Tag Archives: political economy

Buybacks and Tax Cuts

Posted on by
Reply

Who benefits most and what was the value of the Trump administration’s tax cuts, if all that companies are going to do with their tax cut related income boost is use it to buy back shares?  This seems actually confusing to some folks on the Left.

Here are some of the happy totals.  Share buybacks have run to some $200 billion in the last three months.  Moreover,

Of the companies in the S&P 500, about 44% have said they plan to reinvest some portion of their tax gains into capital expenditures or wages, while 28% said they would use them to increase shareholder returns, Morgan Stanley found in an analysis of earnings transcripts. Its own analysts expect companies to spend about 43% of their savings on buybacks and dividends, and 30% on capital expenditures and labor.

Progressive-Democrats are making the argument that the buybacks benefit only the 1%.  Certainly, stockholders—those owners of the company—who choose to accept a buyback deal are better off: they get something of value to them that they didn’t have before, which is more cash in their pocket.

Progressive-Democrats actually think the money stops there.  Or so they imply.

It doesn’t.  The money doesn’t disappear under a rich man’s mattress; he didn’t get rich doing that.  No, the tax reduction money that goes to capital expenditures improves production efficiency, which lowers costs to the consumer, which raises demand for the product, which increases pressure to hire more workers to make more product.

Money spent on buybacks and dividends (another bugaboo of the Left—how dare a company return any of its money to its owners) is money received by the company’s owners, who include not only the stinking rich but ordinary folks like you and me, either as investors ourselves or as beneficiaries of company pension plans or as holders of 401(k)s and IRAs.  That money received by us, including the Evil Rich among us, then gets spent.  That’s increased consumer demand, which increases pressure to hire more workers.  Even the buyback and dividend money that goes into those retirement accounts gets spent—we’re all going to retire someday, and if we die, our heirs will spend the money.

It stretches credulity to believe that folks as undeniably brilliant as Progressive-Democrats hold themselves out to be don’t understand this.

But, hey—votes.

Tariffs and National Security

Posted on by
Reply

In response to President Donald Trump’s of tariffs to be applied to imports of steel and aluminum at some unspecified in the (presumably relatively near) future and coming from as yet unnamed nations, Japanese Trade Minister Hiroshige Seko said

I believe there is absolutely no impact on America’s national security from imports of steel and aluminum from Japan, which is an allied nation.

I agree in principle with the generally negative attitude toward tariffs.

However, Seko has misunderstood the national security question. Stipulate that Japan (and the Republic of Korea, another staunch ally and key exporter of steel to us) is a strong and reliable ally.

  • Both rely on imports of raw materials in order to produce steel or aluminum
  • The supply lines from raw material sources to Japan and the RoK are long, vulnerable, and easily cut off by hostile action of the PRC and/or Russia
  • The supply lines from Japan and the RoK to us are long, vulnerable, and easily cut off by hostile action of the People’s Republic of China and/or Russia

Indeed, the RoK and our imports from them are even more vulnerable, with the PRC and Russia just a short hop away and the PRC’s client, northern Korea, just across a minefield.

Supply lines from other sources of our steel and aluminum imports—Canada, for instance—are much more secure.  While tariffs against nations like the PRC might be justifiable, I hope the tariffs will be suitably and tightly targeted and truly based on the illegality of dumping.

The national security question can be addressed through other means, by for instance mandating a certain amount of domestically produced steel and aluminum.  The difficult discrimination here is that the mandate must not be to “protect” American producers; they need to compete better.  The mandate must be for the demonstrable purpose of maintaining an American capability both to produce steel and aluminum and to ramp up that production capability when those supply lines get cut off.

What OPEC did to our oil supply, and so to our economy and national security, the PRC and Russia can just as easily do through our access to those metals.  And keep in mind the PRC already has attempted that with rare earth metals, which are critical to our digital capability.  One purpose of the PRC’s occupation of the South China Sea is to seize control of all those rare earth sources on the sea bottom.

Big Government and Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party-run States and the Republican-run States are demonstrating what they think of the intelligence and capability of ordinary American citizens.

The roughly half of states controlled by Republicans are therefore moving aggressively to roll back the law widely known as Obamacare, while the smaller number of Democratic states are working to bolster it.

One party does not believe that Americans in a free market, here for health care and for health care coverage plans, are capable of making sound decisions.  They need Big Government to think and act for them.  The other party believes the opposite: the ordinary man is fully capable of thinking for himself and doesn’t need Big Government to tell him what to do.

