Tag Archives: markets

Ending a Market Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is moving to eliminate tax credits for buying battery cars. The Left and their news writers don’t like this.

The removal of the credit, created to incentivize US consumers to purchase electrified vehicles, would likely lead to a drop in EV sales and production.

NSS. The credit was created explicitly to “encourage” purchase of battery cars. On the other hand, Lauren Fix, a co-host of Talk 2 DIY Automotive, has this:

Getting rid of this $7,500 tax credit should not impact [Tesla] sales. People buy Teslas because they like the product…. They know what their customers want, and those that like Teslas will continue to purchase that product.

And [phrase substitutions in the original, emphasis added]

Once that tax credit goes away, I’m expecting [electric vehicles] to be about 2% of sales. There will still be electric vehicle sales, Tesla will still survive, and [Elon Musk] will do well. And other brands will make what consumers want.

There’re hints there. Get rid of government-created market distortions, and the market will produce economically viable products at far less cost without our tax dollars added in. That product mix will include plenty of battery cars as soon as they become technologically and economically viable—and are what us consumers want at prices we’re willing to pay without taxpayer handouts.

A Useful Self-Identification

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China has decided not to apply its across-the-board 125% tariffs on certain goods that it imports from the US.

China’s government has exempted some US imports that the country would struggle to immediately source from elsewhere from its retaliatory tariffs, people familiar with the matter said.
Chinese authorities have told some importers of American goods that they would waive the most recent 125% increases in tariff rates for certain US imports. Those products include certain semiconductors and chipmaking equipment, medical products, and aviation parts, the people said.

These, then, are precisely the goods that we should cut off from exporting to the PRC.

On the other hand,

The Trump administration, similarly, announced exemptions on its “reciprocal tariffs” for China-made smartphones, laptops, and other electronics earlier this month, a recognition of the US’s reliance on China for such goods.

This is a mistake if the purpose is anything other than a negotiating tactic. There is a critical difference between the two sets of goods. The goods the PRC is exempting are critical components and component-making goods whose cutoff would severely impact that nation’s ability to make downstream products. The goods the Trump administration is exempting are finished products. Their supply chains can be adjusted to flow from non-PRC sources, including domestic, an adjustment that might be difficult, but an adjustment that both is eminently possible and is absolutely necessary: we should never have ourselves dependent on an enemy nation for such goods.

Republican Silliness

Posted on by
Reply

This time it includes more than just a few members of the Republican Chaos Caucus. The Senate passed its version of a reconciliation bill that includes a suitable start on tax rate reductions, and the House Republican caucus agrees with that—those reductions are consistent with the earlier House-passed reconciliation bill. However, the Senate’s bill doesn’t include enough spending cuts to suit the House Republicans, and the House Republicans are right on that.

This is where the silliness comes in. A few Republicans, including some from outside the Chaos Caucus, have announced enough “No” votes before the Senate bill comes to the House floor to kill the bill outright. That’s silly.

Instead of just killing the bill, or refusing to take it up at all, the House Republicans and those one or two Progressive-Democrat Representatives capable of reasoned argument should debate the Senate’s reconciliation bill—they’d be the big boys in the room, since the Senate Republicans ducked away from the House’s bill altogether—and then pass the Senate bill amended to include spending cuts acceptable to the House. That would create a House-Senate disagreement in the same bill, which would send the modified bill to the normal House-Senate Conference, wherein the tax rate cuts would be preserved, and badly needed much larger spending cuts could—should—be inserted into a Conference-approved bill for up-or-down majority votes in each house. Likely the much larger spending cuts still would be less than the House so correctly wants, but they’d likely be much larger than the Senate’s going-in proposal.

And, as is the case with budget framework reconciliation bills, it would set the terms of debate for those spending cuts in each appropriation bill. The difference this time, though, would be those much larger spending cuts in the framework would set a much higher floor than heretofore for spending cuts in those dozen appropriation bills.

Bargaining Chips

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China is avidly intent on keeping its bargaining chips, of which two truly important ones are its TikTok app and its port businesses at each end of the Panama Canal.

What gets lost, even ignored, in this, though, is that bargaining chips have only the value the bargainee assigns to them, not what the holder of the chips claims to be their value. Not a red sou more than that.

TikTok, for instance, can be viewed as utterly without value as a chip to be played: current US law requires it to be shut down entirely and banned from the US unless and until it is sold in toto to an entity not under the control of the PRC. The only thing standing in the way of that way is the law’s provision that the deadline for sale can be moved back if our Federal government deems negotiations for the sale to be making sufficient progress. That’s where things stand under President Donald Trump, and that confers exactly zero value to the app as a PRC chip.

So it is, nearly, with those PRC businesses that are Panama Canal bookends. A BlackRock-led group has concluded a deal to purchase those two port businesses along with a number of others around the world from CK Hutchison Holdings, a PRC-domiciled (Hong Kong) company. The PRC is actively interfering to delay and potentially prevent that deal from coming to fruition. The appropriate response here is for the US to restrict, even block as far as may be, the ability of those two ports to get any business from the US or any other nations. That would deny those ports any value as PRC chips.

This would be a Mistake

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) laid significant tariffs and tariff rates on the People’s Republic of China. The PRC’s President Xi Jinping responded with matching tariff rates, but with escalatory moves added:

…restricted exports of certain rare-earth minerals, added US companies to trade blacklists, and aimed an antitrust probe at the China operations of US chemicals and materials company DuPont.

Then the WSJ‘s news writer posited this:

What lies ahead is likely to be a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation, making it hard to even start negotiations in the near term.

If the Trump’s purpose with the tariffs is to (re)balance trade with the PRC’s tariffs, that would be one thing—his reciprocal tariff regime. However, if his purpose is to persuade the PRC to change its overall international trade behavior, particular vis-à-vis the US, then tit-for-tat would be a foolish mistake.

Tit-for-tat only gives the other side time to adapt and maintain. What’s necessary, if Trump’s move is persuasion rather than rebalancing, is to escalate tariffs (and other economic moves) higher and faster than the PRC can respond, and that’s what Xi will attempt as demonstrated by his opening response. Simply matching Xi—as tit-for-tat does generally—is surrender to Xi the initiative in this extension of the PRC’s long-running trade war, with its cyber aspects as well, against us.