Originally published at Freedom Conservatism.
Vance Ginn is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and host of the “Let People Prosper Show.” A FreeCon signatory and former associate director for economic policy at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Ginn currently serves as senior fellow at Americans for Tax Reform, associate research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and chief economist at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. In a recent AIER commentary, he critiqued President Biden’s proposed federal tax on unrealized capital gains and similar proposals from progressive-led state governments. Such a tax “should be rejected,” Ginn wrote, “as it is fundamentally unjust, likely unconstitutional, and would hinder prosperity and individual freedom.” “A tax on unrealized capital gains means that individuals are penalized for owning appreciating assets, regardless of whether they have realized any actual income from selling them.” He argued that a better way to help disadvantaged Americans would be to reduce their tax burdens and reform regulations to spur more economic innovation and job creation. In a separate piece in Law & Liberty, Ginn recommended the application of two rules to federal policymakers: a cap on annual spending growth and a disciplined approach to monetary policy. “Proper constraints will nudge even the worst politicians to make fiscally responsible choices and reduce net interest costs. Furthermore, America will be better positioned to respond to crises at home and abroad.”
0 Comments
Originally published at Daily Caller.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) recent regulatory proposals have concerned stakeholders across the U.S. insurance landscape. At the heart of the controversy are proposed changes that could fundamentally alter how life insurance companies invest in financial instruments, with far-reaching consequences for the broader economy and, more specifically, the retirement security of millions of Americans. The NAIC, as a non-governmental entity that wields considerable influence over the insurance industry’s regulatory framework, operates in a unique space where its decisions can have national implications. Its recent move to increase capital requirements from 30% to 45% on residual asset-backed securities (ABS) tranches is a poignant example of regulatory action with unintended consequences. The proposal reflects a perceived higher risk assessment by necessitating higher financial reserves against these investments. However, this risk reassessment and the consequent regulatory response have not gone unchallenged. Critics, armed with analyses such as the Oliver Wyman report, contend that the data does not substantiate these changes, highlighting a dissonance between the empirical evidence and regulatory action. The implications of the NAIC’s proposals extend beyond the immediate financial health of life insurance companies to impact broader retirement planning. By disincentivizing investments in ABS and similar financial instruments, these regulatory changes threaten to narrow the investment options available to life insurance companies. Given the critical role that life insurance companies play in providing annuity products and as major institutional investors, the potential for these regulatory changes to affect market dynamics and returns for retirees is a major concern. These decisions should be made from a bottom-up approach in the marketplace, not from a top-down approach by NAIC. Amidst these regulatory developments, the suggested influence of external political forces, including the Biden administration and labor unions, introduces an additional layer of complexity. The assertion that these proposals may be driven by broader political objectives, rather than by an unbiased assessment of market risks and consumer protection needs, underscores the potential for regulatory processes to be co-opted for ideological ends. This prospect is particularly troubling in retirement planning, where American workers’ and retirees’ economic well-being and choices should be paramount. The debate over the NAIC’s proposed regulatory changes highlights the broader challenges of ensuring that this regulatory body operates with a commitment to transparency, accountability and evidence-based policymaking. An institutional framework that supports free-market competition, consumer choice and the economic interests of Americans in this financial space is needed, given the oversized influence of NAIC and the government. As the insurance industry navigates these regulatory waters, the call for a balanced, data-driven approach to regulation — prioritizing American workers’ long-term financial security and the U.S. economy’s health — is urgent. Regulation should be the last resort instead of the first for potential problems, as the marketplace, through a well-functioning price system, is best at regulating things to those who want and provide them most. The NAIC’s regulatory proposals represent a critical juncture for the U.S. insurance industry and the financial system supporting American retirement planning. The potential for these proposals to disincentivize key investment strategies poses a considerable risk to the sustainability of defined-contribution plans. It highlights the need for vigilant oversight of the regulatory process to hold regulators in check. Stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders and the public, must engage in substantive dialogue to ensure that future regulatory actions are grounded in solid empirical evidence and aligned with the prosperity of Americans. As this debate unfolds, upholding principles of competition, consumer protection and the integrity of the retirement planning framework in the marketplace remains paramount. At best, the NAIC proposal should be delayed for a year to give more time to examine its effects. But given the evidence so far, the proposal should be trashed. Originally published at Econlib.
