Quotulatiousness

July 24, 2011

No, that’s not suspicious at all . . .

Filed under: China, Government, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:39

. . . when you use backhoes to bury the wreckage before determining the cause of the high speed rail crash:

The wreck on Saturday night killed 35 and injured 210 after a high-speed train lost power for more than 20 minutes and then was rear-ended by another train, according to the Xinhua news agency. Six cars derailed and two fell off a viaduct near the city of Wenzhou.

[. . .]

Photos on the popular Weibo microblogging service showed backhoes burying the wrecked train near the site. Critics said the wreckage needed to be carefully examined for causes of the malfunction, but the railway ministry said that the trains contain valuable national technology and could not be left in the open in case it fell into the wrong hands.

Foreign companies maintain that some crucial technology was stolen from their imported trains. But more importantly to domestic audiences is the perception of a coverup. Initial reports of how the accident occurred are already being partly contradicted by reports in the official media.

July 23, 2011

Virginia’s state surplus less than meets the eye

Filed under: Economics, Government — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:02

Doug Mataconis takes a jaundiced eye to the Virginia “surplus”:

So, in other words, what we’ve got here are accounting gimmicks. In one case, the State legally permitted itself to defer a contribution to public pensions that were twice as big as the reported budget surplus. In the other, they legally permitted themselves to collect thirteen months of sales taxes for a twelve month fiscal year. The impact of both of these should be rather obvious. Reduce obligations while you are increasing revenues and, wow what do you know, we’ve got a surplus.

This isn’t at all new. As Virginia political bloggers Norm Leahy and Adam Bitley noted last August, the legislature used virtually the same accounting tricks to create the $220 million surplus that was reported last year.

It’s also not unique to Virginia. The same techniques are used in states across the country, and in the Federal Budget. Call it “off book budgeting.” Call it “creative accounting.” Call it whatever you like really, but it’s a pretty stark demonstration of the just how hard it really is to believe any government when they say their budget is balanced. More likely than not, they’ve used one or more of these gimmicks, plus a few others, to defer budget items and artificially increase revenue to make it appear that the budget is in balance when it really isn’t.

July 20, 2011

Here’s a bold proposal for Greece

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Government, Greece — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:09

Bill Frezza has an idea of what Greece really needs:

what is the purpose of casting Greece into some selective temporary financial purgatory where the irrelevant Greek economy can continue embarrassing anyone foolish enough to lend their dysfunctional government a dime? Why not go all the way and give the country what many of its people have been violently demanding for almost a century?

Let them have Communism.

[. . .]

What the world needs, lest we forget, is a contemporary example of Communism in action. What better candidate than Greece? They’ve been pining for it for years, exhibiting a level of anti-capitalist vitriol unmatched in any developed country. They are temperamentally attuned to it, having driven all hard working Greeks abroad in search of opportunity. They pose no military threat to their neighbors, unless you quake at the sight of soldiers marching around in white skirts. And they have all the trappings of a modern Western nation, making them an uncompromised test bed for Marxist theories. Just toss them out of the European Union, cut off the flow of free Euros, and hand them back the printing plates for their old drachmas. Then stand back for a generation and watch.

The land that invented democracy used it to perfect the art of living at the expense of others, an example all Western democracies appear intent on emulating. Being the first to run out of other people’s money makes Greece truly ripe to take the next logical step beyond socialism.

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord, for the link. As he suggests “this probably would be kinda fun to watch”. After all, retro-kitsch “Soviet theme parks” are a going concern, why not a country-sized version?

July 19, 2011

Walsh: This is what the debt-ceiling fight is really all about

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:20

Michael A. Walsh puts the real issue into focus:

Forget all the numbers being tossed around in Washington — the millions and billions and trillions of dollars being taxed, borrowed, printed and spent as the country approaches the Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline.

Forget the political jockeying for position between a president desperately seeking re-election in 16 months and a Congress equally desperately seeking not to be blamed for spending even more money that we don’t have.

Forget the fact that such “entitlements” as Social Security and Medicare — social-insurance programs that the public long thought to be actuarially sound — have been exposed as little more than legal Ponzi schemes, paying today’s benefits out of tomorrow’s borrowed receipts.

Instead, just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?

