The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
Taxing index funds: Tax timing, investor control, and household wealth
English Summary
The article argues that current tax law creates structural disparities in after-tax wealth accumulation between mutual funds and ETFs, even when holding identical portfolios. This difference stems from the tax externality in mutual funds, where one investor's redemption can trigger capital gains taxes for others. Conversely, ETFs largely allow investors to control the timing of gains realization. Policymakers face a fundamental choice: whether to tie capital gains taxation to fund-level transactions (earlier revenue collection) or to investor-level sales decisions (greater investor control). This design choice has significant distributional consequences, as the current tax advantages disproportionately benefit higher-income households.
中文摘要
本文論述現行稅法在互權基金（mutual funds）與交易所買賣基金（ETFs）之間，即使持有相同的投資組合，仍會造成稅後財富積累的結構性差異。這種差異源於互權基金的稅收外部性，即一位投資人的贖回行為可能觸發其他投資人的資本利得稅。相反地，ETF在很大程度上允許投資人掌握資本利得實現的時間點。政策制定者面臨一個根本性的選擇：是將資本利得稅與基金層級的交易（較早的稅收收入）掛鉤，還是與投資人層級的出售決策（更高的投資人控制權）掛鉤。這一設計選擇具有重大的分配影響，因為現行稅收優勢不成比例地使高收入家庭受益。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
3.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
4.
The article argues that bond market behavior is not driven by an 'addiction' to tariff revenue but rather by the government’s overall fiscal health, growth prospects, and debt servicing capacity. Key evidence shows that customs duties generate a fraction of total federal receipts compared to core tax streams, meaning tariffs are too small to fundamentally alter the nation's fiscal trajectory. Furthermore, market reactions were dictated by the aggregate economic damage caused by large tariffs (inflation/growth concerns), not merely the revenue generated. Policymakers should recognize that the real concern for bond investors remains persistent budget deficits and high interest costs, issues that require comprehensive structural reform rather than reliance on tariff income.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.