Categories
Economics

[1969] Of Obama’s offshore tax is a protectionist taxation

The Obama administration plans to tax US-based corporations for revenue not originated from the US as part of effort to create more jobs in the US.[1] This will help neither the US economy nor the world economy to recover.

There are of course legitimate concerns with respect to tax havens as money laundering tend to happen there more often than not compared to elsewhere. But Obama administration’s proposed action will punish corporations for operating in countries with low taxes as well. The administration thinks that by doing this, those corporations will relocate its foreign operations to the United States if they are faced with the possibility of being taxed for operating abroad.

Indeed, if passed by the US Congress, the proposal may force corporations to reduce or abandon its operations outside of the US, unless they are willing to pay those taxes. Under a scenario where these corporations do relocated into the US, the corporations will suffer higher operations cost due to  prevailing environment in the US, compared to places like China or India. It is worth noting that these corporations operate parts of their business out of the US to take advantage of low cost environment, especially if industries which those corporations are in are labor-intensive.

With higher production cost, higher prices will have to be charged and consequently, less will be sold.

If the proposal goes through, it will not only punish those corporations. It will also punish low-tax countries. Worse, such tax is likely to hurt trade volume in times when many countries including Malaysia are heavily reliant on trade to recover.

This of course will only happen if the tax actually convince these US corporations — in reality, multinational corporations — to relocate into the US. Given lower operations cost abroad, the other possibility is that these corporations may actually relocate more of its businesses abroad, avoiding being labeled as US corporations to avoid the tax altogether. This will be bad for the US economy.

So, the possibilities here are: one, the US bringing the world down together with it; two, the US bringing itself down. Either way, the US will lose out. The third and better possibility, of course, is for the US to not impose that tax.

The proposed move should not be too surprising to too many people. The Democrats since at least 2004 — the days of John Kerry and John Edwards — have wanted to somehow punish firms that they accuse as shipping American jobs abroad, either through outsourcing or offshoring. That thinking is protectionist and the Obama administration’s proposal should be seen as a follow-up to that protectionist tendency that Democrats are known for.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — May 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama proposed raising about $190 billion over the next decade by outlawing three offshore tax-avoidance techniques used by U.S. companies such as Caterpillar Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.

Obama’s plan also would make it riskier for Americans to stash money in tax-havens. [Obama Seeks End of Corporate Tax Break to Raise $190 Billion. Ryan J. Donmoyer. Bloomberg. May 4 2009]

Categories
Economics

[1965] Of Malaysian recovery began in February?

Some concrete evidence that the economy may have recovered faster than expected:

The Coincident Index (CI) rose by 0.5% in February 2009. The increase of the index was mainly contributed by real sales in manufacturing sector (0.5%), real salaries & wages in manufacturing sector (0.2%) and real contributions in EPF (0.2%). The six-month smoothed growth rate of CI showed a slight improvement to -9.8% from -11.9% recorded in the previous month.

The Leading Index (LI) which monitor the economic performance in advance also increased in February 2009. The index grew by 1.1% to 158.2 points in the current month. These were attributed by real total trade of eight major trading partners (0.5%), number of new companies registered (0.5%), Bursa Malaysia industrial index (0.1%) and number of housing permits approved (0.1%). The six-month smoothed growth rate of LI improved -0.7% in February 2009.

The six-month smoothed growth rate of Leading Index (LI) and Coincident Index (CI) showed a slight improvement in February 2009. However, it is too early to conclude that the improvement of these index provide signal of the slow economic growth to be over in the near term. [Malaysia Economic Indicators – Leading, Coincident And Lagging Indices February 2009. Department of Statistics. April 29 2009]

If indeed the economy began its recovery in February, it would provide a damning evidence proving the worthlessness of fiscal stimuli announced earlier. Why?

By February, there was no real spending with respect to the first fiscal stimulus and money only beginning to be distributed among various ministries. That is of course with the exception of the RM5 billion given to ValueCap but we can safely discount that RM5 billion because throwing money in the equity market is like hoping to raise the sea level by throwing is a pabble.