Through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Biden administration has proposed a regulation to cap how much credit card companies can charge us when we’re late on a payment to just $8. This sounds great on the surface, right? Lower fees mean less stress when we’re struggling to make ends meet, as inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings have been down 4.2 percent. But, as with many things that seem too good to be true, there’s a catch. This well-meaning price control could make things the most challenging for those it’s supposed to help. First, why do credit card companies charge late fees? It’s not just about making an extra buck. These fees support more credit available for everyone and encourage us to pay on time, which helps the credit system run smoothly. Now, the CFPB is shaking things up by setting a price ceiling on these fees at $8. While it could save us some money if we slip up and pay late, credit card companies will find ways to compensate for this lost income. And how do they do that? Well, they might start charging more for other things, tightening who they give credit to, or increasing interest rates. That means, in the end, credit could be more expensive and harder to get for all of us. Not just individuals who could feel the squeeze, but small businesses, too. Many small businesses rely on credit to manage their cash flow and growth. If banks start being pickier about who they lend to or raise their fees, these small businesses will find it more costly to get credit. This isn’t just bad news for them; it’s bad news for everyone, as the result will be higher prices for consumers, lower wages, and fewer jobs for workers. Remember that small banks and credit unions are a big deal for the local economy. These institutions often depend on fees to keep things running. If they can charge less for late payments, they might not be able to lend as much. This could hit communities hard, making it tougher for people to get loans for starting a small business, buying a home, or building a project. Economists have long warned about the dangers of well-intentioned but poorly thought-out regulations. By setting a one-size-fits-all rule for late fees, the government would make credit more expensive and less accessible for everyone. The idea is to protect us from unfair fees, but the real-world result would be different if access to credit were limited for those who need it most. History proves that often the biggest challenge is to protect consumers from the consequences of government actions. In trying to shield us from high late fees, the government will set us up for a situation where credit is harder to come by and more expensive. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect consumers. Still, we need to think carefully about the consequences of our actions and let markets work, which is the best way to protect consumers as they have sovereignty over their purchases. While capping credit card late fees sounds like a simple fix, the ripple effects would be complex and wide-reaching. It’s crucial to keep credit accessible and affordable, support small businesses, and ensure the financial system remains robust. Let’s look at the implications of this price control regulation before rushing into it. Price controls never work as intended, as history has proven. Instead, we should ensure people in the marketplace determine what’s best for them rather than the Biden administration’s top-down, one-size-fits-none approach. In “This Week’s Economy” episode 55, I discuss the following and more in 11 minutes:
Originally this article with my quotes ran by KTRH News in Houston.
Under the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, the Federal Reserve was born. The goal of it was simple, to help avert depressions and inflation, while preventing wealthy Americans from controlling financial markets at lower class expense. For the majority of its lifespan, it has sat mostly unimpactful, until the 1980s. With inflation raging out of control, then-Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volker gave us tough love, and raised the rates along with restricting the money supply. This led to some hard time initially, especially within the first 6 months, but it eventually helped quell inflationary pressures on the economy, and we transitioned into the economic prosperity of the Ronald Reagan days. But in the last two decades, the Fed has gradually sought to destroy the American dollar, releasing endless money into the economy all while their balance sheet balloons to outrageous levels. It has culminated now in lower-to-middle class Americans struggling to make ends meet and buy basic necessities. Economist Vance Ginn says the many 'band aids' that the Fed has put on the economy, like monetizing debt, have hurt Americans more than ever. "Everyone's cost of living has dramatically increased...and the Fed has directly contributed to that by how much they have manipulated interest rates through their balance sheet, and by increasing the money supply," he says. For the longest time, the Fed kept interest rates has artificially kept he rates low to finance the dramatic government overspending. Then when the pandemic hit in 2020, the Fed created trillions to give away in stimulus checks, and to try and boost the economy, which has now essentially ruined it. As mentioned above, the old chairman Paul Volker's ways were about creating a brighter long-term future, instead of short-term fixes. That, according to Ginn, is what we desperately need again. "We need that style...he used to dramatically cut the money supply, which helped heal the pressures on the economy...so far, current Chairman Jerome Powell has not wanted to do that," he says. "Sometimes you need to have short term pains for long term gains." Current chairman Jerome Powell was a Donald Trump appointee, but the former President has since grown weary of Powell, criticizing him more and more. Trump has made a living on the campaign trail bashing the Biden economy, which he has vowed to fix if he wins office again. But to fix the situation might mean taking a hard look at Powell, and potentially replacing him. "We need someone who understand the economy, and the influence the Fed has on our lives," he says. "We need to make sure there is a sustainable path forward...that will be pivotal for the first part of a Trump Administration in 2025." As for who Trump would tab as a new Chairman is anyone's guess. But the parameters for what is needed are there. "In order to have the Fed come in and make those needed major changes...you have to give someone the leeway to do that, whether Trump like it or not," Ginn says. Trump would very much not like having to cause financial pain for Americans, considering how much he prides himself on winning at all costs. But he may not have a choice. "I think he will be able to sell it to the people though...he can just blame it on Biden," he says. But until then, as with just about every other aspect of our lives, the Biden Administration will continue keeping their thumb down on lower to middle class Americans. Originally published at Pelican Institute. It’s Geaux Time in Louisiana. The potential changes in Baton Rouge to remove barriers to work and let people keep more of their hard-earned money provide a more optimistic path for the Pelican State. This is much needed given the declining population over time and declines in employment for eight straight months. Let’s consider the latest data to see what’s really going on. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released Louisiana’s labor market data for February. These data provide details to evaluate how people are doing across the state. Louisiana’s unemployment rate increased to 4.2% per the household survey.
Employment has declined by 16,034 since March 2023, with employment declining in eight of the last eleven months.
Louisiana workers’ purchasing power continues to decline across most industries.
Figure 1. Louisiana’s Labor Market by Industry Economic growth has slowed, and GDP and personal income growth are below the U.S. average.
