Follow by Email

Monday, February 18, 2019

Thank you so much.

Hello Dear Friend,

I'm happy to inform you about my success in getting the Fund transferred under the cooperation of a new partner from china presently; I'm in china for investment projects with my own share of the total sum. Meanwhile, I didn't forget your past efforts and attempts to assist me in transferring those funds despite that it failed us some how

Now contact the lady Mia Karim Christabel and ask her to send you the total sum of $3,500.000.00 dollars which I kept for your compensation for all the past efforts and attempts to assist me in this matter.

I appreciate your efforts at that time very much. I am very busy here because of the investment projects which me and the new partner are having at hand. So feel free to get in touch with the lady to enable her to send the amount to you without any delay.  
 
Below is the contact of the lady
E-Mail:
 akarim001100@gmail.com 
Name: Mia Karim Christabel

Thank you so much.
Best regards
From Dr. Omar F. Khan
  

Jared Bernstein: Real wage gains and energy prices [feedly]

Real wage gains and energy prices
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/real-wage-gains-and-energy-prices/

Readers know I'm a huge booster of the impact of low unemployment rates on wage gains, especially for middle and low-wage workers. This dynamic is alive and well in current data and those of us on team Full Employment should elevate and tout it!

But, when it comes to real wage gains in "high frequency data," which have been notable of late–as in, beating productivity growth–it's important to also parse out the role of low energy prices.

The most recent CPI report showed a low topline inflation rate of 1.6 percent over the past 12 months (core CPI inflation rose 2.2 percent). The main factor pushing down on price growth was energy, down 5 percent, with gas prices (a sub-category of energy), down 10 percent.

In my recent write-ups of the jobs and other reports with wage info, I've mentioned the role of low energy prices in real wage growth, but here I'd like to formalize the analysis a bit to try to get a more accurate feel of the importance of this factor.

The first figure below shows recent trends in real hourly wages of mid-level workers (the production, non-sup series from the Establishment survey) deflated by both the topline CPI and CPI less energy. Of course, given volatile energy prices, wages deflated by the sans-energy deflator are smoother and have been gradually climbing since 2015, hitting 1.3 percent last month. The other series hit 1.8 percent, suggesting the difference–0.5 percent–is due to low energy prices.

REAL WAGE GROWTH, YR/YR, DEFLATE BY CPI AND CPI-SANS-ENERGY

Source: BLS

How important is this energy-price effect? Well, a year ago, real wage growth for this series was 0.4 percent, meaning real growth has accelerated by 1.4 percent. But back then, rising energy prices were pushing the other way, i.e., slightly crimping real wage growth. Thus, the change in the energy effect–the difference in difference between the values in the two series above over the past year–is 0.8 percent. That means that 56 percent of the acceleration in real wages over the past year is due to falling energy prices. (See note for details)

That's a sizable impact, but look back at 2015 to see even bigger effects. In Jan, 2015, energy prices were 20 percent below their year-ago level. That month, real wages were up a strong 2.2 percent, and acceleration of 1.5 percent over their year-ago level. The energy price effect more than explains that change.

Such findings do not undercut the longer-term full employment/wage growth connection, as both nominal and real gains are correlated with tighter job markets (I've argued non-linearities are in play but others find that not to be the case). Note, again, the smooth acceleration in real wages since 2015 using the non-energy deflator in the figure above.

But they're also a reminder of the important role of energy prices in near-term, real wage trends. For what it's worth, which isn't a lot, the general consensus is that oil prices, while not expected to fall further, should stay roughly around where they are going forward, as strong global supply meets middling demand. However, there are some noises about OPEC constraining supply, so stay tuned.

Data note: What I'm calling the "energy effect" here is: d_rw_c – d_rw_ne, where the first term is the 12 month log change in the real wage deflated by the top line CPI and the second term is the 12 month log change in the real wage deflated by the CPI less energy. The acceleration calculations first difference d_rw_c and d_rw_ne with their values one year ago and then difference those differences to get the change in the energy effect.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Re: From Dr. Omar F. Khan.

