ANALYSIS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS IN PROF. SKOSPLES' ECONOMIC SYSTEMS COURSE AT OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The U.S. Does Not Have A Debt Problem...It Has A Health Care Cost Problem
Syrian forces shell Homs ahead of Arab meeting
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/11/us-syria-idUSL5E8DB0BH20120211
Consumer Sentiment Falls More Than Forecast
Obama's Proposed Fiscal 2013 Budget Has $901B Deficit
Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor, Studies Say
What's next for Europe...?
The article focused on Europe's media forerunners for economic crises, including Spain, and Greece.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/06/whats-next-for-europe/?iid=SF_BN_River
Keynes vs. Hayek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
US Trade Deficit Swells to $48.8 Billion on China Gap
Preventing collapse isn't enough
This article argues that the European Central Bank has not been liberal in its recent policies. It starts out by quoting part of a different article that made the conclusion that since the ECB is doing more than the Bank of England, it is liberal. He then says that this is not what the ECB should be measured against, but that it should be measured against an appropriate macroeconomic stabilization policy. In this case, its actions are not liberal in comparison.
The author argues that if one considers the growth, inflation, and unemployment in the euro zone, the European Central Bank should definitely be doing more than it currently is. He says the ECB is also failing miserably at facilitating labour-market clearing. The author says that the way to solve the problem of peripheral economies trying to boost their net exports (since exchange-rate adjustment is not an option) is inflation throughout the euro zone, which is not what the ECB is doing. Lastly, he says that there are structural issues in the ECB as well. It is willing to allow the euro zone to fall into a recession so that inflation may fall, and this leads to problems in growth.
U.S. Attacks China Inc.
The U.S. is taking the trade fight to the front door of Fortress China, a step that could hold more promise for companies than the endless debate over the value of the yuan.
Prodded by corporate chiefs across the country, U.S. trade officials have launched a coordinated attack on the core of America's commercial conflict with China: the heavily protected and subsidized Chinese state-owned enterprises that are pounding U.S. companies not just in China but in competition globally.
"There's been a change" in the U.S. approach to Chinese state capitalism, says Christian Murck, who heads the American Chamber of Commerce in China, which represents U.S. firms. "It's a good change."
"It's something of a paradigm shift," adds John Neuffer of the Information Technology Industry Council, whose corporate members have been hit hard by China's policies. "China is giving a leg up to domestic producers that we think is discriminatory to foreign companies—that's what we're fighting across the board."
The heightened focus on Beijing's grip on the China market is long overdue and takes place—big surprise!—in an election year. The question is: What will the U.S. do besides jawbone?
And jawbone it has. In bully pulpits in Geneva, Hong Kong, Beijing and many other venues, top officials from the State Department, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies have sounded the alarm. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in New York that the U.S. wants "competitive neutrality" for world commerce and warned that state-owned enterprises enter global markets "not just for profit, but to build and exercise power on behalf of the state."
Robert Hormats, the State Department's top economic official, told a group of U.S. firms in Washington: "The trade distortions created by the 'China Model' are disadvantageous to our U.S. companies…and a direct threat to U.S. jobs and competitiveness." And he repeated the criticism in Beijing.
In Davos last month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner described China's state capitalism and its "subsidies and distortions" as "very damaging" to trade partners, echoing comments made by President Obama in his State of the Union address.
"Increasingly, trade frictions with China can be traced to China's pursuit of industrial policies that rely on trade-distorting government actions to promote or protect China's state-owned enterprises and domestic industries," the U.S. Trade Representative told Congress in December.
Beijing rejects this criticism and says China is merely developing its economy the way others have theirs. It isn't lost on China that many other developing countries still have state owned enterprises, including Russia and Brazil. The U.S. has dabbled in the model as well.
It is the omnipresence and girth of its SOEs that distinguish China. Supported by large state subsidies and preferential financing, taxes and regulations, the SOEs are at the center of China's drive for "indigenous innovation." They also empower the Communist Party leadership, which controls the national SOEs and their thousands of subsidiaries and related entities.
That vast empire accounts for about half of China's nonagricultural GDP, says the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which reports to Congress.
So when a U.S. company goes to China to compete with a Chinese company, it often finds itself competing instead with the state. And it is the state that has the handy advantage of approving or rejecting the foreigner's investment, or demanding the newcomer transfer technology to China before getting access.
If you can't beat them, join them, which is what many companies—GM, Volkswagen and General Electric among them—have done by joint venturing with a Chinese SOE. The Chinese giants also have invested outside China, including in the U.S. Backed by the government's big subsidies, they often underbid U.S. and other competitors for international contracts, sometimes using the technology they got in one of those joint ventures.
In its new five-year plan, China goes further, identifying critical new industries the state plans to dominate and setting aside hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to fund that mission.
"If anything, China is doubling down and giving SOEs a more prominent role," says the Review Commission.
So what to do?
U.S. companies won't talk on the record about troubles in China because they fear retaliation. Increasingly, though, some top executives have wondered aloud whether the U.S. itself needs more government-led industrial policy.