Oh, and that other party also believes in free markets and the associated competition that brings down overall prices and increases the range of options available.  That other party also believes that the greater range of options facilitates the decision-making of the ordinary man.  The one party believes the range of options only confuses the ordinary man and so—single payer for limited choices.

Agency Fees

Posted on by
Reply

These are fees unions in a raft of jurisdictions are allowed to charge non-union members as a condition of those workers’ right to work at all.  Ostensibly, the fees are for the unions’ labor efforts in negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions for everyone in the workplace.  The Supreme Court is considering a case, Janus v AFSCME, concerning whether such fees are constitutional.

It’s already the case that

Agency fees already are forbidden from paying for advocacy and other political activity.

Money is fungible, though, and even though agency fees might be barred from the purpose, the existence of the fees allows unions to reallocate equivalent money from other sources to the purpose—making it impossible actually to say that agency fees aren’t being used for the illegal purpose.  After all, if a union has $100, it can’t afford to engage in political activity.  If the union also collects a $10 agency fee from a non-union member, it now has $110, and it can afford to spend $10 on political activity, even if it’s forbidden by dollar bill serial tracking from using the non-union member’s $10 for the purpose.  Those ten bucks went illegally, however indirectly, to the political activity.

Moreover,

…plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case argue that negotiating with public agencies requires taking positions on government’s size and scope, which is a political question, so forcing employees to pay for the negotiations violates the First Amendment.

There’s the crux of the matter.  Agency fees are eminently unconstitutional, but I’m not sanguine that the Court will see it that way.  Both CJ Roberts and J Kennedy have shown themselves unreliable defenders of the Constitution, and the four Liberal Justices are a rock-solid bloc.

Statutes, Judges, and DoJ

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court last Tuesday heard a case between Microsoft and DoJ concerning whether the emails of an alleged drug dealer must be turned over to the government pursuant to a search warrant to that effect.  The catch is that the emails are stored exclusively on servers in Ireland—nominally beyond the reach of the US’ long arm of the law.

The statute in question is the Stored Communications Act, enacted 30 years ago before email and similar electronic communications were available.

Microsoft handed over some account data that was stored in the US but said it shouldn’t have to hand over the emails, which were stored on a server in Ireland.
…
The Second US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Microsoft, ruling the 1986 law didn’t apply beyond US territory.

DoJ and the participating States’ Attorneys General argued that the appellate decision, if left intact, would hamper the government’s crime-fighting ability.  That’s likely accurate, but there are two things about that.  One is that the convenience of government is not an excuse for limiting individual liberties either directly or through the companies we own. Some of you have heard that from me before.

The other thing, though, is that extending the statute to reach beyond our borders is a political decision, not a legal one.  Only the political arms of our government—Congress and the President acting together (or with Congress overruling a veto)—can make that decision; only the political arms of our government can extend the Act or write a new one to fill the apparent gap.

There’s this bit of disingenuousity, too, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco:

Microsoft’s employees could prepare that disclosure without leaving their desks in the United States[.]

They could prepare such disclosures without leaving their desks in the US in 1986 when the Act was passed, too.  All they had to do was write letters to the managers of the overseas storage facilities.  Nothing has changed here except that email has replaced gofers and the mail room.  Nor has the status of the material stored overseas changed.

On the other hand, Microsoft and other massive tech companies also are raising red herrings.

Microsoft, Google, and other technology companies say…the case could threaten American dominance in the $250 billion cloud-computing industry, because foreign clients won’t use US firms if their data isn’t protected.

That also may be true, and it’s also not relevant.  That’s a question that’s strictly a business matter and not a legal one.  To the extent government help is useful in filling this business gap, it’s also a political question, and these businesses need to seek their recourse through those political arms of our government.

Finally, there already is an alternate route to getting the emails, as admitted by DoJ in their filings:

There is a diplomatic process, governed by legal assistance treaties, that allows the US to request that foreign law-enforcement counterparts share sought-after data, but it can be slow and ineffective, the department said.

There’s that convenience thing, again.

What does the text of the Act say? That’s what the Justices must apply, not a phantom Act that doesn’t exist but that does represent what Justices or DoJ officials might wish the Act to say.  Article I, Section 1, is quite clear about who gets to write the statutes in our system of government, and extending the reach of an existing statute is law-making that is beyond the reach of any member of the judiciary or of the DoJ.