Bottom Line: Louisiana’s economy is mostly weak with some green shoots for growth. These past results are based on the state’s complicated tax system, high regulations, and excessive government spending that have resulted in a poor business tax climate, net out-migration, and one of the highest poverty rates in the country. But with changes in Baton Rouge this year, there is an opportunity for bold, pro-growth reforms.
These bold reforms include:
The TRUTH about Government’s Role in Social Mobility with John Phelan | Let People Prosper Ep. 904/1/2024 Today, I am joined by John Phelan, economist at the Center of the American Experiment in Minnesota, on the Let People Prosper Show episode 90.
We discuss the following and more:
Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter to get my podcast show notes and much more in your inbox: vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for more economic insights: vanceginn.com Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Overview
Texas’ employment has been up for 44 of the last 46 months since May 2020.
Figure 1. Texas Labor Market by Industry Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic growth has picked up, but personal income lags the U.S. average.
Figure 2: Real Gross Domestic Product by State in 2023 Improve the Texas Model with pro-growth policies that limit government by:
How Government Influences Bridge Repairs and Minors on Social Media | This Week’s Economy Ep. 543/29/2024 In “This Week’s Economy” episode 54, I discuss the following and more:
See show notes on Substack: www.vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for more economic insights: www.vanceginn.com Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Highlights
Figure 1: Real Average Weekly Earnings Remain Down 4.2% Since January 2021 Source: Fed FRED Labor Market The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its U.S. jobs report for February 2024, which was another mixed report with some strengths but many weaknesses.
Figure 2. Changes in Employment by Industry Over the Last Year Source: Fed FRED
Figure 3. Establishment Nonfarm Jobs Far Outpace Household Employment Level Since March 2022 Source: Fed FRED
Economic Growth The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently released the third estimate for economic output in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Table 1: Economic Output, Growth, and Inflation Another key measure of economic activity is the real average of GDP and GDI, which accounts for domestic production and income and is known as real gross domestic output. Real GDO in the third quarter increased by 3.4%, and in the fourth quarter increased by 4.1% to $22.5 trillion. Figure 4 shows how this measure has declined on an annualized basis in three of the last eight quarters, increasing this value by only 2.9% since the fourth quarter of 2021 before the two consecutive quarters of declines in the first and second quarters of 2022. Figure 4. Annualized Real Gross Domestic Output Growth Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit continues unabated because of overspending and declining tax collections from a weaker economy. The national debt has ballooned to $34.6 trillion, and net interest payments on the debt will soon be a top federal expenditure, rising to above $1 trillion. The Federal Reserve has monetized, or printed, much of the new Treasury debt to keep interest rates artificially lower than where the market would suggest. The Fed will need to cut its balance sheet (total assets over time) more aggressively if it is to stop manipulating markets (see this for types of assets on its balance sheet) and persistently tame inflation. The current annual inflation rate of the consumer price index (CPI) has been moderating since a peak of 9.1% in June 2022 but remains elevated at 3.2% in February 2024. Compared with the Fed’s average inflation rate target of 2%, which really should be 0%, the current CPI inflation rate is too high, as are other key measures of inflation. A recent paper by Larry Summers, who was the 71st Secretary of the Treasury for President Clinton and Director of the National Economic Council for President Obama, and co-authors notes that if the calculation of CPI kept housing calculation methods and personal interest payments in, then the latest peak in inflation would have been 18% instead of 8.1%. Figure 5 shows their chart with these data that also highlights how the method-adjusted inflation would be closer to 10% instead of the reported 3.1%. Figure 5. CPI Inflation Differences When Methods Are Similar Over Time Just as inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, deficits and high taxes are always and everywhere a spending problem. David Boaz at Cato Institute has noted how this problem is caused by both Republicans and Democrats. To control this fiscal and monetary crisis, the U.S. needs a fiscal rule like the Responsible American Budget (RAB) with a maximum spending limit based on the rate of population growth plus inflation. This was recently released as part of Americans for Tax Reform’s Sustainable Budget Project, highlighting this approach’s benefits at the federal, state, and local levels. If Congress had followed this approach from 2004 to 2023, Figure 4 shows tax receipts, spending, and spending adjusted for only population growth plus chained-CPI inflation. Instead of an (updated) $20.2 trillion national debt increase, there could have been only a $700 billion debt increase for a $19.5 trillion swing in a positive direction that would have substantially reduced the cost of this debt to Americans. The Republican Study Committee recently noted the strength of this type of fiscal rule in its FY 2025 “Fiscal Sanity to Save America.” To top this off, the Federal Reserve should follow a monetary rule so that the costly discretion stops creating booms and busts. Figure 6: Federal Budget Gap Shrinks If Spending Limited to Population Growth Plus Inflation Bottom Line
Bidenomics has been a failure and the policy approach must be redirected to pro-growth policies that shrink government rather than big-government, progressive policies. It’s time for a limited government with sound fiscal and monetary policy that provides more opportunities for people to work and have more paths out of poverty. Recommendations:
In the wake of the Baltimore bridge collapse, a major U.S. port has come to a standstill. The Port of Baltimore is the top U.S. port for vehicle imports and exports, as well as for farm and construction machinery. U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told MSNBC on Wednesday that while there are many ports on the U.S. East Coast, “there is no substitute for the Port of Baltimore being up and running.”
