Monthly Archives: October 2019

Doctorings

Posted on by
Reply

And we have to learn about this from a German newspaper.  Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council functionary in the Trump administration, appeared in Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) Star Chamber earlier.  Among other things, he claimed, on the matter of asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, including Burisma’s and the Bidens’ possible roles in the corruption,

was “inappropriate.” It “had nothing to do with national security,” he said he told [US Ambassador to the EU Gordon] Sondland.

Because, to this NSC staffer, everything looks like a national security thing.  There couldn’t possibly be any other purpose to a suggestion, like, say, a law enforcement thing, where ordinary corruption might involve American citizens.

But here’s the bit that we have to read about in other nations first because the American NLMSM didn’t want to mention it until Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) leaked it from Vindman’s official secret testimony:

He [Vindman] added that he had tried to fill in the word “Burisma” which was omitted from the White House’s rough transcript of the telephone call.

Vindman confessed to trying to doctor the transcript of the call. And we’re supposed to believe his testimony.

Aside: there’s nothing “rough” about the transcript; it is a plain transcript, made from notes taken during the telecon and from notes made immediately after it with the express purpose of producing a transcript. That Vindman had access to it for his attempted doctoring is a demonstration that the transcript was circulated among those present at the telecon to confirm its accuracy. Just like a trial court transcript is agreed by both defense and prosecution/plaintiff council.

PRC Personal Savings Rate

Posted on by
Reply

James Areddy had an extensive article on this in a recent Wall Street Journal.  It seems that the personal savings rate of People’s Republic of China’s citizens peaked around 2010 and has been trailing off ever since.  Areddy posited a number of reasons for this, and why it’s likely to continue.  Chief among them is the usual suspect of an increasingly less poor, if not increasingly prosperous, population wishing to live better rather than save more.  Another major reason seems to be the PRC’s one-child policy, lately relaxed legally, but not socially.  With fewer kids in the family, there’s less reason for parents to save against those kids’ future.

I see another reason, though, for the continuation of the fall-off in savings rate, and that continuation running to disastrously low levels, from a national economic perspective.  This is the aging of the PRC’s population.

That aging is driven by a couple of things. One is that folks get old before they die (duh), and today’s PRC population being healthier than yesterday’s, these folks are living longer.  The bookend to this is the shrinking—across generations—of the population of working age citizens.  This stems from that one-child policy, emplaced explicitly to shrink a population that had severe trouble feeding and housing itself and from the continued social lack of desire for more than one child in a family, and from the desire to live better materially today, now that folks are better off (or at least not so bad off).

With fewer folks working relatively to aging and retiring, this means there’ll be less public money to pay for old folks’ retirement (and retired) needs, so the old folks will need to spend their savings even faster than might be the case otherwise.

Another feedback loop likely is inflation.  This will accelerate the fall-off in personal savings. This inflation will be driven by that same shrinking labor force, this time reducing production output—the availability of goods and services—even as spending increases across all age demographics: a classic case of (relatively) too many yuan chasing (relatively) too few goods.

Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has released her impeachment resolution, and with it she has confirmed the kangaroo court nature of this sham, and from that confirmed that the Progressive-Democrats’ effort is nothing but a continuing smear in their effort to prejudice the 2020 elections.  The resolution can be read here; these are the key highlights.

The resolution, which I expect to be voted up Thursday on strictly partisan lines, will confirm the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) and his committee as the lead on the House “inquiry” with Schiff as the sole lead on the process.

Republicans will be able to subpoena witnesses—so long as Schiff agrees.

Republicans will be able to examine and cross-examine witnesses—so long as Schiff approves the questions.

Republicans can see any documents, transcripts, and so on that they wish—so long as Schiff approves the requests.

Republicans can appeal Schiff’s rulings to the Intel Committee as a whole—which has a Progressive-Democrat majority membership.

The Ranking Republican on the committee will get the same amount of time to question witnesses (within the above limits) as the Committee Chairman, but the rest of the Republican committee members will see their time limited relative to the time allotted the Progressive-Democrat members.

There’s more, but these alone eliminate even a veneer of equal access to relevant witnesses.  This resolution is a sham, and nothing more.

Fiscally Sound Socialism

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Rubin posited, in his Wall Street Journal article, some hypotheticals for how Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) might pay for her Medicare-for-All plan. He suggested that one of the ways toward this goal of Medicare-for-All that all the Progressive-Democrats running for President need to do was to

find[] ways to reduce health-care costs

Were Progressive-Democrat candidates serious about this, though, they’d stop conflating health care costs with health care coverage costs, get government out of the way of both industries, and put them both (back) into competitive, free market environments.

Rubin also asked whether

(I) would…support Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-All plan if she presented a fiscally sound option to fund it[.]

The question as phrased is a bit of a non sequitur since it’s virtually impossible for such a thing to be funded in anything remotely approaching a fiscally sound manner.  Leaving that aside, though, no, I would not support her or her “fiscally sound” plan.

Warren’s plan, as with her other plans, are fundamentally socialist. There might—might—be a way to make such a thing fiscally sound, but socialism can never be economically or morally sound.

Socialism can never be economically sound because it caps the performance of the most successful, reducing the incentive to work to one’s potential, and so leads to erosion of output, both individually and in the aggregate across a national economy. Beyond that, socialism puts government in control of production, sales, and purchasing decisions, and government can never be as efficient or as prompt in responding to changing conditions as the totality (or subsets of the total) of private citizens acting on their own needs and wants.

Nor can socialism ever be morally sound. By transferring the responsibility for those production, sales, and purchasing decisions to government and away from the individuals who otherwise would make them, socialism eliminates personal initiative and personal responsibility, indeed, the very concepts of personal initiative and personal responsibility.  Instead of letting men be moral actors in their own right, socialism simply reduces them to wards of the socialist state—which is to say to subjects of the men who populate the socialist state from time to time.

“Clean” Cars

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) wants Government to subsidize.  He’s proposing Government spend $462 billion to pay Americans trading in our gasoline-powered cars for electric ones.  He wants to drop $17 billion on subsidies for auto manufacturers to “help” them build more electric cars along with batteries and associated parts, and $45 billion on charging stations and associated “infrastructure.”

In addition to ignoring where this money is supposed to come from, he’s also misleading on the “clean” electric car bit.  He knows, after all, where the electricity must come from to charge those batteries, whether at home or at his charging stations.

That electricity is generated by coal-, oil-, and gas-fired generating plants.  In New York, where Schumer’s fellow Progressive-Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo has banned fracking and additional gas infrastructure, those generating plants can’t use clean gas to produce electricity for Schumer’s cars: those plants are dependent on coal and oil fuel: Schumer’s electric cars will have even larger carbon footprints.

“Clean” electric cars, indeed.

This sort of scheme also is an affront to our free market economy and an insult to ordinary Americans’ intelligence.  If electric cars were ready for market, they wouldn’t need government subsidies to be saleable.  If Americans wanted electric cars, we’d buy them in droves on our own, without needing to be bribed into buying them.