Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



Much Ado About Trade Wars
Raymond Richman, 7/26/2018

The media are all hyped up about trade wars. Where were they when USA factories were shutting down and moving overseas costing millions of Americans good-paying manufacturing jobs and when the trade deficits showed up endlessly in the Gross Domestic Products accounts causing slow economic growth? They still do not mention them except to deride Pres. Trump when he mentions it. Nor are economists free of blame. Balanced trade is easy to achieve but not by tariffs on particular products but by scaled tariffs, variable-single-country-tariffs that work like devaluing a currency, the traditional method of achieving balanced trade.

Nearly all economists are strong advocates of free trade. That is a hangover from the decades before WWII when the U.S. was the leading trade surplus country. When the U.S. became the world’s leading trade deficit country, economists did not change their outlook and economists were silent about the harm those deficits were doing to our basic manufacturing industries. They still are.

Prof. Martin Feldstein of Harvard wrote in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal (7/6/2018) that he is a “strong advocate of free trade” and writes that, “If the U.S. reduces the trade deficit with one country, it must increase the net trade deficit with others to keep the total unchanged.” Notice his qualifying phrase “to keep the total unchanged.” That phrase hidden in his rhetoric is a non-sequitur; keeping the total trade unchanged is not a policy objective. He is saying that tariffs and subsidies and exchange rates do not have any effect on the trade deficits which is utterly false. Our trade objective should be to increase the total welfare of Americans by specializing in the production of goods that we have comparative advantage in producing and trading them for an equal value of goods that our trading partners have a comparative advantage in producing.

Balanced trade is always beneficial for both trade partners. When a country has a trade deficit with one of its trading partners and with the rest of the world, economists cannot show that the trade is beneficial to both trading partners.

Unfortunately, the conditions for a free trade policy do not exist in the real world. No economist should be in favor of free trade unless the following conditions are satisfied by the trading partners: a common currency, absence of any artificial barriers to trade, and free movement of capital and labor. Those conditions are imposed on the States by the U.S. Constitution. But they do not exists internationally. Being for free trade in the international community has no rational basis. Formal (tariffs) and informal barriers (especially in countries which lack free markets), industries are subsidized, artificially low foreign exchange rates are  maintained vis-à-vis the USA, and barriers to the free movement of capital and labor are the rule, not the exception. Several countries have large chronic surpluses with the U.S. They acquire huge amounts of U.S. government and corporate debt, and often use the funds to acquired business assets in the U.S. The U.S. has a huge chronic trade deficit with the rest of the world....

 

Read more...

Comments: 0


EU commissioner to White House today: $5.1 B Google fine on agenda -- we're published in American Thinker today
Howard Richman, 7/25/2018

When European Union commissioner Juncker meets with Trump in the White House today, the $5 billion fine that he just leveled against Google (which Trump tweeted about last week) will be on the agenda. The EU claims jurisdiction over the entire world in that the fines are determined as a percentage of worldwide revenue. Furthermore these companies are being fined for benefiting the consumer and for causing economic growth.

The top 4 payers of fines under this statute were American companies:

  1. Google. $7.8 billion in 2017 & 2018
  2. Microsoft: $2.1 billion in 2004, 2006 & 2008
  3. Intel. $1.5 billion in 2009
  4. Qualcomm. $1.2 billion in 2018
  5. Telefonica. $0.2 billion in 2007

"Make no mistake, this statute is being used to punish American companies for being big and American. It is designed to shackle American companies so that European producers can steal their market share."

To read the entire posting on the American Thinker website:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/eu_commissioner_to_white_house_today_51b_google_fine_on_agenda.html

Read more...

Comments: 0


Wasteful spending will sink our country - Ray was published in American Thinker
Howard Richman, 7/23/2018

He began:

With a budget deficit in 2017 of $666 billion, adding to the $21 trillion of debt already outstanding, $15 trillion of it owned to foreigners, time is long overdue to reduce federal government expenditures.  Congress has been unwilling to eliminate any wasteful program if a significant group of voters supports it.  And overspending on ongoing programs is the rule because of Congress's failure to exercise the required oversight

To read it, go to:

https://admin.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/wasteful_spending_will_sink_our_country.html

Read more...

Comments: 0


The Laws of Diminishing Returns and Increasing Cost Apply to Government Expenditures
Raymond Richman, 7/4/2018

Congress appears to be unwilling to eliminate any program which has been in existence for years if any citizen’s group supports it. Congress appears to be unwilling to eliminate instances of wasteful spending even when they are reported in the media and are well-known. Even worse is the overspending on ongoing programs because of Congress’s failure to control legitimate spending.

The most grievous policy mistake is to neglect two of the most important economic laws, the Law of Diminishing Returns, and its related Law of Increasing Cost. Over-spending on existing programs is probably the rule rather than the exception. The former says that given the fact that all factors are limited, e.g. capital and labor, increasing the employment of one factor relative to another to produce a particular product will result in less than proportional increase in output. Increasing costs means that, given the fact that total resources are in limited  supply, to produce more of one product requires giving up more and more of another or other products.

The reasons we don’t see these effects is that the economy is too complex and too dynamic. There are so many sectors and industries, some of which are affected without calling our attention to them. And over time, there will be invention of new products, improved methods of production, technological change, innovations, and other changes. But we are better able to discern their effects as government grows and its subsidies increase. The need for subsidies is evidence of diminishing returns and of increasing costs. If we were able to calculate benefits and costs of new government expenditure programs, we would observe that most of them are due to the diminishing returns and increasing cost of existing programs.

These require increasing diversion of funds from the private sector. For example, increased defense spending is at the expense of increased costs of goods in the private sector. When government spends more money on global warming projects, it is at the expense of increased costs of other goods people buy. Since electricity produced by wind and solar power is more costly than electricity produced from fossil fuels, the increased cost effect reduces private purchasing power twice, as private sector costs increase and second by the law of diminishing returns as government expenditures on climate change increase.  

Failure to pay attention to diminishing returns means that government expenditures on many if not most programs exceeds the amount that cost-benefit would justify and many expenditure programs should not have been initiated at all.  Government would get increasing returns by reducing expenditures and the private sector would enjoy increasing returns and reduced costs as government expenditures are reduced.

Admittedly, this makes a case for reducing the size of government. There can be little doubt that federal government spending is excessive on a wide range of programs in nearly every department and agency. ...

 

Read more...

Comments: 0





  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Aug 2018
    Jul 2018

    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Politics
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]