For this, in essence, is what the debt-ceiling fight is all about — the inexorable and ultimately fatal growth of the welfare state. If you don’t believe it, just look at President Obama’s veiled threat to withhold Grandma’s Social Security benefits if Congress doesn’t let him borrow another $2 trillion or so to get himself safely past the 2012 election.

July 18, 2011

It won’t hurt just the “rich”

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:00

Michael Boskin illustrates just what the current levels of US government spending will mean when translated into personal tax rates:

Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that’s before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO’s projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.

Nobody — rich, middle-income or poor — can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States — a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.

While policy makers may shrug off the impact of higher tax rates, it has a significant effect on individual choices when it comes to part-time jobs, overtime, and even raises. Even if in reality working a few hours of overtime won’t make a difference, psychologically, the higher tax burden can act as a deterrent: “why put in the effort if the government gets more out of my effort than I do?”

July 17, 2011

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch on a libertarian foreign policy

Filed under: Government, Military, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:31

The third part of an interview with Gillespie and Welch, covering libertarian foreign policy ideas:

Federal government to unveil new retirement scheme

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:09

Jonathan Chevreau looks at the federal government’s plan to introduce Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs):

This is a giant potential opportunity for the nation’s banks, mutual fund companies, insurance firms and a growing number of manufacturers of exchange-traded funds. Pension consultants, actuaries, financial planners and investment advisors will also see various business opportunities created as PRPPs catch on — primarily with small- and medium-sized businesses that never before offered its workers a pension plan. Mr. Menzies, the cabinet minister responsible for PRPPs, says he’s travelled the country consulting with the provinces.

“When the concept of the pooled RPP was shared with the provinces and territories they all came together to agree this makes sense.”

[. . .]

PRPPs will be (hopefully) low-cost defined contribution schemes run by the private sector where ultimate benefits will depend on how financial markets perform. The PRPPs would resemble the United States’ 401(k)s or Australia’s superannuation scheme.

They will be administered by financial institutions rather than employers, which is why Bay Street views them as a potential bonanza. As the “pooled” part of their name suggests, assets are co-mingled for investment purposes to keep down costs.

The original idea was that PRPPs would be mandatory for employers that don’t offer their own registered pension plan but Mr. Menzies says that decision would be up to the provinces. “We’re putting it out there that there is an option for the employer and for the employee. I’ve spoken to many small businesses that said ‘finally here’s a low-cost affordable plan I can enroll my employees in.’ It will be a retention and enticement tool.”

Employers won’t be forced to make contributions, but may choose to do so. Employees will be automatically enrolled at a base contribution rate, but they can opt out.

There will be two types of members: Employed and individuals. The latter include the self-employed and employees of organizations that do not offer PRPPs. Benefits are portable. Employers offering PRPPs can move to a new plan if they wish. There are fewer portability restrictions for individual members, making them convenient if they later change jobs and want to take their pension with them.

That portability is key: I’ve wondered for years why unions have not been hammering on that aspect in their negotiations with big employers (although unions generally pay most attention to the needs of current union members at the expense of both retired and future members). By the time you’ve worked at a company long enough to qualify for their pension scheme, you’re often locked in due to the lack of portability of your pension. If you leave the firm, voluntarily or not, you lose much of the potential return on the pension contributions you’ve already made (if you don’t lose them altogether).

This proposal may well solve much of that problem.

July 16, 2011

Reason.tv: The debt ceiling debate is full of malarkey

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:47

July 15, 2011

The US government’s plight, as a poker technique

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:05

Jagadeesh Gokhale points out that President Obama is not only bluffing, but that it’s transparently obvious what this tactic is intended to achieve:

The president’s Wednesday night warning to House Majority Leader Cantor to not “call his bluff” suggests that… well, he’s bluffing. But the president has already been playing some transparently thin cards in this game of poker, including his melodramatic — but highly questionable — hint that Social Security checks would be interrupted on August 2.

The go-to strategy in a literal train wreck is to jump off a nanosecond just before the collision. The debt-limit debate is more complicated, however, because no one really knows what the effect would be if the deadlock on budget negotiations continues through August 2nd.