How will this affect the U.S. economy—and even global supply chains? NTD spoke to Vance Ginn, the president of Ginn Economic Consulting and the former chief economist at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, to find out more. Originally published at AIER.
Recently, the Biden administration handed $1.5 billion to the nation’s largest domestic semiconductor manufacturer, GlobalFoundries, the biggest payout from the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 so far. The argument for this corporate welfare is America is too dependent on chips from China and Taiwan so more should be made domestically. Instead of seeing how America should reduce the cost of doing business for all semiconductor businesses here, some businesses will be picked as winners and others as losers. The cost of this form of socialism gives capitalism a bad rap and should be rejected. This move echoes a broader trend of governments worldwide intervening in their economies through industrial policy. A cocktail of targeted subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory tinkering, industrial policy aims to sculpt economic outcomes by favoring specific industries or firms, all for the supposed benefit of the national economy. Industrial policy puts business “investment” decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats. What could go wrong? While its champions tout its potential to boost competitiveness and spur innovation, the reality often tells a different story, especially in light of massive deficit spending. In practice, industrial policy tends to fan the flames of higher prices and sow the seeds of economic destruction. Politicians too often meddle with voluntary market dynamics by artificially bolstering favored sectors through subsidies and tax perks, resulting in the misallocation of resources and distorted prices. Moreover, the infusion of government funds to bankroll these initiatives with borrowed money can contribute to the Federal Reserve helping finance the debt, increasing the money supply, and stoking inflation. The nexus between deficit spending and prices looms large over industrial policy. When politicians resort to deficit spending to bankroll industrial ventures, they put upward pressure on interest rates by issuing more debt and competing with scarce private funds. Elevated interest rates disturb private investment, ushering in a likely economic slowdown. Suppose deficit financing leans heavily on monetary expansion, whereby the central bank snaps up government debt. In that case, it fuels inflation by flooding the market with money that chases fewer goods and services. The national debt is above $34 trillion, and the Federal Reserve has already monetized much of the increase in recent years. Racking up even more deficits is insane: repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result. Excessive spending and money printing have landed us with above-target inflation for over three years running. The repercussions of industrial policy ripple beyond inflation to encompass the broader economic landscape. Excessive government meddling in specific industries crowds out private investment and entrepreneurship. When particular firms enjoy subsidies and preferential treatment, it distorts the competitive landscape and deters innovation. This stifles economic vibrancy and impedes the rise of new industries or technologies crucial for sustained growth. For a cautionary tale of how Biden’s recent move could play out, look no further than Europe. Nations like Sweden, heralded by the West as a utopian example of big government yielding big benefits, spent the last year grappling with economic strife driven by dwindling private consumption and housing construction. Europe’s penchant for industrial policy, marked by subsidies, high taxes, and regulatory hoops, has contributed to its economic stagnation. To sidestep the dilemma of industrial policy missteps, policymakers should stop propping up their favorite sector or industry and instead unleash people to flourish by getting the government out of the way. Politicians should foster an environment conducive to entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition. This entails cutting government spending, reducing taxes, trimming red tape, and championing trade by removing barriers to private sector flourishing. By allowing market forces to determine resource allocation and rewarding entrepreneurship and risk-taking, people here and elsewhere can unleash their full potential and adapt to changing circumstances more effectively than under industrial policy frameworks. Biden’s billion-dollar amount to one company may seem like a lot, but that’s just a drop in the bucket of what’s to come from the CHIPS Act. Instead, these funds should be eliminated, preventing Congress from taking us further down the road to serfdom. Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Executive Summary
Originally published at Texas Scorecard.
