Category Archives: economics

Symmetry and savvy

Posted on by
Reply

The DA is quite negative on the new taxes proposed for the mining sector. They seem to argue that higher taxes will discourage employment and investment.

I haven’t analysed the details thoroughly so maybe they are correct. I suspect that it’s more dogmatic following of views from those who don’t understand the pros and cons well enough to change their mind.

For example, if higher taxes are bad for employment and investment, surely lower taxes would be good for employment and investment? I doubt that the DA is arguing that the current level of taxes is exactly optimal, so shouldn’t they have been campaigning more loudly for lower taxes?

The reality is that, considered on their own, higher taxes will reduce rates of return to shareholders. This will make marginal operations unecnomical, which could result in job losses. The lower after-tax profit may also push  operations with marginal rates of return to below the required hurdle rate of some investors, reducing total investment in the sector.

This is, of course, true for all taxes. Hopefully there aren’t too many people left who believe that taxes should not exist.

So one real question is whether the tax rate is optimal, given the funds that can be directed towards government revenues in general and to specific employment creation and industrial development programmes specifically.

A second real question is whether the “price” for the permanent removal of natural resources being charged is appropriate (a combination of taxes and royalties) and from a philosophical perspective, who “owns” our country’s natural resources?

This leads to the third question or point that the DA really should be more aware of. Nationalisation, the Freedom Charter, and vast income inequalities are all part of a potent political conversation in South Africa. With nationalisation almost entirely off the table at the moment, being able to demonstrate in some manner that the “riches under the ground” are better being shared with everyone is an important political point to counter the more extreme political views.

The DA, in this instance, is blind to the subtler political benefits of this approach, blind to the definite benefits of increased revenues, blind to the possible benefits of focussed attention on this industry cluster, but completely convinced of the first-year economics free market principle of “tax leads to deadweight loss of consumer and supplier surplus” and thus lower employment and investment.

No nationalisation, more certainty and probably higher taxes

Posted on by
Reply

There are times when I’m impressed with elements of government and the ANC. It took them far too long, they allowed too much debate and uncertainty, but their ultimate conclusions on nationalisation and how to direct additional mineral wealth back into the fiscus, further develop a beneficiation industry around the mining industry are solid.

I always maintained that “nationalisation” isn’t necessarily appropriation of assets without compensation, although the popular views and worst fear-mongering viewed this as the only possibility. It’s refreshing to hear that “nationalisation” was considered on its merits against private operation of firms rather than just as a way to redistribute wealth. (Ok, at least one article wasn’t mad panic.)

The increase in taxes is also basically expected. Although new and changing taxes does add uncertainty, it provides a sense that the rules are being followed.  Tax rates on energy companies in many Middle Eastern countries is high – sometimes near 50%. So the government fiscus does benefit from the energy that belongs to all its citizens.

It’s also a, slightly sneaky, way of re-settting historical land ownership and mineral right royalties and licensing. If “we got it wrong and sold them too cheaply in the past, we can always recoup through higher or new taxes”. Maybe a little cynical but not surprising.

The real free market fanatics will no doubt be in uproar about higher taxes destroying jobs and misallocating resources. There is a debate here, but the free market fanatics all too quickly forget that it’s hard to argue that the value of the minerals under our country have been fairly priced. Those markets can easily be described as “failed markets” with a number of externalities involved.

Even the hardest neoclassical economist will recognise these are very real limitations on Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

More utterly misguided criticism of medical schemes

Posted on by
Reply

I wish this would be the last time I say this (or the first or the second):

“Medical Schemes are non-profit entities are don’t make profits for shareholders.” There are administration companies that charge administration fees that have shareholders and make profits. However, if my medical scheme pays me a greater benefit, they will be removing a benefit from someone else or making everyone pay more in contributions.

It really is a simple idea, but clearly this misguided “GP” doesn’t understand the first thing about the organisation he is criticising.  Note that I’m not commenting on a particular medical scheme’s practices, but rather the universal reality of medical schemes.

UK vs France: Fight!

Posted on by
Reply

UK Gilt yields are at their lowest since the 1890s. Now that’s a long time ago. This reflects concerns about UK economic growth and inflation, which will require low short term interest rates from the Bank of England for an extended period. It also reflects the relatively safe-haven status of the Pound Sterling in this age of Euro-fragility. No matter what the French may try to say about the UK debt situation, I’d rather be in Pounds than Euros at the moment.

The UK isn’t going to default in the next 10 years (hey, I have no idea what will happen beyond then) and the short term prospects for the currency are more likely for appreciation than depreciation.  The very low yields don’t offer much protection against depreciation for non-UK investors over the next 10 years, but inflation risks are pretty minimal for an extended period due to the liquidity trap the UK also finds itself in.

Meanwhile, across the pond, French unemployment is at a 12 year high. For the meantime, French borrowing costs aren’t being overly hurt by investor concerns about the future of the Euro, but I’m not entirely convinced this possibility is off the table during the course of 2012. The practicalities of what happens to Euro-denominated French bonds are not exactly attractive to risk-averse, certainty-desiring investors.