Hello My Dear Friend I Have A Good News For You,

I'm happy to inform you about my success in getting the Fund transferred
under the cooperation of a new partner from china presently; I'm in china
for investment projects with my own share of the total sum. Meanwhile, I
didn't forget your past efforts and attempts to assist me in transferring
those funds despite that it failed us some how

Now contact the lady Mia Karim Christabel and ask her to send you the total
sum of $3,500.000.00 dollars which I kept for your compensation for all the
past efforts and attempts to assist me in this matter.

I appreciate your efforts at that time very much. I am very busy here
because of the investment projects which me and the new partner are having
at hand. So feel free to get in touch with the lady to enable her to send
the amount to you without any delay.

Below is the contact of the lady
E-Mail: akarim001100@gmail.com
Name: Mia Karim Christabel

Thank you so much.
Best regards
From Dr. Omar F. Khan

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Piketty: Wealth tax in America [feedly]

Wealth tax in America
http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2019/02/12/wealth-tax-in-america/#xtor=RSS-32280322


Wealth tax in America

What if the final blow for Emmanuel Macron came from the Massachusetts State senator and not from the yellow vests ? Elizabeth Warren, Harvard University law professor, not really an adept of Chavism or urban guerrilla warfare, a declared candidate in the Democratic primaries in 2020, has just made public what will doubtless be one of the key points in the coming campaign, namely the creation for the first time in the United States of a genuine federal progressive wealth tax. Carefully calculated by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, supported by the best constitutionalists, the Warren Proposal sets a rate of 2% on fortunes valued at between 50 million and 1 billion dollars, and 3% above 1 billion. The proposal also provides for an exit tax equal to 40% of total wealth for those who choose to leave the country and to relinquish American citizenship. The tax would apply to all assets, with no exemptions, with dissuasive sanctions for persons and governments who do not transmit appropriate information on assets held abroad.

The debate has only just begun and the schedule proposed could still be extended and made more progressive with rates rising for example to 5% -10% per annum for multibillionaires. What is certain is that the issue of fiscal justice will be central to the presidential campaign in 2020. The representative from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested a rate of 70% on the highest incomes, while Bernie Sanders defends a tax rate of 77% on the highest inherited estates. While the Warren proposal is the most innovative, the three approaches are complementary and should be mutually beneficial.

To understand this, let's look back. Between 1880 and 1910, while the concentration of industrial and financial wealth was gaining momentum in the United States, and the country was threatening to become almost as unequal as old Europe, a powerful political movement in favour of an improved distribution in wealth was developing. This led to the creation of a federal tax on income in 1913 and on inheritances in 1916.

Between 1930 and 1980, the rate applied on the highest incomes was on average 81% in the United States, and the rate applied to the highest inherited estates was 74%. Clearly this did not destroy American capitalism, far from it. It made it more egalitarian and more productive, at a time when the United States had not forgotten that it was their level of educational advancement and their investment in training and skills that was the backbone of their prosperity, and not the religion of property and inequality.

Reagan, then Bush and Trump subsequently endeavoured to destroy this heritage. They turned their backs on the egalitarian origins of the country, by counting on historical amnesia and by fuelling identity-based divisions. With the hindsight we have today, it is obvious that the outcome of this policy is disastrous. Between 1980 and 2020, the rise in per capita national income was halved in comparison with the period 1930-1980. What little growth there was, was swept up by the richest, the consequence being a complete stagnation in income for the poorest 50%. There is something obvious about the movement of return to progressive taxation and greater justice which is emerging today and which is long over-due.

The innovation is that it is now a question of creating an annual wealth tax, in addition to the income and inherited estate taxes. This is a crucial innovation in terms of justice and efficiency. Numerous one-shot capital levies have been successfully applied to real estate, professional and financial assets subsequent to the world wars to pay off public debts, in particular in Japan, in Germany, Italy, France and in many European countries. Collected only once, the rates applied to the largest private estates often rose to 40% -50%, or even more. With an annual wealth tax designed to be applied on a permanent basis, the rates are of necessity more restricted. However, they must be high enough to enable genuine mobility of wealth. From this point of view, the tax on inherited wealth comes much too late. We are not going to wait until Bezos or Zuckerberg reach the age of 90 before they begin to pay taxes. With the 3% annual rate proposed by Elizabeth Warren, a static estate worth 100 billion would return to the community in 30 years. This is a good beginning but, given the average rate of progression of the highest financial assets, the aim should undoubtedly be higher (5% – 10% or more).

