Monthly Archives: January 2021

Too Much Dependence

Posted on by
Reply

…on the central government in DC.

Sunday’s Wall Street Journal had a piece decrying the problems with getting the Wuhan Virus vaccines “the last mile” into folks’ shoulders. They’re right that that’s a serious problem. Even though the Federal government is behind schedule on getting vaccine doses into the States’ hands, those States have the bulk of those delivered vaccines still in the refrigerators, uninjected—they’re vastly behind schedule.

The States and locals, though, are mischaracterizing the problem. Typical is this:

Jeff Duchin [Health Officer & Chief, Communicable Disease Epidemiology & Immunization Section, Public Health], Seattle and King County, WA, said the federal government succeeded in helping fund and purchase vaccines that were developed in record-breaking time, but said it didn’t do nearly enough to ensure that the “last-mile” distribution efforts would be successful.

He’s badly mistaken, and that’s dangerous for Washington’s citizens, and the error itself is dangerous for all Americans. That “last mile” is, and can only be, the responsibility of the States. The Federal government has no authority there.

That’s the nature of our federal republic structure of governance.

The States—Progressive-Democrat-run and Republican-run alike—had been told for months that vaccines would be available by the end of the year. Where was their planning? Even if they didn’t believe the ability to execute commitment, or the commitment itself, that prior planning would have been useful whenever the vaccines arrived. The States chose not to bother.

More Censorship of Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Dorsey has continued his Twitter shutdown of Conservatives, this time “temporarily freezing” the account of a Republican Congresswoman. (So much for “believe the woman” and “#MeToo.”)

[Marjorie Taylor (R, GA] Greene’s account “has been temporarily locked out for multiple violations” of Twitter’s “civic integrity policy,” a company representative said in an emailed statement.

For the heinous crime of—what, exactly?

Twitter did not specify what content led to the action—and the congresswoman herself said she was in the dark about the suspension

Rather than answering Greene’s commentary, for instance with actual logic and facts regarding Dorsey’s and his employees’ view of—what, again?—or fostering general conversation among Twitter users on—what was that?—Dorsey has chosen to simply shut up speech with which he’s incapable of discoursing and with which he has decided Twitterers are just too grindingly stupid to form rational argument. Or too emotionally wrecked to face such commentary. Or wholly incapable of simply ignoring the matter on their own initiative.

Or it’s just an excuse, a rationalization. Civic integrity: the truth according to Dorsey and his Twitter. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing else.

“Elections Could Be Avoided”

Posted on by
Reply

The Italian government is in crisis—which is to say things are proceeding normally for the Italians, since that government has been stably unstable since the end of WWII (66 separate Cabinets in those 75 years).

The latest round is Matteo Renzi taking his Italia Viva party out of the four party coalition government (have I mentioned stability?) that currently is in charge and is nominally led by Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and the major coalition parties, the 5-Star Movement and the Democratic Party (the Free and Equal party is the fourth coalition member). The withdrawal included the resignations of two IV cabinet ministers, which eliminated the coalition’s parliamentary majority (don’t ask. This is Italian politics).

A couple of things ensue from Renzi’s move: coalition parties attempt to negotiate a new coalition agreement with Italia Viva. If that fails, President Sergio Mattarella assemble a “national unity” government to deal with the Wuhan Virus situation. It Mattarella failed, the only option would be national elections.

That brings me to what drew my eye and to the point of this article.

Renzi said, in the aftermath of his collapsing the coalition government, that (quoting from OANN‘s paraphrase) he thought elections could be avoided.

Elections could be avoided. Avoid letting the people choose their own government whenever possible.

This is an all-too-typical attitude of European politicians. They’re in charge, not the people.

This is the Europe Progressive-Democrats want us to emulate.

An Empirical Test?

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and ex-entrepreneur Andrew Yang now is running for mayor of New York City, and he wants to implement there his Universal Basic Income scheme.

We can eradicate extreme poverty in New York City. If you put just a little money in their hands it can actually be what keeps them in their home and, again, avoids them hitting city services that are incredibly expensive.

Or not.

Keep in mind that demand is not the number of people who want a product, it’s the amount of money being spent for the product.

The problem with giving unearned money to everyone—using the $1,000/mo, or $12,000/yr, from his Presidential campaign for concreteness—is that you increase demand (this time artificially) by those $12k/yr. Since production won’t increase much—the money representing demand won’t be earned from production, it’ll be printed, or it’ll come from taxes, or it’ll come from borrowing (future taxes)—the result will be pure inflation.

That inflation will rise to fully absorb those $12k, leaving buying power where it was before the UBI started getting handed out. The $2 candy bar will cost $24, and the UBI will be completely absorbed. The recipients will be no better off than before.

In fact, everyone will be worse off. Inflation will leave everyone’s buying power fundamentally unchanged, but money taken out of the economy by those taxes or that debt will lead to an overall reduction in economic activity. Taxes or debt (either one) will reduce businesses’ ability to innovate—which is jobs—or to give bonuses/pay raises—which is jobs—or to improve existing plant—which is jobs—or to hire more employees—which is jobs—since absent innovation, there’ll be reduced ability to expand.

Or, Yang is onto something.

If so, what better place to run the test than in the aftermath of Bill de Blasio’s New York City?

On-Line Sports Betting

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the venue, but the question is much larger.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) is moving to authorize mobile sports betting, by having his government conduct “competitive bidding” for government permission to host such.

State Senate Racing, Gaming, and Wagering Committee Chairman Joe Addabbo (D, Queens) said in an interview that

he was glad the Democratic governor had shifted away from his opposition to online betting but believed the state should enact a more expansive system.
“I am not a believer that one sportsbook provider, or operator, can handle the volume in New York[.]”

Both miss the larger problem. In a truly competitive process, private economy entrepreneurs would start their own mobile sports betting enterprises, and they would compete—on the basis of product quality and breadth of services—for the consumer’s dollar. They wouldn’t be forced to compete—on the basis of politics—for the government’s imprimatur.

This is another Progressive-Democrat-run government’s attempt to control businesses.

As Michael Corleone (almost) said, It’s not business. It’s strictly politics.