Texas can pass bold school choice legislation when the next legislative session starts in January 2025. This could finally happen because of the recent election wins in the House primaries, efforts led by Gov. Greg Abbott. The election wins include pro-school choice candidates beating anti-school choice incumbents or filling seats of retiring anti-school choice members. More incumbents, including House Speaker Dade Phelan, were forced to a runoff in May. Moreover, 80 percent of Republicans voted for Proposition 11 on the primary ballot to support school choice, which matters in a dominantly red state. In the evolving educational reform landscape, universal education savings accounts (ESAs) provide the best path to empower parents to decide their children’s education. They are also a practical, fiscally responsible strategy for reimagining the future of education. At least 10 states have passed universal school choice, and more are likely to do so soon. But these states haven’t reached the pinnacle of what a competitive education system should look like. The optimal school choice approach should liberate education from the constraints of the monopoly government school system, draw upon successful market-driven solutions, and offer a simplified education finance system. The Texas Legislature essentially controls the current school finance system with funding from taxpayers through taxes collected by the state, school district, and federal governments. The inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the status quo are stark, including questionable but relevant declining test scores. This highlights a critical need for an approach that better serves students’ and families’ unique needs and aspirations. The state’s school finance system is based on many factors to the school system, but the Texas Education Agency recently reported that the average funding per student was $14,928 in the 2021-22 school year. Total funding was $80.6 billion for 5.5 million students. Of course, this is how much is spent, but the actual cost of the monopoly government school system is hidden and driven higher by politics rather than market outcomes. ESAs provide flexibility in covering many educational services, including various schooling options, tutoring, testing, and other related expenses. This empowers parents to customize their children’s education to suit individual learning styles and interests. This adaptability is vital for fostering environments where children excel academically, socially, and emotionally. Implementing a universal ESA program demands a framework that balances simplicity with accountability, ensuring the focus remains on expanding educational opportunities and improving student outcomes. While many current ESA programs run alongside the government school system, this doesn’t provide the most competitive framework. Running them in tandem, whereby the funding remains the same or even increases for government schools while creating a new system to fund ESAs, is costly and lacks the incentives for optimal outcomes. Instead, we should pursue a simplified education finance approach that maximizes competition, reduces costs, and lowers taxes by funding students, instead of a system. A bold proposal would provide parents with an ESA of $10,000 per child for the school year but paid monthly or the preferred frequency to choose any approved schooling, including government, private, charter, home, co-op, tutoring, or other types of schooling. With about 6.3 million school-age children in Texas, the annual total expenditure would be $63 billion, or $17.6 billion less than what’s being spent today on government schools. Parents could receive an ESA of as much as $12,800 per student to keep the same expenditures as today. However, given the bloated bureaucracy and misguided direction of government schools, the $10,000 amount would help force efficiencies while reducing taxpayers’ costs and incentivizing new education providers. The lower cost of $17.6 billion would provide an opportunity for substantial school property tax relief. Combining ESAs and property tax relief would further accentuate the proposal’s appeal, addressing the lack of school choice and burdensome property taxes. The bold approach eliminates most, if not all, of the current antiquated government school finance system with one that gives parents a way to meet their children’s unique learning needs best. It would help alleviate the hardship for many families that can choose alternatives for financial reasons, pay lower property taxes, or have money remaining to invest in their children’s quality of life and educational pursuits. As states across the nation begin to recognize the transformative potential of this bold universal school choice approach, the momentum is undeniable. This trend underscores a growing consensus on the need for educational systems that prioritize choice, flexibility, and parental empowerment. By breaking free from the monopoly government school finance system and embracing a bold ESA finance approach that empowers parents, we can pave the way for a future where every child can achieve their full potential. Originally published at The Center Square.
The recent surge of bills attempting to rein in social media outrage in Florida and across America has sparked debate over the role of government in regulating them. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed an initial bill banning minors on social media. In his veto message, he said, “Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents’ rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech.” We should empower parents to determine what's best for their children on social media, or otherwise. This will work better than putting politicians and government bureaucrats in charge, which is what these types of bills do. These bills are likely unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, excessive government regulation of social media stifles innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital space, especially small businesses. By imposing burdensome restrictions on online platforms, we risk hindering the development of new technologies and services that could benefit families. A more pragmatic approach fosters competition in the marketplace, allowing consumers to choose the platforms that best align with their values and preferences. These regulations would hurt many start-up firms as they won’t have the resources to hire as many lawyers to jump through the hoops imposed on them that larger, incumbent companies can afford. They would also need to pay third-party verification systems that cost thousands of dollars, making it more challenging to start a business, as noted in a recent report by Engine. Gov. DeSantis has been a vocal advocate for parental empowerment, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability from social media companies. His initial pushback of government overreach of social media should be championed rather than resorting to bans for questionable reasons, as social media isn’t the culprit for bad parenting or bad legislation. In light of ongoing NetChoice cases at the Supreme Court, where the organization has fought against state-level regulations deemed infringing on free speech and commerce, we should uphold free speech in the digital age. By joining parents in advocating for greater transparency and accountability by social media companies where applicable, we can champion the interests of Americans and assert state sovereignty. Rather than relying on government mandates and regulations, we should foster a culture of parental responsibility and provide families with the resources they need to navigate the digital landscape safely. If politicians and bureaucrats take over these responsibilities, it will lead to less incentive for parents to be engaged with their kids and what they’re doing online. This would be a terrible path forward as the government has already made bad situations worse regarding safety-net handouts, a monopoly government school system, and more. Let’s stick with a proven approach that supports parents and social media providers rather than a top-down, likely unconstitutional one. Today, I am joined by Dr. Ed Timmons, the Service Associate Professor of Economics and Director of the Knee Regulatory Research Center at the John Chambers School of Business and Economics at West Virginia University.
Join us on Let People People Show Episode 89 as we discuss the following: - Purpose of government licenses - Costs and benefits of occupational licensing - Ways to get the government out of the way of work Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack - www.vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for economic insights - www.vanceginn.com Who’s REALLY To Blame for the Housing Affordability Crisis: Investors, Markets, or Governments?3/22/2024 In “This Week’s Economy” Episode 53, I discuss the following and more:
- What’s up with the housing market? - Will Louisiana be next to get universal school choice? - Why can’t we treat people like people instead of pawns? Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack - www.vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for economic insights - www.vanceginn.com Last week, the Texas Association of Business, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and American Bankers Association sued to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final rule to lower the credit card late fees cap to $8.
