to this climate pseudo-science failure, and it flows from the CO2 interactions via alleged feedback loops [emphasis added]:

A little warming (from whatever cause [including atmospheric CO2]) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas.  The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.

[The problem is,] water vapor may not be increasing.   A recent paper from Colorado State University concluded that “we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”  [On top of that], as one Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a senior role in combating climate change admitted to me the other day: “We don’t even know the sign” of water vapor’s effect—in other words, whether it speeds up or slows down a warming of the atmosphere.

One reason for the uncertainty of the sign is that atmospheric water vapor means more clouds, and clouds reflect inbound sunlight while trapping outbound heat.  Which has the greater effect—reducing the inbound inputs or holding onto the outbound outputs?  Only a climate pseudo-scientist claims to know at this point in the data collection and analysis.  Especially given the…quality…of their data and of their models.

There’s a whole lot more at the Watts Up With That? site, both on the present topic and on anthropogenic climate change, generally.

“Why Conservatives Should Support a Carbon Tax”

Posted on by
Reply

Hmm….

The Social Science Research Network is carrying a paper of that title by Shi-Ling Hsu, of Florida State University’s College of Law, and Yoram Bauman, of Sightline Institute.  (The link takes you to the paper’s abstract, but the full paper is easily downloadable.)

The paper’s opening paragraph pretty much says it all:

Why should conservatives support a carbon tax? There are two answers. First, a carbon tax would reform the American economy in a positive way, even if there were no such thing as human-caused climate change. If a carbon tax can be used to reduce other taxes, or if a carbon tax is a new source of revenues for deficit reduction instead of raising other taxes, the net economic benefits of such a swap are likely to be positive even if there are no environmental benefits. Second, the alternative to a carbon tax is less efficient: federal command-and-control regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court has held that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and this requirement will not be legislatively repealed unless it is replaced by something comprehensive, like a carbon tax.

Where to begin?

“Used to reduce other taxes?”  Fat chance.  “[N]ew source of revenues?”  But that’s a tax increase, and tax increases have not been shown to be beneficial to any economy, much less ours.  “[F]or deficit reduction?” This  works from the false premise that spending currently is at an entirely appropriate level; reductions in spending sufficient to eliminate altogether the deficit  compared with current revenues are unneeded.

It’s certainly plausible that alternatives to a carbon tax might be less efficient, but this idea proceeds from the false premise that Federal intervention in, Federal control over any part of, our national economy is in any way appropriate.  The fact is that taxation (or subsidization) for social engineering purposes simply distorts the market: taxation produces less of the thing taxed—in this case, less energy (and reduced manufacturing of parts made from carbon fiber, but that’s for another post).  Since energy is at the foundation of our economy—and of our lives—that means prices will go up, substantially, and those at the bottom of the totem pole will have their lives damaged, perhaps severely, by not being able to afford such basics as energy for heating their homes, fuel for their transportation to work, even medical costs, as doctors and hospitals will be forced to increase their charges to cover their own increased energy costs.

Moreover, the premise of relative efficiency is itself far from established.  One has only to look at how well it’s working in Europe and how effectively nations whose economies don’t have such a thing compete with nations which do saddle their economies with this sea anchor (not that I’m mixing metaphors, or anything).

The attitude is defeatist, also.  The most efficient position would be to eliminate the Clean Air Act.  As the authors note, this will be hard to do, but hard means possible.  Modifying the CAA to eliminate CO2 from the list of pollutants would eliminate the need for a carbon tax.  This would be less efficient, but it may be politically more doable in the near term.

It’s also important to avoid carbon taxes because, taking the present paper as an example, what carbon is to be taxed is left carefully unspecified.  Hsu and Bauman do hint at it with their references to carbon dioxide, as though this gas ought to be taken seriously.  Aside from the fact that CO2 is a trailing indicator, though, confirming an increase in the health of the planet from increasing life exhaling more CO2, its impact as a greenhouse contributor is not at all established.

Despite this, the reason for the authors’ preference for a carbon (dioxide) tax is made plain here:

A carbon tax represents the lightest, smallest government touch possible in promoting technologies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And [emphasis in the original]

Fundamentally, what an economy facing the 21st century must do is to sort industries, top to bottom, by the marginal value their carbon dioxide emissions provide to society.

Since the need “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” generally, and CO2 as pollutant, particularly, are little more than Progressive tropes with no basis in science, there’s no social engineering need to tax carbon.

Nor is there a practical way.  What CO2 should be taxed?  From what industries?  Are the CO2 (and methane—a potentially very powerful greenhouse gas) emissions of cattle ranchers, and dairy and hog farmers, for instance, to be included?  If not, what distinguishes that CO2 from any other CO2?  Not even the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen differ.

How will the battery-operated cars—hybrids and pure battery-powered—be taxed for their CO2 emissions?  Think these “green” cars don’t have a significant carbon footprint?  Think about the source of the energy that (repeatedly) charges their batteries.  Most modern cars (“green” ones included) also have significant carbon fiber in the materials from which they’re constructed.  How will the CO2 emissions from an accident-related fire be assessed?

Finally, note that I’m eliding here any discussion of the authors’ false premise that government should be in the business of structuring a free market at all.

And so on.

In fine, no Conservative case for supporting a carbon tax has yet been offered.