dagblog - Comments for "Everything that rises"

I could try and maintain that

Flavius — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:59:35 +0000

I could try and maintain that In some cases.. they redistribute wealth to workers from

capital i.e. from any shareholders whose company absorbs the cost differential.

I'm sure there's a counter argument and at the end of the day I really only believe it because Keynes once said so. Maybe he took it back later.

To a minor extent the increased worker wealth financed by decreased transportation cost,

Re overseas capital ,it's overseas because investors think they earn more that way .If they're forced to repatriate it their wealth decreases . In parallel interest rates go down and borrowers wealth goes up.

That page frames the ideas as

moat — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:45:41 +0000

In reply to The search for "Communitarian

That page frames the ideas as all about resisting "liberal ideas." There are many who take the Establishment of Religion point of view that groups have a right to live the way they want to and raise their children accordingly. In that vein, Buber talked about communities of communities as way to not legislate morality on a global level. I am liberal enough to not be happy with just everybody doing crazy stuff because they have made it a tradition.
On the other hand, Ivan Illich asked the question about how much influence does an individual have on the situation around them in real time. How does a person have that influence? I want that.

So my point of view is not a conviction but more of an acceptance that nothing I have seen presented so far has caused me to think there is a solution that will give me what I want.

The search for "Communitarian

barefooted — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:57:25 +0000

In reply to How are tariffs a

The search for "Communitarian" on Google just spiked. ;-) I'm curious about your personal definition, if you choose to describe it, since I doubt anything you consider is necessarily standard. Overall, I guess I'm just interested. Something like this?

How are tariffs a

moat — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:47:13 +0000

In reply to Caught ? I was taking

How are tariffs a redistribution of wealth? I understand how they protect one set of producers from another set. Producers in a market include both the owners and workers in an enterprise. The discussion of mobility of capital has to some degree be about how much those two groups are stuck in a place. Having such a large sum of money that the owners own outside of the country may not be an index for transactions that happen in a nation but it must have an effect on incentives to invest.
If one's wealth is not constrained by a change in market value in a particular nation, then tariffs are not a tax but a price and wages program in the hands of whoever profits the most from the changes at a particular time.

I, too, am attracted by the idea of homespun goods. I may be the only Communitarian participating on this site. I am skeptical of strategies that would address these matters by just slapping different price tags on things.

Caught ? I was taking

Flavius — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:44:53 +0000

In reply to I don't understand what this

Caught ? I was taking evasive action as usual .But OK , OK , I'll come clean. It "all depends".

o Tariffs can be useful or harmful for a particular country and an intelligent government ( I'm not going to discuss the other kind) has to decide. In the particular case of the US :Tariffs , Health "Policy" and tax rates are all subsets of wealth distribution. Some argue here for equal distribution ,not me. My test for this country is that wealth should be distributed sufficiently so there is not a single child homeless or not receiving an education.After that I return to considering how a particular law would incent a new Steve Jobs.

In Nepal both tests would be different.

o Foreign investment is probably more often than not useful for the recipient . On balance. But even useful foreign investment can cause discord . cf Naipaul's " In a Free State". To the extent that it does, it can make overwhelming sense for the host country to cause the "foreign devils" to leave . Whatever past agreements might have been made. Even then it should honor most outstanding agreements because chaos prevents wealth generation. But every rule has an exception (including this rule!).

There's nothing about the current absolute level of US foreign investment that makes it an index. The "foreign devils" may well be introducing a vital technology that might otherwise have taken years to arrive. But it's a safe guess that in the process the local ethical standards are being tested. The worst thing about Willy is not what happened in Boston, it's that he'll offer a bribe in Peru he'd never have considered in Indiana

I'm attracted by Keynes': "Let all goods be homespun""

I don't understand what this

moat — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:19:14 +0000

In reply to In late 43 as the allies were

I don't understand what this anecdote says about having 89 trillion dollars staked out in " the gross foreign position of the United States." Are you suggesting "repatriating" all foreign investment? Or suggesting that Keynes would have suggested that action?

In late 43 as the allies were

Flavius — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:53:52 +0000

In reply to I am not sure what

In late 43 as the allies were moving up Italy , when they got about 20 miles from Milan the chief communication officer left them, drove his jeep through the bands of Resistance finghters and entered the large telephone manufacturing factory and declared he was occupying it. Which was accepted by the Resistance.who might otherwise have trashed it as representative of the old Mussolini regime.

Interestingly , almost the same thing happened later outside Stuttgart . As I was told. I suppose its true. I've never attempted to validatee.. Anyone have contrary info? I'd like to hear.

The background goes to the early 20s. ATT divested itself of its foreign subsidiaries to International Telephone & Telegraph , The ITT ceo,Sosthenes Behn was anti fascist and as the local dictators took over Behn provided the US with many of the top guys who had run those companies. They became signal officers. High level ones.

