Tag Archives: political economy

Consternation Among Investors

Posted on by
Reply

The English Channel island of Guernsey has long been a haven for low tax rates and lower regulation.  Now the island is serving as a bypass of EU regulations mandating transparency in bond transactions.

On Guernsey, those rules don’t apply. A key flashpoint for investors is the use of password-protected websites to restrict access to company financial information. Unlike in the rest of the EU, where companies with publicly listed shares or bonds must make financial reporting readily available to the public, bond issuers in Guernsey can keep such information under virtual lock and key and can restrict who has access.

Some companies dealing through Guernsey’s facility even require nondisclosure agreements be signed before they’ll agree to sell bonds to prospective buyers.

This has authorities in an uproar—naturally, since they object to being challenged by their subjects market participants.  It also has investors’ knickers in a collective twist, though, and there’s the rub.  Martin Reeves, of London-based Legal & General Investment Managers:

It is in everybody’s interest to have equal and transparent disclosure by bond issuers. It is an open question how password-protected websites are justified.

Regarding Reeves’ first claim, of course it is. Information is power, and spread-about information dilutes the power.  Regarding his second claim, though, there’s no question about it: the free market is happy to have such things—else they wouldn’t exist.

The bottom line is this, and it pertains especially in a free market milieu.  There’s no reason for consternation among investors over the bonds issuing from non-transparent Guernsey.  No one—not any government, not any individual—is holding a gun, figuratively or literally, in any investor’s ear, forcing him to buy bonds in Guernsey.

If investors don’t like the lack of transparency, they shouldn’t trade there.  If Guernsey is the only place such secretive bonds are traded, then Guernsey also is the only place where such unassessed and unassessable risk occurs.  If investors don’t like that risk spilling over onto companies publicly traded in markets or exchanges that are more regulated, they should not trade those companies’ securities anywhere.

In fact, they’re putting in peril their fiduciary duty or their personal or families’ wealth when they trade “Guernsey bonds” or securities of companies that peddle bonds there.

Medicare for All

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I [sic], VT) has the canonical version of Medicare for All; the other Progressive-Democrat candidates have only slightly varied versions of it.  Here’s Sanders on his Next Big Idea for health care provision and health care coverage:

You will have a card which has Medicare on it, you’ll go to any doctor that you want, you’ll go to any hospital that you want.

Right.  Been there, done that.  Both claims were straight up lies then, too.  There is a major difference, though, between Sanders’ two lies and ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) two lies: Sanders would make private insurance illegal—both the selling and the possessing.  That, though, only potentiates the power of Sanders’ lies.

As The Wall Street Journal mentioned on the other side of the link,

The point of Medicare for All is to cut reimbursement rates to Medicare levels, which government can now set so low only because private commercial reimbursement rates are so much higher. Cutting reimbursement rates would “probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care,” CBO says.

Not could—would.  Reducing availability cannot help but reduce quality, if only from denying it altogether to many who need it or would merely benefit from it.  But that’s not the only pathway: that reduction in availability will flow, at least in large part, from that reduction in reimbursement rates.  As a result of that, those doctors and hospitals whose talents and skills warrant higher pay will limit their practices to the bare minimum.

That’s not out of personal greed, either: costs of care delivery go up markedly as the number of patients go up.  Absent meeting costs with fees charged, these providers would have no choice but to limit their costs by limiting their services and the numbers of potential patients served.

There’s another cost path, too: the more complex or difficult, or even merely rare, a medical problem, the more expensive it is to provide services for dealing with it.  Capped reimbursements will limit the availability of that care. And—lower reimbursement rates again—lower the quality of those providers willing to provide the care.

Puzzling Through Tax Breaks

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats, and too many Republicans, in Congress are trying to sort out what should be done about expiring tax breaks.

Here are some of the expiring or about to expire tax breaks:

  • incentives for biodiesel production
  • deductibility of private mortgage insurance
  • tax credits for investing in low-income areas
  • employers’ family-leave plans
  • expansion of the earned-income tax credit

The answer is really quite simple and straightforward, if extremely difficult politically: let them all expire. Our Federal tax code should not be used for social engineering; it should be used solely for its constitutionally mandated purpose: to fund our Federal government.

Favorable Jobs Report, Therefor Cut Interest Rates?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the latest push, this time by Vice President Mike Pence.  He’s as wrong, though, as President Donald Trump, for all that he’s more genteel in his push.

There’s no inflation happening here. The economy is roaring. This is exactly the time not only to not raise interest rates, but we ought to consider cutting them[.]

Pence made this remark on the heels of Labor’s employment report announcing strong job growth, rising wages, and 3.6% unemployment.

No.  Interest rates where they are aren’t hindering our economy; on the contrary, they’re still a tad low.  Our economy is flourishing for a number of reasons, one of which is that interest rates are approaching more natural levels, not being held at below free market rates.  “Natural” here is defined in terms of the Federal Reserve’s legislated mandate—to maintain stable prices and low unemployment—and the Fed’s long-held optimal stable pricing goal of 2% inflation.

Cutting rates on the basis of a favorable jobs report (and one not entirely favorable: the labor force participation rate fell for the second straight month, and that rate is a factor in calculating the headline unemployment rate) would be a mistake.  Instead, the Fed should move its benchmark rates to levels consistent with its 2% inflation goal and then sit down, be quiet, and accept that the economy and employment rates will be noisy around that level (or any other level).

Animal spirits, after all, are hormonal, but within surprisingly broad ranges, they keep correcting back.

Socialism and Good Intentions

Posted on by
1

Carol Roth, in her op-ed for FOXBusiness, said that Socialism begins with good intentions.

No, socialism does not.  Perhaps the first attempts did, but with its unbroken history of wealth concentration, power concentration, and utter failure—even for those in the concentrated top—before us and well known, that much is clear.  On the contrary, those proselytizing for and instigating socialist regimes have as their sole goal the accretion of wealth and power to themselves—and this time it’ll be different, this time they’ll pull it off.

Roth’s piece had a number of internal contradictions that illustrate the origins of socialist regimes, even though she seems to have missed them.

The first is her quote from Margaret Thatcher:

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Those pushing socialism know this a priori, though.  They have no concern for the future, just the current seizure of all that OPM.  They’ll get theirs, and to hell with anyone else.

Then she wrote,

Socialism is quite like robbing Peter to pay Paul….

That’s not starting out with good intentions.  Unless it’s a Good Thing to rob someone, especially if it’s someone you don’t like.

And this bit:

Socialism starts out with noble intentions, preying on the envy of the population….

It’s noble to “prey on” the base instincts of the poor?  It’s noble to take advantage of others’ envy, to encourage the weak immorally to act out that envy?  How does that “logic” work, exactly?

Socialism, in each of its iterations over the last 100 years has not started with good intentions.  It has started with the greed of the few with the skill to peddle snake oil.  Socialism accelerates downhill from there.