Why Harris and Starmer Are Coming for Your Investments

 

"Of course they're coming for your investments.

Higher taxes on capital are becoming a centerpiece of liberal politics on both sides of the Atlantic. While Democrats flirt with substantially higher taxes on capital gains (realized or unrealized), Britain's Labour Party contemplates steeper levies on capital gains and inheritances as Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves prepares her first budget proposal for release next month.

The left's ideological suspicion of capital is only part of the story. The more important phenomenon is a profound change in the tax base in modern economies after 30 years of failed economic policies and hyperactive monetary easing.

Capital, rather than labor income, is where the money is now.

For at least 40 years, the value of American households' assets has increased faster than their incomes. Throughout much of the 1980s, household wealth hovered at or below 500% of disposable income [1], according to Federal Reserve data. If labor incomes and wealth had increased at the same rate, this ratio would have remained stable. Instead, U.S. household net wealth now stands at 785% of disposable income -- and that's off a peak of 836% in the first quarter of 2022.

This isn't a tale about real estate. Housing and other nonfinancial assets reached a recent peak at 39% of total household assets in 2006, roughly the same proportion as in the early 1980s, before retail stock ownership took off. Housing and other nonfinancial assets now account for 33% of total household assets.

This is a story instead of financial-asset ownership. The value of stocks held directly by households has grown to 163% of aggregate disposable income today from around 30% in the early 1980s. It's similar in Britain, where household wealth surged to around 700% of gross domestic product in 2019 from less than 400% of GDP at the end of the 1980s. There, too, housing is only part of the story.

What's fueling this wealth boom? Some of the drivers are big positives for the economy. In the U.S. and U.K., tax-law changes, the expansion of defined-contribution pension plans, and the rise of retail brokerages starting in the 1980s made financial-asset ownership more attainable for more households. American household net wealth stepped up toward the end of the Reagan era, to around 530% of disposable income, and financial assets as a share of household balance sheets drifted upward until the housing boom of the 2000s. This expanding pool of capital funds productive investments that produce both labor and capital incomes.

But a bigger cause of this asset explosion is policy error. The boom has occurred alongside a downward drift in Americans' personal savings rate -- to between 5% and 6% on the eve of the pandemic from above 10% in the early 1980s. Household net wealth is also growing much faster than GDP. These factors suggest that new savings and investment (including by baby boomers during their peak earning years) can't account for all of the increase of wealth, and neither can underlying GDP growth.

That leaves another probable cause: asset-price inflation, courtesy of the Federal Reserve and Bank of England. Sure enough, setting aside the tax and pension reforms of the 1980s, the biggest upward step changes in wealth track what are now recognized as significant monetary-policy errors.

In the U.S. those include the dot-com froth of the late 1990s, the too-low-for-too-long housing mania of the 2000s, and now the inflationary ultralow interest rates and quantitative easing of the pandemic era, all of which precipitated booms in net wealth relative to disposable income. In the U.K. it was the Bank of England's long periods of suppressing rates while "looking through" inflation in the 2010s and again in recent years.

Meanwhile onerous tax and regulatory policies on the Main Street economy undercut labor-income growth. Hence wages and salaries as a proportion of taxable income on individual tax returns in the U.S. have fallen to around 60% from well above 70% throughout the 1980s and '90s, according to Internal Revenue Service data analyzed for me by economists at the Tax Foundation.

No wonder cash-strapped politicians are eyeing capital taxation. Except that although this vast pool of household wealth looks like a revenue freebie, it isn't. For starters, there's no way to distinguish between the portion of wealth accumulation attributable to inflationary errors and the portion arising from productive investment. Mop up the latter while trying to absorb the former and you'll end up with no wage growth -- and no economic growth.

There's a subtler problem. While rapidly rising household wealth is a consequence of policy mistakes, it's also the only insurance households have against those mistakes. Expanding asset ownership over the past 40 years at least means that more households now own assets that are increasing in value even when their labor income isn't.

Politicians pitching "taxing the rich" should assume the middle class eventually will figure this out. Beware once those voters do." [2]

1.   "Disposable income is the total amount of money you have to work with for the month."  
  

2.  Political Economics: Why Harris and Starmer Are Coming for Your Investments. Sternberg, Joseph C.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Sep 2024: A.17.

