Skip to main content

Econorama continued

Senators and Congressmen are falling all over each other to introduce legislation to do something to China for any of a variety of presumed sins.

Many of these are centered on the concept that the Chinese currency - generally called the renminbe- is artificially undervalued, and, if allowed to float on the open market, would zoom in price vs. the dollar, making U.S. exports etc. more competitive.

Let's examine this policy from the opposite perspective - e.g. - the dollar would sink in value versus the Chinese currency. While this might be of some short-term value to some exporters, it is something of a crash diet, resulting in quick, but short-lived, weight loss. Hasn't a bedrock of U.S. policy since Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury been a strong dollar? Do we think that a weak dollar is in the long-run best interest of America?

Hardly.

There are a number of constructive things Congress can do should it so chose. First, it could shave a couple of hundred billion from Federal Spending. In that case, the U.S. would begin to pay off debt - including the trillion or so owed the Chinese. Currency flows might just begin to reverse. Second, it could champion education in the U.S. Our deteriorating education standards will make it increasingly easy to export ever better jobs off shore to places like China, where not only will labor be cheaper, it will be better educated.

This does not mean spending more with the Federal Department of Education ( I defy any reader to name three beneficial things that department does without Googling the answer). In fact it might well mean dismantling that department and saving the money....

On every matter of economics, business, competition and international marketplaces I find the ignorance of our elected officials to be appalling.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Cover of The Future of ManagementMy list of must-read business writers continues to expand.Gary Hamel, however, author of What Matters Now, with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, has been on the list for quite some time.Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management, Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run.

Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with something that reflects an educat…

Book Review- Stretch by Scott Sonenshein

Have you ever watched, or been involved in, a business failure, where, despite the best efforts of hardworking people, the business doesn’t survive? Scott Sonenshein lived through it, as he describes in the Introduction to his engrossing book Stretch.  (In some books, the reader can skip the intro- not this one; the introduction is a must-read part of the book.) He was hired by start-up Vividence in Silicon Valley at the very apex of the tech boom.  Despite prestige VC backers, top-tier hires and $50 million, Vividence didn’t make it. As his career continued, that experience led to an interest in why some well-funded operations don’t succeed, while other, more resource constrained, do. Peter Senge wrote about reinforcing cycles as part of his book The Fifth Discipline, which I consider one of the finest business books ever penned. In it, Senge describes the downward cycle that some companies fall into, and why it is so difficult to reverse. Sonenshein explores those cycles from diffe…

Tax Inversions

A savvy businessman once told me “it’s important to know what problem you are trying to solve”.
Let’s ignore for the moment whether or not Treasury or the IRS had the power to change the rules on so-called tax inversions without Congressional action. (The power they said they didn’t have only a few months ago.)
Rather, let’s focus on what problem we are trying to solve. That is, why is the greatest country on earth chasing companies away? Shouldn’t the U.S. be the place that companies want to locate their headquarters?
Imagine this: the U.S. legal structure and tax regime was so attractive that Mercedes, Toyota, Astra Zeneca, Samsung, Total, Singapore Air, Banco Santander, Petrobras, Fujitsu, Nokia, SAP, Audi, Tata Group, Lenovo, Pirelli, Deutsche Bank, Honda, LG, Hyundai, Roche, Credit Suisse, Four Seasons, Siemens, Phillips, Bridgestone, Anglo-America, DeBeers, Volkswagen, Canon,  L’OrĂ©al, Swatch, Armani, LVMH, Toshiba, H&M, Mahindra, Aldi, Kubota, Onex, Ducati, Pemex, Saudi-Ara…