This lawsuit challenges the Biden Administration's terrible price control idea that would hurt Texans. Given the entities that sued to block this rule and the effect on Texans, the case should continue in Texas instead of moving it elsewhere as the CFPB would like. Credit card late fees, what some call “junk fees,” are the cost of someone paying their bill late. Nothing is free, so there’s a charge for paying late, as it also influences the expected cash flow of credit card companies. It’s not a price gouging scheme; it’s simply a way to take the risk of giving credit to those in need while keeping cash flow for profitability. This is not only important for businesses, but it also provides an incentive for people to pay their bill online. Without a market-based credit card fee, the cost will be on those who need credit the most as they won’t be able to get it or pay much higher interest rates. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote: “Even the CFPB acknowledges, the lower penalty may cause more borrowers to pay late, and as a result incur higher ‘interest charges, penalty rates, credit reporting, and the loss of a grace period.” Many Texans depend on credit card access to pay their living expenses. There are more than 3 lines of credit per user in Texas. More than 3 million small businesses also rely on access to credit to grow and expand. Some card issuers most impacted by this rule, including Citi, Chase, and Synchrony, have extensive operations in Texas. JCPenney, based in Plano, offers one of the country's most popular co-branded credit cards through its partnership with Synchrony. The retailer, which employs more than 2,000 Texans, is just a few years removed from bankruptcy and stands to lose big if this misguided rule is allowed to stand. Reports indicate late fees account for 14 to 30 percent of department store credit card revenue. Given the current state of credit card delinquencies at a 10-year high, the CFPB’s rule would exacerbate an already dire situation. This would have far-reaching effects on our community and economy, particularly as consumers and small businesses increasingly rely on credit to navigate lower inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings by 4.2% since January 2021. Most of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are local organizations that recognize the importance of defending and preserving access to credit. Texas is the rightful venue for this battle. Originally published at AIER.
ohn Cochrane’s The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level examines the relationship between fiscal policy and inflation, which many consider to be the increase in the price level of a basket of goods and services. An influential and accomplished economist at the Hoover Institution, Cochrane is one of the most forward-thinking economists today. His approach challenges conventional wisdom and presents a compelling case for reevaluating our understanding of the economy. I learned much from reading the book and while interviewing him about it on my Let People Prosper Show podcast. I highly recommend reading this extensive book, though I have reservations about fiscal policy trumping monetary policy when considering the influence on inflation. Cochrane begins by laying out the foundational principles of his theory. He emphasizes the roles of government debt, taxes, and inflation expectations on prices. He argues that traditional economic models, which focus primarily on the role of central banks in controlling inflation through monetary policy, such as those by Milton Friedman, overlook the substantial effect of fiscal variables on prices. By uniquely integrating fiscal considerations and the public’s expectations about those factors into economic analysis, Cochrane aims to provide a more robust framework for understanding and predicting inflationary trends. He delves into various theoretical and empirical aspects of fiscal theory, drawing on a wide range of literature and evidence to support his arguments. He explores the implications of government budget constraints, the role of Ricardian equivalence that assumes a balanced budget over time, and the potential limitations of conventional monetary tools in controlling inflationary pressures. His thorough examination of these issues provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of studying the relationship between fiscal policy and inflation. Cochrane’s arguments are persuasive and well-supported, but some aspects of his analysis warrant scrutiny. One area of contention is Cochrane’s emphasis on the primacy of fiscal policy in driving inflationary dynamics, particularly his assertion that the Federal Reserve plays a secondary role compared to Congress in shaping inflation outcomes. While Cochrane makes a compelling case for the importance of fiscal variables, the penultimate creator of inflation is the Fed when it creates more money than the goods and services produced. Milton Friedman, who extensively studied the role of the Fed in economic activity and inflation, said: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. It is a result of a greater increase in the quantity of money than in the output of goods and services which is available for spending.” The Fed controls what’s called “high-powered money” of various assets on its balance sheet. These assets include mostly Treasury securities from the tens of trillions of dollars in debt issued by the federal government. It also includes mortgage-backed securities, lending to financial institutions, federal agency debt, and other lending facilities. I agree with Cochrane that federal deficits give ammunition to the Fed when it purchases Treasury debt, grows high-powered money, contributes to more money chasing too few goods and services, and results in inflation. But other assets on the Fed’s balance sheet also matter, especially since the Great Financial Crisis in 2008 when the Fed started quantitative easing. Cochrane’s framework overlooks the significant role of monetary policy in influencing inflation expectations and shaping the broader economic environment. While fiscal policy can play a role