Tag Archives: political economy

Lost Brexit?

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, went begging to the EU for a delay on Great Britain’s date of departure from the EU, and she got it—31 October, with a caveat that if the Brits can get their act together sooner, they can leave sooner.

European Council President Donald Tusk:

…the call for action will be entirely in the UK’s hands.
… But he added that the UK can also use the time to “reconsider the whole Brexit strategy.”
Tusk…warned the UK: “Please do not waste this time.”

Especially with that “reconsider” bit, I’m no longer convinced Great Britain will leave the EU.  Instead, it’s increasingly likely they’ll meekly beg forgiveness, and with their humiliation plain, simply ask, wide-eyed, “Please, Sir, I want some more.”  Please, let me stay.

EU-PRC Trade Relations

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new tone in the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the European Union. The two have agreed the following:

  • A commitment toward “broader” and “non-discriminatory” market access
  • On surrendering intellectual property to gain access to China’s market, both sides agreed “there should not be a forced transfer of technology”
  • Increase efforts to strengthen international rules against state subsidies for industries

A commitment. We’ve seen in US-PRC trade discussions over the years, in the PRC’s responses to WTO rulings—indeed its own commitments made as conditions to its accession to the WTO—in its treatment of those with whom it deals along its Belt and Road efforts, in its treatment of South China Sea rim nations the value of PRC commitments.

No forced transfer of technology.  But perhaps some encouragement.  “Nice company you got there. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”  And not a word about required backdoors into a company’s proprietary or operating software so the PRC’s government men can come and go on the claim that those men need to ensure the company is…behaving.

Increase efforts regarding state subsidies.  The PRC will try very hard.

We’ll see if there’s more than just a change in tone.  I’m not holding my breath.  The EU, and the US, has a venerable history of credulity regarding the PRC’s rhetoric.

Regulating State Tax Incentives

Posted on by
Reply

There Ought to be a Law was the title of an old Reader’s Digest humor column: every little pet peeve came in for a jokingly recommended law barring it.  Because More Government is always the solution.

Barton Swaim, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, actually takes that seriously, and he wants to apply it to the idea of States and cities offering businesses tax incentives to get them to build in those jurisdictions.  He wants the Federal government to…regulate…what those State and local jurisdictions can do to entice businesses.

He’s even holding up the European Union as a paragon in this venue.

The European Union imposes significant restrictions on how much member states or regional governments can offer companies to entice them to expand or relocate.

This is the same EU, keep in mind, that is constantly trying to bully low-tax member nations to charge more and higher taxes, rather than encouraging high-tax member nations to lower and lessen theirs.

Never mind that, though.

Why couldn’t Congress impose a simplified version of this principle on state and local governments?

It’s true enough that many of those incentive deals the States and locals turn out to be lousy from the States’ and locals’ perspective.  Why, then, shouldn’t the Federal government dictate to the States and local governments what those bodies should do with their own citizens’ and residents’ money? For their own good, you see.  Besides, isn’t it the Federal government’s money, anyway, and not those citizens’ and residents’?

Be more like Europe, and be more infested with central diktats than we already are. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Because, after all, States (and the local jurisdictions within them), to paraphrase John Jay, have the same relationship to the Federal government that counties have to the States: mere political jurisdictions set up to facilitate enforcement of Federal laws.

Federal republic be damned.

Sure.

Tax that Rich Man Behind the Tree

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democrats, in their fever pitch to increase taxes, want to tax phantom profits.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) [is] reviving plans to make capital gains taxes due annually….

Another Progressive-Democrat, Jon Summers (ex-Communications Director for ex-Senator Harry Reid (D, NV)) rationalized this chimera tax this way:

We’re spending way more money, billions of dollars more, a year than what we are actually bringing in in revenue. We’ve got a debt of $22 trillion, a record debt that has only skyrocketed under this administration. So, Democrats are trying to come up with a solution to bring some sanity back[.]

No, they’re not.  They just want to tax anything they can dream up. Were they serious about trying to come up with a solution to bring some sanity, they’d look for ways to cut spending—but that’s literally inconceivable to them.

Most Americans—the vast majority of us with a sane understanding of revenue flows—know that there are no gains, capital or otherwise, unless and until the underlying asset is disposed.  Until then, any perceived change in value is nothing more than hope or dismay.

Most Americans—the vast majority of us with a sane understanding of the American sense of property—know that the asset, the unrealized gain or loss, and the eventually realized gain or loss are those of the asset owner; they’re private property.

Sadly, Wyden and his cronies don’t believe that.  They act as though the asset and the associated money is Government’s, and those men of Government only let a citizen use the things for a time.

Nonsensical

Posted on by
Reply

Prime Minister Theresa May has written to the EU begging for an extension until the end of June before Great Britain leaves the EU.  France is continuing to claim it opposes any further extension beyond the current 12 April date if Great Britain cannot form a coherent, reasoned plan for departure to offer the EU that would earn a longer extension for departure.

It’s nonsensical that this even should be an item of discussion.  Over two years ago, the citizens of Great Britain voted to leave the EU.  That’s the bottom line.  Everything after that is just arguing over the terms of the departure. The British government has shown itself incapable of forming a coherent, reasoned set of terms, and Brussels has refused to negotiate in good faith any set of terms, coherent and reasoned or not, and those failures have unnecessarily complexified things.

But that artificial complexity is irrelevant, as are any terms of departure.

The vote was to leave. The people have spoken.  Great Britain must leave, and the EU must stop its obstruction and hold the door open.  To that end, it’s necessary that Prime Minister Theresa May’s request for another extension be rejected.

It’s time to end this shabby charade.