When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.
Lao Tzu
Image of the Day
Swiss Turn Back Gold Reserve Increase, Immigration Limits
I have mixed feelings about the referendum issues. The first issue involves the concept of a sound currency, which I support in principle. To a certain extent, the currency wars are described below in a Reason piece. To describe in concept: look at how China might enter the currency market to maintain its peg target to the dollar. It doesn't want to see the dollar to depreciate against the yuan, which would effectively make its goods more expensive to American customers. What it wants to do in order to keep the yuan from appreciating is to bid the dollar higher by buying dollars/lowering the supply of greenbacks, often in the form of Treasury bonds. (Recall bond prices and a currency's strength are negatively related to yield.)
Now the Swiss are worried about the franc becoming too strong against the euro and probably hurting its export markets, so it needs to be able to buy euros. The Swiss right wanted hard assets--gold--instead of weak fiat currency that could collapse and to more than double gold holdings and prevent its sale. This would have greatly hampered the Swiss ability to buy euros and maintain its own peg. As one might expect, the market has responded to the news with both the gold and Swiss franc falling, even though the defeat of the referendum had been widely expected.
Some aside news: the decreased US budget deficit has reflected more capital gains taxes from the stock market bubble manipulated by Fed Reserve easy money policy, not lower spending. This has decreased the amount of new public debt being issued, which has the effect of supporting the dollar; moreover, decreased oil imports also have the effect of bolstering the dollar. As you might expect, my concern is a deteriorating effect on the trade deficit due to cheaper imports and expensive exports might lead the Administration and/or the Fed joining in a "beggar thy neighbor" trade war. Consumers better keep their eyes on their wallets; more affordable imports and lower oil prices are a check on inflationary pressures.
The second issue involved an environmentalist initiative to reduce current immigration quotas by nearly three-quarters; this was seen as a check on key treaty agreements between the Swiss and the EU involving the free movement of people. (I clearly see this is a pro-liberty fundamental right.)
Facebook Corner
(FEE). "The concept of the 'tiered' Internet is not something to be feared. On the contrary, it could be a means of enhancing services to broadband customers, providing revenue for ISPs to invest in accommodating increasing demand for bandwidth-intensive and delay-sensitive applications and making further improvements to data delivery, and of increasing fairness by ensuring that content providers responsible for the most Internet congestion pay the higher costs of assuring a high quality of service for Internet users. Choking off this potential revenue stream through net-neutrality mandates will only ensure that instead of an Internet with regular lanes and 'fast lanes,' all consumers will be stuck in the slow lane."
You are going to have economically illterate useless idiot trolls spamming this thread, promoting their pushing-on-a-string "net neutrality" Trojan horse rationale for their Statist agenda. The Internet has developed robustly precisely because the federal government has allowed a more robust market. The last thing we need is technology know-nothings pursuing yet another case of obsoleted regulatory concern. As the piece points out, most of us have multiple broadband providers (I've had at least one in the last two towns I've lived), not to mention wireless. ISP's need to cope with broadband constraints caused by, say, Netflix users, without unnecessary government oversight; this includes resource hogs paying for their fair share of necessary capacity upgrades vs. being subsidized by other users.
(Reason). We asked four economists and market analysts to revisit what they originally predicted would happen after quantitative easing and assess whether (and why) they were right.
We have to acknowledge that inflation can also be affected by non-monetary policies, e.g., trade restrictions, global supplies/capacity, industrial policies (e.g., ethanol mandates), demographic trends (e.g., healthcare for an aging population), tax policies/regime uncertainty, etc.
I do not have faith that the manipulation of interest rates (six years running now at near-zero interest rates) ends well, that central planners of money are "more equal" than regime central planners. We have have subpar economic growth since 2000. Central banks are often caught flat-footed, too little, too late. I can't predict if and when the next correction will occur, but I think the obfuscation of price signals by government policy and policy uncertainty will not improve on the present period of economic malaise.
(Reason). Let illegal immigrants come out of the shadows.
Since the 1920's we've had restrictive immigration policies that have reflected bad economics and anti-liberty principles. We've made it all but impossible for foreign temporary workers to enter the country in a transparent fashion, and we have antiquated quota systems that take several years to clear, hamper domestic employers, discourage entrepreneurial professionals and delay family reunionification. We need to reform immigration in a manner consistent with our immigrant roots and values.
The issue I have with Obama's executive order is not so much with the policies as with the the rule of law. Obama's action was totally political and clearly violates the Separation of Powers. Instead of negotiating with Congress, he's been engaged in a form of extortion or blackmail. Clearly the ends do not justify the means: by acting before the new Congress has even opened, as a lame duck, he has poisoned the well for more substantive and overdue legitimate immigration reform. The immigrants who surface will be in limbo as the next Presidential cycle plays out.
I tend to agree, in my opinion immigration reform would be simplifying the process for work visa's, something George W Bush actually advocated. Although I would prefer giving priority to visa applicants based upon education and or skills in demand. My fear is that we are currently attracting those who frankly lack the education and skill to be hired in Mexico and subsequently would most likely compete with Native born unskilled labor. This process can only further erode wages for those at the bottom of the income ladder in this Country.
Generally, immigration researchers find only a minor, temporary effect to inflows of unskilled immigrants (maybe 5% impact on wages). (Note that immigrants tend to be more mobile than native unskilled labor; not many people are willing, say, to pick apples on a farm,) We heard stories of how some Southern states after anti-immigrant legislation made it difficult for local farmers to find labor. Don Boudreaux says, and I agree, that we shouldn't discriminate on skill level because the economy needs good workers across the spectrum, and immigrant consumption and taxes help grow the economy. We need to keep in mind that during the great recession there was actually a reverse migration. I myself would not migrate if I was unable to find work. What helps is making the process more transparent.
What we should also keep in mind is that maybe 30% of immigrants will return to their native country after working a certain number of years. For example, some of my Indian friends claimed they could live like a king in India for a fraction of the cost it takes to live in the US.
Milton Friedman said a country cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time and survive. When the U.S. had open borders, it had no welfare state. Get rid of the welfare state first, then make an argument for open borders.
No, you are misquoting Friedman. I just wrote this yesterday on another thread:
"So help me if I hear one more anti-immigrant repeat Friedman's argument about incompatibility of open immigration with the welfare state. They misunderstand Friedman's argument; as Stephen Moore pointed out in a WSJ piece, Friedman also argued "Legal and illegal immigration has a very positive impact on the U.S. economy...Look, for example, to the obvious, immediate and practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now that Mexican immigration over the border is a good thing. It is a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It is a good thing for the United States, and it is a good thing for the citizens of the country.But it is only a good thing if it is illegal." What Friedman argued against was immigration motivated by State handouts; unauthorized aliens do not qualify for handouts. Thus, Friedman's argument has more to do with restrictions on immigrant eligibility for welfare state benefits; note that the private sector, e.g., charities, could provide as-needed humanitarian assistance. Quite typically, immigrants are younger, productive workers who contribute to vs. consume State programs."
Political Humor
 |
| Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall |
Pachelbel Canon in D Major