in determining long-term inflation trends, as the debt distorts interest rates in the market, the Fed’s control of the money supply to target the federal funds rate and influence other rates along the yield curve remains a potent tool for managing expectations. While we should challenge Congress to adopt a fiscal rule for sustainable budgets to relieve excessive spending that drives up the national debt, this does not undermine the source of inflation: the Fed. But if Congress could balance its budget, which hasn’t happened since 2001, it would remove a bullet the Fed could shoot at the economy. In other words, a sustainable fiscal policy, wherein Congress passes balanced budgets by limiting government spending — the ultimate burden of government and the source of budget deficits — would help control inflation. While this could mitigate the assets available for the Fed to add to high-powered money, it would not solve the inflation problem because of many other available assets. Another issue that arises from considering fiscal policy the prime mover of inflation is how it works in practice. Fiscal policy is not directly expansionary or contractionary, as it is just taking funds from some people to give to others, with many of the takers being politicians and bureaucrats in government. These actions move money around in the economy without increasing productive activity that creates goods and services. There are roles for the federal, state, and local governments, but those should be limited to those outlined in constitutions. If Congress would abide by the Constitution, whereby it funded only limited government instead of the bloated federal government today, then fiscal policy would not be so burdensome. Fiscal policy would also not fall into the Keynesian trap of trying to “stabilize economic activity,” as the only thing that governments typically stimulate is more government because of the created failures due to the limited knowledge and rent seeking by politicians and bureaucrats. The underlying problem is usually government failures that cannot be resolved by more government. When Congress returns to its limited, constitutional roles, the federal budget will be drastically cut, resulting in lower taxes and opportunities to pay down and retire the national debt. This would also help reduce the massive distortions throughout the economy from government spending, taxes, and regulations. It would also decrease the Fed’s influence on the economy, but not entirely because of the other assets available for its disposal. The Fed also distorts economic activity through its ability to influence each stage of the production process with the assets on its balance sheet and its effect on interest rates. When the Fed purchases Treasury debt and increases high-powered money, the new money does not go to everyone simultaneously. Instead, the money trickles down from the financial sector to other sectors based on credit availability and other factors, in what is called the Cantillon effect. The manipulation of different markets throughout the production process of goods by the new money and the influence the purchase of assets by the Fed has on interest rates create boom and bust cycles. There is ample evidence about these economic steps, especially from the Austrian business cycle theory. Fiscal policy influences many steps in the production process through subsidies, tax breaks, and regulations, which hinder the voluntary production of individual goods and services through a well-functioning price system. But Congress cannot increase the money supply, which only the Fed can do, nor influence the general price level nor the resulting inflation. All things considered, Cochrane’s comprehensive exploration of fiscal theory and extensive analysis of its implications for the price level riveted me. His methodical dissection of economic concepts and pragmatic approach to examining fiscal policy offered a fresh perspective on economic dynamics. In conclusion, the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the determinants of inflation and the role of fiscal policy in the economy. While I’m sympathetic to Cochrane’s arguments, it is essential to recognize the importance of a central bank’s monetary policy in causing inflation through its balance sheet. Additionally, we should acknowledge the distortions caused by government policy, whether fiscal or monetary, and recognize the secondary role of fiscal policy compared to monetary policy in addressing inflationary pressures. To ensure sound economic outcomes, it is imperative to establish strong fiscal and monetary rules that provide an institutional framework limiting the burdens of government actions on our lives and livelihoods. Despite my dissent on the emphasis placed on fiscal policy’s role in inflation, the book’s productive discourse on the delicate dynamics of key economic elements make this an important contribution to inflation studies. Today, I am joined by Dr. John B. Taylor, the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution and the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University.
Join us as we discuss the economic situation, the performance of monetary and fiscal policies, the importance of policy rules like his famous Taylor rule, and lessons in economic freedom. Without economic freedom and policy rules, we are unlikely to let people prosper. Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. See show notes for this episode on Substack and subscribe to receive it in your inbox: www.vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for economic insights: www.vanceginn.com In today’s This Week’s Economy episode 52, I discuss the benefits of economics, school choice, spending limits, abundance, vacations, and much more in 8 minutes!
I explain how abundance matters through a limited government that provides more rest and leisure. Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. See show notes for this episode on Substack and subscribe to receive it in your inbox: www.vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for economic insights: www.vanceginn.com Originally published at AIER.