 

Humanoidiniai robotai iš Kinijos yra pigūs, geri ir jau dabar prieinami

 

 „Aštuntajame ir devintajame dešimtmetyje Holivudas dažnai įsivaizdavo pasaulį, kuriame technologijos yra taip išsivysčiusios, kad ji yra beveik žmogiška, nuo „Žvaigždžių karų“, kuriuose R2-D2 ir C-3PO yra ne tik įrankiai, bet ir žmonių draugai, iki Terminatorius", kuriame žudikas-robotas persirengęs žmogumi. Mokslinė fantastika netrukus taps realybe.

 

 Dirbtinio intelekto įgalinti humanoidai, galintys sklandžiai įsilieti į mūsų pasaulį, netrukus taps kasdienio gyvenimo dalimi.

 

 Elonas Muskas per birželį vykusį akcininkų susirinkimą pareiškė, kad kitais metais „Tesla“ gamykloje dirbs daugiau, nei 1000, „Optimus“ humanoidų.

 

 Jis taip pat sakė, kad humanoidų technologija greitai bus taip pažengusi, kad „bus keista neturėti draugo roboto, jūsų C-3PO ar R2-D2“.

 

 Kiti „Boston Dynamics“, „Figure“, „Amazon“ ir Kinijoje įsikūrusios „Unitree Robotics“ plėtra užtikrina, kad ši technologija pasiliks su mumis.

 

 Tačiau tikros lenktynės dėl šios technologijos vyksta ne tarp privačių įmonių. Tai yra tarp JAV ir Kinijos komunistų partijos.

 

 Kongresas turi imtis veiksmų, kad gaminiai, pagaminti priešiškų režimų, ypač Kinijos, nepatektų į mūsų įmones, mokyklas, bendruomenes ir namus. Dar geriau, mes turime pozicionuoti JAV, kaip pasaulinę lyderę šioje srityje. Tai padidins amerikiečių galimybes ir užtikrins, kad etikos standartai formuotų ateitį.

 

 Deja, Kinija jau pažengė į priekį ir per pastaruosius trejus metus sudarė daugiau, nei pusę, visų robotų įrenginių visame pasaulyje. Pekinas agresyviai subsidijuoja pažangius robotų gamintojus ir remia pastangas statyti gamyklas, galinčias masiškai gaminti humanoidus jau kitais metais.

 

 Kinija nori pirmauti pasaulyje visose robotikos srityse, ypač humanoidų, ir gali tai padaryti pigiau dėl savo nežmoniškos darbo praktikos.

 

 Apskaičiavimai rodo, kad Kinijos humanoidai gali kainuoti tik penktadalį to, kiek kainuoja jų Vakarų konkurentai.

 

 Ir mes žinome, kad Pekinas yra daugiau, nei pasirengęs pažeisti tarptautinius prekybos įstatymus, kad sumažintų tarifų produktus išmestų į JAV ir kitas rinkas, sumažindamas konkurenciją ir tapdamas vienintele galimybe vartotojams.

 

 Pavojuje yra daugiau, nei prekyba. Kinijoje pagaminti humanoidai kelia grėsmę amerikiečių asmeniniam saugumui dėl jų renkamų duomenų. Šie robotai ims neribotą informaciją apie jų aplinką, įskaitant bet kurį asmenį, su kuriuo jie bendrauja.

 

 Humanoidai taps svarbūs beveik kiekvienai pramonės šakai, o tai reiškia, kad ekonomika bus susieta su didžiausia šių robotų gamintoja.

 

 Pasitikėjimas Kinijoje pagamintais robotais susietų Amerikos ekonominę sėkmę su komunistų partijos geranoriškumu.

 

 Humanoidiniai robotai turės ir gynybinių, ir puolamųjų nacionalinio saugumo pasekmių. JAV kariuomenė tiria būdus, kaip įtraukti humanoidus į šiuolaikinį karą, tačiau Kinija jau dislokavo ginkluotą robotiką mūšio lauke. Jei JAV dar labiau atsiliks tokios svarbios technologijos srityje, mūsų kariai mūšio lauke susidurs su lemtingais trūkumais.

 

 Turime įsigyti ir plėtoti šią technologiją nepriklausomai nuo Kinijos. Gynybos ir Tėvynės saugumo departamentai pagal įstatymą jau įpareigoti kai kurias karo kovos technologijas įsigyti iš JAV vidaus rinkos. Tačiau humanoidai galėtų atitikti įstatymų nustatytas šių reikalavimų išimtis.

 

 Geros naujienos yra tai, kad knygelė, skirta užkirsti kelią kinų humanoidų kontrolei, jau egzistuoja. Į 2024 m. Nacionalinės gynybos leidimo įstatymą Kongresas įtraukė draudimą naudoti kiniškus bepiločius orlaivius gynybos tikslais ir yra pasirengęs tą patį padaryti su „Lidar“ – lazeriu paremta radarą primenančia sistema. Reikalingas panašus apribojimas kinų humanoidams.

 

 Kongresas turėtų uždrausti Kinijos humanoidų importą ir užtikrinti, kad jokia amerikiečių technologija negalėtų paremti jų kūrimo, kol Xi Jinpingas neturi savo robotų armijos Amerikos žemėje.

 ---

 Respublikonė ponia Britt yra JAV senatorė iš Alabamos. P. Helbergas yra „Palantir Technologies“ generalinio direktoriaus Alexo Karpo vyresnysis patarėjas.“ [1]

 

1. Humanoid Robots Are the Next Threat From China. Britt, Katie; Helberg, Jacob.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Sep 2024: A.17.

Humanoid Robots from China Are Cheap, Good, and Available Now

 

"Hollywood in the 1970s and '80s often imagined a world where technology is so evolved it is almost human, from "Star Wars," in which R2-D2 and C-3PO are not just tools but also friends to humans, to "The Terminator," in which an assassin-robot is disguised as a human. Science fiction is about to become reality. 

Artificial-intelligence-enabled humanoids capable of blending seamlessly into our world will soon be a part of everyday life.

Elon Musk claimed at a shareholder meeting in June that Tesla will deploy more than 1,000 Optimus humanoids to work on the factory floor next year. 

He also said that humanoid technology will soon be so advanced that it will "be odd not to have a robot buddy, your C-3PO or R2-D2." 

Other developments by Boston Dynamics, Figure, Amazon, and Chinese-based Unitree Robotics assure that the technology is here to stay. 

But the real race over this technology isn't between private companies. It's between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party.

Congress must act to prevent products manufactured by adversarial regimes, especially China, from infiltrating our businesses, schools, communities and homes. Better yet, we must position the U.S. as a global leader in the field. This will increase opportunities for Americans and ensure that ethical standards shape the future.

Unfortunately, China already has a leg up, accounting for more than half of all robot installations worldwide over the past three years. Beijing is aggressively subsidizing advanced robot manufacturers and supporting efforts to build factories capable of mass-producing humanoids as soon as next year.

China wants to lead the world in all robotics -- especially humanoids -- and is able to do it for less, owing to its inhumane labor practices. 

Estimates indicate Chinese humanoids might cost as little as one-fifth as much as their Western competitors. 

And we know that Beijing is more than willing to violate international trade laws to dump cut-rate products into the U.S. and other markets, undercutting competition and emerging as the only option for consumers.

More than commerce is at stake. Chinese-manufactured humanoids threaten Americans' personal security because of the data they collect. These robots will take in limitless information about their surroundings, including any person with whom they interact.

Humanoids will become important to almost every industry, which means the economy will be tied to the largest producer of these robots. 

Reliance on Chinese-made robots would tie American economic success to the goodwill of the Communist Party.

Humanoid robots will have both defensive and offensive national-security implications. The U.S. military is exploring ways to incorporate humanoids into modern warfare, but China has already deployed armed robotics to the battlefield. If the U.S. falls further behind in such critical technology, our troops will face fatal disadvantages on the battlefield.

We need to procure and develop this technology independent from China. The Defense and Homeland Security departments are already required by law to source some war-fighting technologies domestically. But humanoids could fit into statutory exceptions to these requirements.

The good news is that the playbook to prevent Chinese control of humanoids already exists. As part of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress included a prohibition on Chinese drones for defense purposes and is poised to do the same with Lidar, a laser-based radar-like system. A similar restriction on Chinese humanoids is needed.

Congress should ban the importation of Chinese humanoids and ensure that no American technology can support their creation before Xi Jinping has his own robotic army on American soil.

---

Mrs. Britt, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Alabama. Mr. Helberg is a senior adviser to the Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp." [1]

1. Humanoid Robots Are the Next Threat From China. Britt, Katie; Helberg, Jacob.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Sep 2024: A.17.