Until the forces with which they were attached were on the verge of occupying a former ITT factory when those guys did as above.

As Keynes would have expected.

I am not sure what

moat — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:36:38 +0000

In reply to Yup. Donald certainly

I am not sure what restraining the movement of capital would look like in the present volume of money. The "location" of assets and liabilities is described thusly by the Bank of International Settlements:

Much of international macroeconomics assumes that national borders delimit currency zones and decision-making units. Just as the national accounts do, it assumes that those borders define the relevant economic territory: different currencies do not compete within a given country and firms operate exclusively within national borders. In reality, neither is the case. Not only does the domain of major currencies extend outside their country of issue (Boxes V.A and V.B), but multinational firms, be they financial or non-financial, operate across borders. Management focuses on group-wide profits and risks, and balance sheets span national boundaries. A consolidated perspective better reflects the reach of multinational firms and the extent of global integration.

This box uses the US example to illustrate how such a consolidated view of foreign assets and liabilities differs from the official international investment position (IIP) recorded on a residence basis - the defining criterion of the national accounts and balance of payment statistics. These are denoted "locational" in the first two columns of Table V.E. The process of consolidation aligns balance sheets with the nationality of ownership rather than with the location where the assets and liabilities are booked. This amounts to redrawing the US border to include the foreign balance sheets of US-owned firms, and to exclude the US balance sheets of foreign firms. This consolidation is performed here for the banking sector and the non-bank business sector (multinational companies).

The first step replaces the banks' external positions with consolidated BIS data (three rows under "bank-reported" in Table V.E). This removes all cross-border claims of, say, BNP Paribas New York on the rest of the world (these being French assets), and adds JPMorgan's consolidated foreign claims, yielding a total of $3.330 trillion for reporting US banks combined. Similarly, on the liabilities side, out goes any cross-border liability of BNP Paribas New York, and in comes JPMorgan's global foreign liabilities, to give an estimated $2.958 trillion for US banks. Moreover, foreign banks' local operations in the United States, which are not part of the US external position, further add to US consolidated assets and liabilities, respectively, to the extent that US residents provide funding ($2.465 trillion) to, or receive credit ($3.150 trillion) from, the US offices of foreign banks. Consolidating banks raises the sum of US foreign assets and liabilities from $40 trillion (IIP) to $45 trillion.

The second step consolidates foreign-owned multinational companies (excluding banks) in an analogous, though coarser, way (owing to data limitations). The cross-border direct investment positions of non-banks, assets and liabilities, are replaced by the (larger) total assets of US multinationals outside the United States and by those of foreign multinationals in the United States, respectively (rows under "direct investment" in Table V.E). Out goes General Electric's equity position in its French subsidiary, and in comes that subsidiary's total assets, resulting in $20,250 billion for all US-owned multinationals combined. These assets exceed the corresponding ownership claims (consisting of $5,078 billion worth of equity and equity-like inter-affiliate debt in the IIP) because US multinationals also borrow abroad; these liabilities (an estimated $15,173 billion) in turn add to US foreign liabilities. As for foreign multinationals, French firm Total's stake in its US subsidiary is removed, and its US assets are added - yielding $9,920 billion for foreign multinationals. Foreign multinationals' liabilities ($6,863 billion) count as a US foreign asset. This step sextuples directly held corporate assets and liabilities, but leaves US net assets unchanged.

Together, consolidating banks and multinational companies more than doubles the gross foreign position of the United States. US external assets and liabilities combined jump from $40 trillion on a residence basis (IIP) to an estimated $89 trillion when measured on a consolidated basis. The example reveals that the US economy is more open, and its foreign balance sheet larger, than is apparent from the external position derived from the balance of payments. The calculation of the US current account, on the other hand, should not be affected by consolidation, since foreign earnings are included in net investment income whether they are repatriated or not.

More than double. What would Maynard do about that?

Yup. Donald certainly

Flavius — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 04:20:00 +0000

In reply to Maynard spoke often of a

Yup. Donald certainly approves of Capital mobility in the right direction (his).

In the somewhat more important case of Maynard, his ultimately jaundiced view of international capital mobility rather than being an OBTW was the basic holdings of his 1933 lecture on National Self-Sufficiency to which Skidelsky gives a boffo review on page 495 of his JMK biography. .

Happened at a feverishly anticipated Dublin event where Keynes was expected to sprinkle some holy water on the standard Marshall-ite sanctification of Free Trade , hotly divisive in Ireland then ( and maybe now) . And instead unveiled his " Just one minute....No." revision.

In other words A revolutionary speech at a near revolutionary moment.

Who knows , maybe Keynes changed position again later and forgot to tell me. Happens all the timel

What's Jimmy doing in a dress

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:27:19 +0000

In reply to Everything that rises

What's Jimmy doing in a dress shop? Should we seek help, or let him express himself?