Debt-rating agencies may soon downgrade U.S. debt. But does the debt of a country on a fiscal path to borrow and spend 45 percent more than its revenues — at a time when its debt already equals its annual output — really warrant a AAA rating? Won’t House Republicans really be doing investors a service by revealing a more honest debt rating?

[. . .]

Regarding a potential “bluff” by the president and high officials of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: It’s only natural that they would sound the most dire of alarms. There is no guarantee that the government would default on its existing contractual debt and that financial markets would tank even if such a temporary technical default were to occur. But the risk of such events is not zero and no high government officials would wish to risk it on their watch.

A hint about whether and how much President Obama might be “bluffing” is his unwarranted warning that Social Security payments could not be guaranteed if the debt limit is not increased. There is every reason to believe that those payments could and would be made in full in August — and for many more months — no matter whether the budget deadlock is resolved by August 2nd.

Why a budget deal won’t work

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:11

Sheldon Richman provides a few reasons to doubt that any deal worked out between congress and the President will actually solve anything:

Whether President Obama and congressional Republicans can work out a deal to let the government to borrow even more (!) money seems to hang on whether the latter will go for increased in tax revenues.

Following the zigzagging negotiations isn’t easy. First the aim was a short-term deal. Then both sides decided to go for a big package: $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. That broke down when Obama said a quarter or a third of that amount should come from new revenues.

When I hear about ten-year budget deals, I first divide the aggregate number by ten so I see how little is at stake each year. I also want to know if the spending reduction is real or phony. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute says most cuts are likely to be accounting tricks. For example, Edwards shows how the rulers could easily “reduce” the Afghanistan/Iraq war budget by $1 trillion without really cutting a penny. (Hint: pretend the wars will go on forever.)

I also remind myself that no Congress can bind a future Congress. Would you bet a substantial sum on a congressional promise to reduce the deficit over ten years? I didn’t think so. Even if Obama is reelected, he wouldn’t be in office for the last four years of the period.

Skepticism is justified. In the 1980s another deal was struck that supposedly would deliver $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue. Know what happened? That’s right.

Oh, and the various polls showing that either a majority or a significant minority of voters are willing to see increased taxes in order to get a budget deal? Remember that nearly 50% of Americans do not pay income tax — it’d literally be no skin off their noses if the other half have their taxes raised.

July 13, 2011

Expanding government-provided flood insurance?

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:42

It has always amazed me that the US government is the primary insurer for flood damage, but the idea of putting the few remaining private insurace companies out of business is insane:

The House of Representatives is scheduled this week, as early as today, to consider an extension and “reform” of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by FEMA. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the NFIP has been about $18 billion in the hole. And this is from a program that only collects around $2 billion a year in premiums, which barely covers losses and expenses in a normal year. So make no mistake, the NFIP is still on course to cost the taxpayer billions more in the future.

Even before Katrina, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the NFIP was receiving a subsidy of close to a billion dollars a year. Under CBO’s optimistic projections, the House’s reform bill would increase NFIP revenues by about $4 billion over the next ten years, making only a small dent in the program’s current deficit.

If private insurers aren’t willing to offer insurance to people and businesses located on flood plains, isn’t that a strong indication that building a house or a plant on that location is a bad idea? Why should people who chose not to locate in risky locations be forced to subsidize the risk-taking of those who do?

A bit more on the Caledonia settlement

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Law, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:58

The National Post looks at the shameful way the Ontario government has acted through the confrontation in Caledonia:

This week’s settlement of a class-action lawsuit fits right in with the government’s modus operandi. Four years after the suit was filed, Mr. McGuinty’s Liberals will pay a group of residents and business owners $20-million in recompense for the disruption that was caused when the Ontario Provincial Police elected to ignore the rampant violence and lawbreaking that accompanied the aboriginals’ illegal seizure of land. The money will be divided among about 800 claimants, according to a formula related to their proximity to the occupied territory and exposure to acts of violence. As usual, the province has done its best to gag any complaints by insisting that details of the agreement remain confidential.

The class-action suit specified four instances at the height of the dispute in which roads were closed, court injunctions were violated and a hydro-electric transformer was burned. But those were just a sampling of the many episodes in which police, acting under clear instruction, blatantly ignored the aboriginals’ contempt for the law. Families were terrorized, threatened, driven from their homes or forced to show aboriginal “passports” to gain access to their own neighbourhoods. It was like a scene from some balkanized tin-pot regime, in other words — local residents might be inclined to call it the Banana Republic of Ontario.