It is also crucial to allocate all the revenue to the reduction of inequalities. In particular, the American property tax, like the French real estate tax (taxe foncière) weighs heavily on those with limited resources. Those two venerable property taxes which, contrary to what is sometimes stated, tax not only the ownership of housing (independent of any income, which everyone readily admits, at least for the biggest owners), but also tax business assets (offices, plots of land, warehouses, etc.). The problem is that they have never been genuinely re-thought since the 18th century. The time has come for them to become progressive taxes with graduated rates on net assets, with the key element being strong reductions for indebeted households who are seeking to accede to property ownership. Let's hope that the forthcoming American campaign, like the French discussion around the yellow vests, will at last afford the opportunity for an in-depth discussion on the taxation of property and fiscal justice.

PS: on the Warren proposal, see also this paper by E. Saez and G. Zucman, « How would a progressive wealth tax work?« .


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

A Rant on Trump, Trade, and China... [feedly]

An excellent rundown from Brad DeLong on the fools running the China trade war. 

DeLong: A Rant on Trump, Trade, and China...
https://www.bradford-delong.com/2019/02/a-rant-on-trump-trade-and-china.html

I'm still trying to come to terms with my Commonwealth Club event with Steve Moore last month. As therapy, I took some of my less-than-coherent ravings and tried to turn then into proper rant:

Steve, what you are saying is simply delusional.

You keep saying that Xi needs to deal because Trump is deadly serious on China and will not back down. Do remember that Trump declared victory on reforming NAFTA, "the worst trade deal in the history of the world", with small adjustments on autoparts rules-of-origin. Small adjustment on auto parts were enough to transform NAFTA, in Trump's mind, from the worst trade deal in the history of the world into something he is now very proud of. Xi has to to be thinking that he should deal with Trump the same way that Mexico did—hang tough, provide a few symbolic concessions only, and Trump will cave and go back to business-as-usual. What is there in the situation that would keep that from being the obvious strategy for Xi?

The United States in the nineteenth century did not pay a cent to Britain for its intellectual property in textiles and steel. Japan industrialized without paying a lot of attention to claims about who owned intellectual property. Now China is doing the same thing—this is what rising powers always do. We did not pay a cent in royalties to Charles Dickens for all of his novels in the nineteenth century. In fact, as late as the 1950s we used a loophole to steal J.R.R. Tolkien's copyright to The Lord of the Rings. We did it to Britain. Japan did it to us. Now China is doing it to us and Japan. This is a source of annoyance. This is a thing to negotiate about. We push, we pull. But that does not change the fact that international trade relationships—whether between Britain and the United States in the 19th century or Japan and America in the mid-20th century or the U.S. and China today—are all enormously valuable win-wins. We are arguing about the division of an enormous surplus from the global division of labor. Letting that argument turn into a trade war that wrecks the joint is hte definition of stupidity.

The Obama administration sought leverage over China with respect to intellectual property issues. It wished take a harder line with China on intellectual property. The Obama administration sought to get as many as possible of China's other trading partners on our side. It formed this organization called the Trans-Pacific Partnership to set up a common negotiating position on what the international trade régime in the Pacific should be. The plan was for the TPP countries to then confront and negotiate with China. And back then you thought this was good—you and Art Laffer wrote a number of pieces about how great the TPP was, and how much leverage it would have—and, indeed, when the bulk of countries from which China might seek to buy from or sell to are on board, you have a lot of leverage. You wrote about how Marco rubio was to be praised because he had been willing to become a decisive Senate vote to grant Obama the power to negotiate the TPP.

Then, lo and behold, suddenly someone convinces trump that the TPP is the second-worst trade deal in American history—"it's almost as bad as NAFTA!"—and you switch sides: all of a sudden you are there on Trish Regan's show claiming the TPP is a horrible deal for America.