Taxing unrealized capital gains on property, stocks, and other assets is not just a bad idea, it’s an economic fallacy that undermines economic growth and personal liberty. Unfortunately, President Biden’s $7.3 trillion budget proposes such a federal tax. Vermont and ten other states have made similar moves. This tax should be rejected, as it is fundamentally unjust, likely unconstitutional, and would hinder prosperity and individual freedom. A tax on unrealized capital gains means that individuals are penalized for owning appreciating assets, regardless of whether they have realized any actual income from selling them. If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability? The devil is in the details of the approach to this tax, but the devil is also in the tax itself. Adam Michel of Cato Institute explained two types of unrealized taxes in President Biden’s latest budget:
Taxing unrealized capital gains contradicts the basic principles of fairness and property rights essential for a free and prosperous society. Taxation, if we’re going to have it on income, should be based on actual income earned, not on paper gains that may never materialize. Moreover, taxing unrealized gains hurts economic activity by discouraging investment and capital formation, the lifeblood of a dynamic economy. When individuals know their unrealized gains will be taxed, they have less incentive to invest in productive assets such as stocks, real estate, or businesses. This leads to a misallocation of resources and slower economic growth. Additionally, this tax reduces the capital available for entrepreneurship and innovation. Start-ups and small businesses often rely on investment from individuals willing to take risks in the hope of eventually earning a return on their investment. By taxing unrealized capital gains, we discourage risk-taking and stifle innovation, essential elements for improving productivity and raising living standards. The tax undermines personal liberty by infringing on individuals’ property rights and financial privacy. It gives the government unprecedented control over people’s assets and creates a powerful disincentive for individuals to save and invest. This is particularly troublesome in an era of increasing government surveillance and intrusion into private affairs. Proponents of taxing unrealized capital gains argue that it is a way to address income inequality and raise revenue for social programs. This argument can’t withstand scrutiny. This tax does little to address the root causes of income inequality, such as government failures in fiscal and monetary policies. Instead, this new tax would merely redistribute wealth from productive individuals to the government, thereby further misallocating hard-earned money. Furthermore, the tax revenue raised from this tax will be far less than proponents anticipate, as individuals will work less, invest less, and find ways to avoid such taxes through legal paths. This would result in less economic prosperity and a resulting decline in tax collections. From an economic and moral perspective, taxing unrealized capital gains from property, stocks, and other assets is a bad idea. It undermines economic growth, stifles innovation, and infringes on personal liberty. Instead of resorting to the misguided policies of the Biden administration and some states, we should remove barriers created by the government. These include reducing spending, taxes, and regulations. We should also impose fiscal and monetary rules. Achieving these goals and ending the bad idea of a new tax on unrealized capital gains will encourage investment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity for all. Only then can we truly unleash the potential of a free and prosperous society. Could Colorado become one of the seven states with no income tax? Vance Ginn, former White House Office of Management and Budget, believes the state is on the #Path2Zero.
Originally published at Washington Times.
In President Biden‘s recent State of the Union address, he painted a rosy economic picture, touting what he called “Bidenomics” as the driving force behind what he claims is a robust economy. He pointed to a low unemployment rate, the absence of a recession, and a lower inflation rate as evidence of success. Reality, however, tells a different story. And Mr. Biden’s recently released irresponsible budget sends the federal government and America further toward bankruptcy. Despite the president’s assertions, the economy and inflation remain top concerns for most Americans. The disconnect between the headlines and the lives of ordinary citizens underscores the profound challenges facing the nation’s economic landscape. This sense of malaise can be directly attributed to the flawed principles underlying Bidenomics, as outlined in his latest budget. These include excessive spending, taxation and regulation. Each is destructive, but together, they are catastrophic. The result has been stagflation and less household employment in four of the last five months. There have also been lower inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings by 4.2% since January 2021, when Mr. Biden took office. Rather than fostering economic growth and prosperity, Bidenomics has stifled innovation, investment and job creation. At its core, Bidenomics represents a misguided attempt to address complex economic issues through heavy-handed government intervention. While the administration may tout short-term gains, the long-term consequences of such policies are far-reaching and unaffordable. The reality is that excessive government spending has led to unsustainable levels of debt, burdening future generations with the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility. Similarly, excessive taxation is stifling entrepreneurship and dampening economic activity, limiting opportunities for individuals and businesses alike. Excessive regulation serves only to hamper innovation and drive up costs, exacerbating the challenges facing working families. Unfortunately, Mr. Biden’s latest budget proposal doubles down on these bad policies. Even with rosy assumptions of tax collections being a higher share of economic output over time as the tax hikes will reduce growth and, therefore, lower taxes as a share of gross domestic product, the budget continues massive deficits every year. This will result in higher interest rates, higher inflation, more investment These results have been highlighted in economic theory by economists such as Alberto Alesina and John B. Taylor. Their research has found that raising taxes doesn’t help close budget deficits because of the reduction in growth from higher taxes in a dynamic economy. The way forward should be cutting or at least better-limiting government spending — the ultimate burden of government on taxpayers. Amid these challenges, America also needs a return to optimism and flourishing. This includes leadership that inspires confidence, fosters innovation, and empowers people to pursue their dreams. We need out-of-the-box policies prioritizing economic freedom and individual opportunity, allowing the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive and driving growth and prosperity. More specifically, this means reducing the burden of government intervention through lower spending and taxes, streamlining regulations, and fostering an environment where entrepreneurship can thrive. By embracing fiscal sustainability and making tough choices, we can ensure the long-term stability and prosperity of our nation. In short, while Mr. Biden tries to spin a positive narrative about the economy, the facts speak for themselves. We cannot afford Bidenomics, no matter the headlines, what was touted in the State of the Union address, or the latest budget. The stakes are too high, and the consequences too grave, to ignore the reality of our economic situation. We need leadership that is willing to confront the hard truths and enact policies that prioritize the well-being of all Americans, fostering an environment where optimism and flourishing can thrive. Today, I am joined by Dr. Justin Callais, who is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.
Join us as we discuss social mobility in the 50 states, Louisiana’s economic and population challenges, sound economics, and much more. This includes the lack of social mobility in Louisiana from too much government. Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. See show notes for this episode on Substack and subscribe to receive it in your inbox: www.vanceginn.substack.com Visit my website for economic insights: www.vanceginn.com |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|