Donna Reid, a Caledonia resident who has been among the most critical of the government, dismissed the settlement as “hush money” by a Liberal administration that is facing re-election and wants the issue to go away. The amount received by most residents will do little to offset five years worth of disruption that has embittered relations and turned part of the town into a no-go area.

July 12, 2011

Settling the Caledonia issue . . . in time for the provincial election

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:12

Christie Blatchford finds the timing of the settlement to be “arguably suspicious”:

The last page of the Caledonia class action settlement is the one that tells the shameful truth of what happened five years ago in that lovely small southwestern Ontario town.

The settlement was the result of a lawsuit against the government and the Ontario Provincial Police filed by 440 residents, 400 businesses and a handful of sub-contractors affected by the native occupation there five years ago.

The deal has been repeatedly portrayed purely as a “compensation” package since it was formally announced by the Ontario government last Friday.

The government’s brief press release used carefully neutral language: The settlement is called an “agreement” which “provides compensation” for those who suffered “direct losses” during the course of “the protest.”

It is, in a word, bunk.

Have the markets already “priced in” the risk of a US government default?

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:48

Along with everyone else, I’ve been watching the US government’s fiscal game of “chicken” with some alarm. What is puzzling is that the opposition in congress doesn’t seem to be all that scared by the risk of default:

The facts, in fact, are plain enough. In the unlikely event that the U.S. government would hit the real ceiling on August 2 as advertised, the federal government would still be on track to collect about $2.2 trillion in the fiscal year. That wouldn’t change. And net interest for the year would still be about $205 billion, or less than a tenth of incoming revenues. And in light of the consequences, there is no doubt that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary would ensure that the interest payments are made on time and in full.

Thus it should not be surprising, as Fox Business News senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino wrote in a New York Post piece some days ago that “just about every private-sector economist I speak to says that Treasury could simply use its ample cash on hand to pay off our creditors first—then begin to prioritize payments for the military and various social programs.”

This view appears to be shared in spades by the credit markets, which so far have reacted to the Obama-media scare tactics with a big yawn. When the markets fear real default, they respond by jacking up interest rates, as we’ve seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc. It’s happening right now in those countries.

In sharp contrast, U.S. long-term rates are actually falling. The 10-year Treasury bond rate, which only a few days ago was around 3.15 percent, has dropped 20 basis points to 2.95 percent. Maybe the markets just aren’t paying attention. Or maybe they know Obama and Company are blowing smoke. Whether the debt ceiling is raised on time or not, markets are confident that the interest will be paid.

July 11, 2011

The Euro: who’ll be the first to leave?

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Government, Greece, Italy — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:15

With all eyes on Greece recently, the troubles of Italy come as a sudden shock to many:

Greece, Ireland, Portugal, (maybe) Spain…and now Italy? Contagion. The hope on the part of the EU and ECB was to contain the contagion by throwing money at it, but every time they fill one sink-hole with Euros another one opens up. It’s been obvious for a long time that the Eurozone was simply a bad idea, and this crisis has exposed the rotten underpinnings for all to see. Europe wanted to have a currency union just like the United States, but they are finding out the hard way that a monetary union without a fiscal-policy union just won’t work. European countries are not like US states — they have different langauges, different work rules, different governing philosophies…different cultures. The big question in everyone’s mind is…now what? Some countries must default, and a default will probably require leaving the Euro and going back to the sovereign currency. But no one knows exactly how this will work, or what the consequences will be.

Some people are floating the idea of a Euro-Bond, but I find that a little nonsensical absent any fiscal-policy union backing it. But of course this may be the point to the enterprise: to “force” Europeans into a closer union without having to go through the messy (and time-consuming) processes of holding a vote. The EU project has never really been a democratic enterprise from the very first — the Eurozone was implemented without the say-so (even over the protests of) its citizens. If I Eurobond is floated, I expect it to be another example of droit de Seigneur on the part of the Eurozone elite. (And it probably won’t work, and will piss away a lot more good money after bad, but none of that has stopped them so far.)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress