Tag Archives: regulation

Rookie Gaffe?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Paul Edelstein of IHS Global Insight thinks, according to The Wall Street Journal.  In the Fed’s post-FOMC presser last Wednesday, Fed President Janet Yellen suggested that interest-rate increases might start beginning roughly six months after the Fed’s QEx (which is in the process of being…tapered) ends or as soon as this fall.  Edelstein had this to say as the stock market reacted negatively to Yellen’s remarks:

This could have been a rookie gaffe on Yellen’s part.  This was, after all, her first press conference.

Or, it’s possible that Yellen knew what she was doing, and she said what she said with carefully chosen words.

It’s also possible that Yellen knew another thing that Edelstein and his ilk seem to have conveniently forgotten: the Fed exists to stabilize the economy’s price behavior and to work toward full employment, however that’s defined.  In particular, the Fed does not at all exist to prop up stock prices for the benefit of investors like Edelstein, or me.  Our performance—work with me on this, it seems to be a lost concept for many—is on us; it’s a part of our personal responsibility.

And we had to know that QEx would end, we do know that is ending, and we should know that it’s on us to deal with the inflation that will result on OEx’s completion.  The Fed has no obligation—it cannot have this obligation in a free market economy—to inure us from the outcomes of our decisions.

Knowledge of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

Seventy percent of uninsured Americans said they do not know about Obamacare tax credits, and 45% are unaware of the enrollment deadline.  So says a poll taken by Bankrate.com.

What might this mean, really, especially in the face of a Democratic Party that’s already demonstrated an impressive skill at getting its message out to all Americans?  Some thoughts come to mind.

  • We aren’t as plugged in to the Internet as we like to think we are.  While that might be true for rural America, the number of rural Americans cannot account for these numbers.
  • Nobody reads the newspapers or watches network news on television anymore.  Declining circulation and Nielson ratings do tend to support this.
  • It might also be strongly influenced by what we actually do when we’re online or reading the papers or watching TV.  Folks no longer read the “news” or watch it on TV—they’re reading the funny pages and sports sections, and they’re watching entertainment programming on TV.  And they’re doing largely the same thing as they surf the Internet.  The “news” items, no longer being unbiased reporting of the day’s events, are being increasingly disregarded altogether.
  • And it might be a simple case of whatever the Democratic, or Republican, Party says is becoming increasingly disregarded: from the fatigue induced by the constant bombardment by both parties (but by the Democrats especially) with political pronouncement, and duns for money which add to the general fatigue, as well as an irritation aspect.  And from a growing disdain for the routine and blatant mendacity of each party.

A Progressive Contradiction

Posted on by
Reply

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek cites Professor Todd Henderson, a University of Chicago law professor, who makes one Progressive contradiction explicit.

[R]eading all your [Boudreaux’] posts about the minimum wage and global warming this morning, I was struck by the paradox in the proposed remedies for these two problems by politicians.  The first problem is income inequality, and the remedy is to set minimum contract terms.  The second problem is externalities from carbon protection, and the remedy is to tax output levels.

Progressives correctly surmise that if the cost of carbon output is raised (for instance, by taxing it), we’ll get less output of carbon.

On what basis, then, do Progressives surmise that if the cost of labor is raised (for instance, by raising the legal minimum wage), we’ll not get less labor?

Fannie and Freddie “Restructuring”

Posted on by
Reply

Federal National Mortgage Association—Fannie Mae—and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation—Freddie Mac—are at the heart of the US housing industry, since they play a central role in guaranteeing a major fraction of the mortgage loans through which we Americans buy our homes.  They also lie at the heart of the housing bust that was a major cause (albeit not the only one) of the Panic of 2008.  Their role in the bust stems from their decision functionally to waive credit standards and to encourage anyone with two nickels to rub together to borrow to buy a house, whether those borrowers could afford to make the loan payments or not.  And too often Fannie and Freddie waived the two-nickel standard, too.

The mortgage industry cries out for major reform, and now some of that reform might be in the offing.  A plan worked out by Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Johnson (D, SD) and Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R, ID) and preliminarily agreed by President Barack Obama looks do away entirely with Fannie and Freddie and to replace them with a system of Federally insured “mortgage securities” whose private insurers would be required to take initial losses before any government guarantee would be triggered.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t like the bill because it has Republican fingerprints on it.  House Republicans won’t like the bill, either, since they’re opposed to any government backstop in the private economy.  This isn’t a done deal.

This is, though, a valuable and needed step in the right direction.

There’s no arguing with a tired old man who insists on clinging bitterly to his hatred of all things Republican; Senate Democrats need to lose their fear of him and bypass him on this matter.

On the other hand, the chuckleheads in the House do have a chance to get smarter all on their own.  They’re right to insist that there be no Federal backstop in the housing market, much less in private economy, generally.  However, they also need to understand that this deal isn’t the final step, and that if they hold out for everything all in one fell swoop, they won’t get anything at all.

They should pass this deal, if it gets to them in substantially this form, and then they should begin working on a follow-on bill that withdraws that Federal backstop.  After all, if the free market wants such a thing—in the insurance industry, it’s called reinsurance—a market for mortgage reinsurers will develop.  If such a market doesn’t develop, it’ll be because the free market doesn’t need one.  If the governments of the individual States think such a thing is a good idea for their citizens, they can face their citizens and propose such a thing.  If the citizens of those States demure, then a State government backstop isn’t useful.

Step by step.  Slowly, and so surely.

EU Trade Protectionism

Posted on by
Reply

Now the EU is looking to claim that cheeses originally made in Europe cannot be made anywhere else and marketed under those European generic names: feta and parmesan cannot be made in the US, but only in Greece and Italy, for instance.  Never mind that it’s the same cheese made here, the manufacturers have to use different terminology to market their cheeses, the EU is demanding.  The EU even is (mendaciously, say I) claiming that feta, for instance,

is so closely connected to Greece as to be identified as an inherently Greek product.

As if that original connection matters at all in a global market.  And, never mind that feta produced elsewhere is plainly competitive, if not superior, or there’d be no market for that produced-elsewhere feta.

The AP says that this sort of thing is

important for the EU as Europe has tried to protect its share of agricultural exports and pull itself out of recession.  The ability to exclusively sell some of the continent’s most famous and traditional products would prevent others from cutting into those markets.

Never mind that Europe does not own any share of any market; the market is possessed (not owned) by the aggregation of individual buyers and sellers that choose to operate in it.  Europe—as with any participant—earns a share of a market by competing effectively in it.

No, this is an issue that needs to be dragged out until after the 2016 elections, and we get a President that has the moral courage to stand up for American, if not free market, interests.