Tag Archives: political economy

Union Threat

Posted on by
Reply

The American Federation of Teachers doesn’t like guns, gun owners, gun manufacturer, or those who support them.  That’s fine; this is America.

The union’s President, Randi Weingarten, has taken a typically union follow-on step: threatening a union boycott of Wells Fargo if the bank doesn’t end its relationship with the National Rifle Association and with those manufacturers.

We’re issuing Wells Fargo an ultimatum.  They can have a mortgage market that includes America’s teachers, or they can continue to do business with the NRA and gun manufacturers. They can’t do both.

The rest of us, including banks, have rights, too.  Wells Fargo is resisting Weingarten’s ultimatum, which if widely acceded to will leave the very people she pretends to want to protect utterly defenseless.  Wells should advise her and her union supporters to not let the door hit her in the fanny on the way out.

And the rest of us should push the harder for schools that aren’t unionized.  Wells’ products, along with the NRA’s and manufacturers’, are quality products.  The same can’t be said for the AFT’s products.

Messaging and the Midterms

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a bit about income taxes, via Laura Saunders in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

For 2018, households in the top 20% will have income of about $150,000 or more and 52% of total income, about the same as in 2017. But they will pay about 87% of income taxes, up from about 84% last year.

And

[T]he lower 60% of households, who have income up to about $86,000, receive about 27% of income. As a group, this tier will pay no net federal income tax in 2018 vs. 2% of it last year.

And this:

…the top 1% will pay for 43% of income tax, up from 38% in 2017.

So much for tax cuts being for the benefit of the rich.

Here’s another bit about who pays and who benefits:

[I]ncome includes earnings from wages and investments plus untaxed amounts, such as from health coverage. These additions nearly double the income of people in the lowest tier and add about 20% for those in the highest tier.

Republicans are shockingly silent about this in their respective local press outlets.  If they don’t start getting these messages out to their constituents early and often, each mid-term candidate needs to fire his communications director and replace him with someone who knows how to talk to local folks.

A Simple Solution to the US-PRC Trade Dispute?

Posted on by
Reply

More like a simplistic one.  Martin Feldstein, ex-Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, has one, summarized by the headline and subhead in his Wall Street Journal op-ed:

How to Make Trade Peace With China
A mutual promise to abide by the WTO’s intellectual property rules would solve much of the problem.

Feldstein is…naive. By his own acknowledgment later in his piece, the PRC routinely violates WTO rules–and international court rulings, lately seen by the PRC’s refusal to abide by a Hague ruling against them regarding the Spratly Islands. The PRC will promise to abide by the WTO’s intellectual property rules?

The PRC government’s word is worthless.

Government Surveillance by Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Loosely related to a nearby post, now it seems the government is getting worried about the size of the “private” capital market, where folks can place investments in enterprises, particularly startups, without having to go through the public—stock—markets and government regulations that are broadly extensive and deeply intrusive.

The boom is transforming how companies grow, concentrating investing in fewer hands and raising concerns about oversight

The linked-to article’s subhead lays out the whole misunderstanding. Government doesn’t need to be in the business of regulating every little thing we do.  We can manage our investments just fine without Government’s “help.”  And we can suffer our own outcomes if we choose badly or fortune moves against us despite our otherwise correct decisions.

[Some] private placements require no disclosure at all, said Anna Pinedo, a partner at law firm Mayer Brown. “It’s impossible to know who’s raising money this way or from whom.”

It’s none of government’s business to know unless it’s prepared to allege specific crimes.

Michael Piwowar, a[n SEC] commissioner, questioned “the notion that nonaccredited investors are truly protected by regulations that prevent them from investing in high-risk, high-return securities….

It’s not government’s job to protect us from ourselves. That’s our job.

The way to entice investors back to the publicly traded markets is to reduce those regulations and their intrusiveness.

Standards and Markets

Posted on by
Reply

The EPA has decided to revisit, revise, and lower fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in the US for the model years 2022-2025.  The Obama administration EPA had mandated that overall fleet fuel efficiency—averaged across all models of cars built by a manufacturer—be raised to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 from 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016.  This would have represented a greater than 50% increase in fuel efficiency in just 10 short years.

Environmentalists are up in arms over the move.  Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund President:

Designing and building cleaner, more cost-efficient cars is what helped automakers bounce back from the depths of the recession and will be key to America’s global competitiveness in the years ahead.

And Jon Foley, California Academy of Sciences Executive Director, tweeted

This move wastes energy, and makes more dependent on foreign oil.

Both misunderstand.  Krupp is right that building better cars helped automakers recover from the Panic of 2008, but he missed two Critical Items.  One is that American automakers, pre-Panic, were churning out junk and losing market share to better manufacturers.  When they stopped building junk, they got competitive again.

That brings me to the second Critical Item.  It was free market competitive forces—and the Panic to drive that home—that enabled the American automakers, building better cars, to get back into the game.  It was free market competition, in response to changing consumer demands, that pushed automakers to build more reliable, more fuel efficient cars (and trucks), with competition moving to hold prices down.

Neither of those had, or have, anything to do with government mandates.

Foley just seems to have not been paying attention over the last few years.  New technologies for locating oil and gas and for extracting those have lowered the cost of oil and gas for a whole host of uses, including car and truck fuel, and those technologies have led the US to be a larger producer of oil and gas than any other nation, save Russia—and we expect to surpass Russia in a couple of years.  There’s not much dependence on foreign oil here.

Oh, and one last thing.  The cost of buying a car won’t be so great now that manufacturers don’t have to waste capital on crash courses in engine development and can instead move at the pace of market competition.

Now, if only we could get rid of the ethanol mandate, too, so car maintenance and food costs could be reduced.