Trade experts say new trade agreements, such as the evolving Trans-Pacific Partnership, will create trade clubs with enhanced market access but stricter restraints on state enterprises. The message to China: If you want to join, you have to change. But China Inc. knows its huge market will continue to attract investment. It may simply say, "No thanks."
Others suggest that a bilateral investment treaty between the U.S. and China could offer enough incentives to entice China to liberalize faster. But the incentives would have to be enormous to dislodge the politburo from its perch atop Chinese commerce.
"I don't have magic answers," the State Department's Mr. Hormats says. "But if they continue along these lines, they risk the global system turning inward, which will have very serious consequences for them."
An industry observer says no one wants a trade war, but a stick may work better than a carrot. "What we have the most control over is our own border and access to our own market," he says. "There's no way of addressing these issues without inflicting some pain on ourselves."
In the meantime, the U.S. is using a rhetorical battering ram on the fortress door. It's tough to see, though, how words alone will breach much of anything.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Mean-Spirited, Bad Economics
This article discusses the reality about unemployment and the aid families receive when they lose a job at no fault to their own. Within the article the author states some historical facts about the reasoning and logic behind the implementation of unemployment insurance. The author states that currently republicans are trying to cut unemployment insurance believing that it will force people to get back to work quicker. As of now, long term unemployment is at its highest in recent history and by cutting down the time in which people receive unemployment insurance people will be put in even more of a bind. On the other hand, we could help these people that need the insurance and help them get back to work, where they will then have more disposable income to spend. The Obama administration has yet to take action to this matter as well, even though he preaches that we help low to middle class families. The title of this article, "Mean-Spirited, Bad Economics", infers that these new policies are heartless and expose the negative side of competition and shows that a small group of people hold more power that the large group of people currently unemployed.
Should America's Rich Pay More
This article surrounds the topic of America complex tax system. Barrack Obama has made a call to Americas millionaires and billionaires to pay their far share. To do this he proposed to introduce a minimum tax rate on millionaires and return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and the other 98% of Americans would not have to pay more, he claims. However, as the article states history shows that deficit reduction works best when most of the burden falls on spending cuts. This means that the middle class entitlements would be reduced. The idea of spending cuts just after the US has adopted a kind of universal health care program, education in the US is not even near quality of other developed nations and the continuous deterioration of infrastructure makes the idea of spending cuts scary. How else do you see the US tax system changing in the future? What advantages and disadvantages will come from Obama's proposed plan to raise taxes on the rich?
Government expects lending fund to turn taxpayers a profit
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Do Manufacturers Need Special Treatment?
This article discusses government intervention not just as it relates to market failures, but also as it is used to give help to manufacturing companies. In class we talked about government intervention when a market fails due to imperfect competition, an incomplete market or a market lacking complete information, however this government intervention is tax cuts for manufacturers rather than a legitimate reason for the government to intervene. The author argues that while there may be some positive effects from this policy, overall the gains will be small. The advantages that have been true in the past such as better income distribution for lower skill workers with positions in manufacturing is less true today and the need to raise demand doesn't need to occur at the manufacturing level, but at the household level. The author believes that while government intervention is definitely necessary in certain cases and in certain problems we face today, manufacturing is not an area that requires it.
Fiscal Psychology and Political Economy
The real lesson to economics from the euro crisis playing out in Greece and other European nations is that the ability to rationally/efficiently make decisions may be more important to an economic system then what specific policy option they pick.
Is Reduced Policy Uncertainty Responsible for Improved US Economic Fortunes?
Greece Facing 'Dramatic Dilemma'
Greece's clock to negotiate more measures to ensure it is given a second bailout by the International Monetary Fund and European Union. The deal being brokered is further austerity measures to balance the Greek budget. Austerity measures have already been placed in Greece, but further budget cuts are needed to satisfy the IMF and EU. The EU needs to bail out Greece and other nations who are part of it in order to avoid a "financial shock:" if the nations pull out.
The Greek's recognize that austerity will have "high social costs," but recognize that this may be the only way. It is important to note that austerity measures have so far not helped the Greek economy. The economic growth predictions for Greece has shrunk in response to more austerity plans.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
In Kodak Bankruptcy, Another Casualty of the Digital Revolution Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/20/in-kodak-bankruptcy-another-casualty-of-the-digital-revolution/?iid=biz-article-mostpop1#ixzz1llHsdQQH
Why China's Housing Market will Slow, Not Collapse
The classes drift apart---Can the rich save the American dream by preaching what they practise?
As talked by the essay, the United States has been famous and proud for its "Americam Dream", thus if you work hard, there will always be chances waiting for you. But according to most of the researches, the reality shows totally oppsite things.
This articles states that not only the mobility between classes is low, but also the classes are drifting apart. There is an obvious isolation of the new upper level class. But in the oppsite, the lower level class are struggling harder.
Where you might not be shopping in 2012
Job Openings in U.S. Rise by the Most in Almost a Year
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-07/job-openings-in-u-s-rise-by-the-most-in-almost-a-year-economy.html