Furthermore, the second stimulus was yet to be announced.

In other words, the economy might be recovering even without the stimulus packages so celebrated by Malaysian Keynesians. But as mentioned by the Department of Statistics, it is still too earlier to confirm the worthlessness of economic stimuli. Let us wait for March first.

In the meantime, I am taking bets that March data is going to confirm February’s trend!

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics Science & technology

[1964] Of local pig rearers are panicking and unreasonably resorting to protectionism

Some people are panicking:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 (Bernama) — In light of the swine-flu outbreak in Mexico, the Federation of Livestock Farmers’ Association of Malaysia (FLFAM) has strongly urged the government to stop pork imports until the situation is resolved.

FLFAM market development manager and veterinarian Dr Kaw Eng Sun Monday advised the government to temporarily stop importing any pig breeding stocks from the United States, Canada and Mexico along with any pork products from around the world including Vietnam and China. [Pork Imports Should Stop Immediately: FLFAM. Bernama. April 27 2009]

A good move to follow?

I think he is panicking.

Or, really, I smell rats. After all, this appears like a conflict of interest. Here we have a local producer  requesting for a sweeping ban of imports of pork product. After all, the FLFAM not only wanted to stop imports from North America, it wants to stop imports from Vietnam and China too.

It is like hiding behind something to achieve a protectionist goal.

Why do I smell rats?

At the highly reputable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

Can I get swine influenza from eating or preparing pork?
No. Swine influenza viruses are not spread by food. You cannot get swine influenza from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe. [Swine Influenza and You. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. April 26 2009]

Hmm…

Just say no to monopoly.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1959] Of who is right?

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

Categories
Economics

[1958] Of will we see the reintroduction of RM1 coins?

Over at the website of Bank Negara Malaysia — the central bank of Malaysia — there is an inconspicuous survey. The survey begins as it should: it informs readers of the purpose of the survey. The purpose is quite simple: to gauge public’s opinion on some possible changes to the Malaysian coins.

A redesigned coin series!

Oh so I thought until I went through the survey. The real objective of the survey is to gauge public’s opinion of the possibility of reintroducing RM1 coins in the market.

Reading through the survey, there is one possible rationale for such reintroduction because one question asks: If the replacing of the RM1-banknotes with the proposed RM1-coin would result in substantial cost savings to the country, which of these statements best describe your preference?

Hard to disagree with reintroduction if that is the rationale but I am wary of flip-flopping policy. Frequent changes to the coins and banknotes can be confusing for mere mortals on the streets.

Not too long ago in this very decade, the RM1 coins were taken out of circulation in favor of RM1 banknotes. If coin-form enjoys cheaper production cost compared to banknote-form, why were the coins phased out of the market?

If the cost of metal vis-à-vis paper or plastic contributes to the answer, I prefer to stick with the current banknotes. Once the economy is out of the woods, prices of metal are likely to go up again. That will again push coins out of circulation in favor of banknotes, if cost is the sole consideration.

But this may be a weak argument on my side. Cost should be a consideration and if BNM can adapt to changing variables, the users should too. Surely for a libertarian like me, opportunity cost is of concern. Furthermore, adaption or re-adaption of RM1 coins is likely to be painless anyway, probably with the exception of those teller machines.

So, adaption is not my main argument against RM1 coins.

The main argument is the weight of the coins. RM1 is probably the most popular denomination for the common people. Having a bagful worth of coins maybe a good idea if the BNM plans to force those lazy bastards who get on the elevator to get to the immediate next floor to do some extra physical movement. For those of us who are less gluttonous in their diet, the extra weight will be a drag.

But that is just me. How about you?

You can help the BNM decides by visiting their website[1] (it is under the Updates section on the right) or directly to a third party website[2] where the survey is actually hosted.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Bank Negara Malaysia is at www.bnm.gov.my.

[2] — [Public Opinion Survey: Third Malaysian Circulation Coin Series Project. Bank Negara Malaysia. Assessed April 21 2009]