Donald Trump... is not a terribly wise person. Jared Kushner finds a guy Peter Navarro who seems to be simply delusional and brings hin into the White House, Robert Lighthizer—who was an effective pro-free trade technocrat back in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations—as now adopting positions that I can only understand as driven by corruption. Trump, Navarro, and Lighthizer appear to be running this China trade war. And I cannot find a single person in the White House who approves of what they are doing.

Trump was—it appears Trump still is—insisting on bilateral balance with China. That is not going to happen. Balanced trade inevitably requires bilateral surpluses and deficits because for no country in the world is the set of countries it wants to export to identical to the set of countries it needs to import from. Balance is always triangular and more complicate patterns of balance, not bilateral balance. Moreover, low-savings countries run trade deficits. The United States is a low-savings country. And the United States is a country that wants to import from China but sees other countries as more attractive export targets.

Consider how things look from Xi's perspective, sitting there in Beijing. Xi has got to conclude that somebody who truly cared about and was genuinely serious about the intellectual property issues would not have blown up his leverage on day 1 by nuking the TPP. Someone who cared about trade issues at all would not be damanding something—bilateral trade balance—that is never going to happen both because the U.S. is a low-savings country and low-savings countries run trade deficits, and because the way trade would balance would have China running bilateral deficits with its materials suppliers, its materials suppliers running bilateral deficits with us, and our running a bilateral deficit with China.

Xi has got to conclude 's going on, um, that either this is all a big bluff because someone who was genuinely serious about intellectual property would not have thrown away his leverage to start with and would not be demanding something that simply ain't going to happen no matter what balanced bilateral trade, either it's a bluff or this is simply someone who cannot be reasoned with. Um, and so we're going up kind of have to do what other people do. What the mexican government, the mexican government was faced with trump who thought that naft claimed to think proud. Nafta was not the second worst, but the worst trade deal in american history. And lo and behold, change the name of nafta to what is it canadian us mexican free trade agreement or something and have some very minor adjustments. In what counts as domestic auto parts, production adjustments that us auto manufacturers didn't really want them don't really care about, and all of a sudden, instead of being the worst trade deal in american history, naf does something perfectly fine that trump is way competent to happy to sign and is extraordinarily proud of those ge thinks is betting that trump will fold here again as he folded with nafta and ge thinks if trump doesn't fold well, this isn't really a rational agent we're dealing with.

From Xi's perspective, it has to look like he is negotiating with somebody who is (a) bluffing or (b) flunking his Turing Test.

So Xi and his advisors have to conclude that (a) Trump is probably bluffing—as he bluffed on the shutdown, as the bluffed on NAFTA—and that (b) even if Trump is not bluffing, there is no point in offering concessions because the people running policy—Trump, Navarro, Lighthizer—are not wise, are delusional, appear corrupt—and they have no support either inside or outside the White House. So we had better hope this is another Trump bluff.

#publicsphere #orangehairedbaboons #highlighted #globalization

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

You've got efax Message

 
 

eFax_Faxing_Simplified

Fax Message ID: 5277 562 4874,

You have got a 6 page(s) fax at 02-13-2018 07:37:35 GMT.

*Your personal reference number for this fax is us7_pub84-48537868822361-3638874-98.

Visit www.efax.com/efax-help-center if you have any questions regarding this subject matter.



eFax Crew

j2 footer
2007-2018 j2 Global, Inc. and affiliates. All rights reserved.
eFax is a registered trademark of j2 Global, Inc.
25005 Hollywood Ave, Los Angeles, CA 92438

*** This is an automatically generated message, do not reply directly to this email address *** Privacy Policy.

You've received eFax Notice

 
 

eFax_Faxing_Simplified

Fax Message Caller-ID: 7759 782 7255,

You've received a 3 page fax at 02-13-2018 09:25:56 GMT.

*The personal reference # is sj7_ptj04-48477968973373-3363445-21.

Visit www.efax.com/efax-help-center if you have any questions concerning this notification or service.



eFax Staff

j2 footer
2002-2018 j2 Global, Inc. and affiliates. All rights reserved.
eFax is a trademark of j2 Global, Inc. and affiliates.
62586 Hollywood Rd, Los Angeles, CA 92436

*** This is an automatic message, please do not reply directly to this email address *** Privacy Policy.