A Simple Solution

Even if it might be politically difficult and short-term expensive.

Recall that EU member Lithuania expressed support for the Republic of China and in naked retaliation, the People’s Republic of China imposed a nearly complete trade embargo on Lithuania and blocked import of any other EU member’s products that contained Lithuania-originated parts.

Now, a year later, the EU is haling the PRC into the WTO in a suit over that embargo. Be still, my heart.

There’s a better and more effective and permanent solution to this sort of behavior from the PRC.

A year later, Lithuania has learned that it can get along without trade with the PRC, and by that example, so has the EU (and so have the US and non-PRC Asia, come to that).

The solution includes these straightforward steps.

  • The rest of us increase our trade with Lithuania
  • The EU in particular, and the rest of us as well, stop trading with the PRC
  • All of us increase our trade with the RoC

Sadly, the parties involved make such moves politically difficult with their own fear of PRC retaliations. And certainly, through the middle-term, it would be economically expensive to locate and develop alternative markets and to move supply chain steps—from dirt in the ground to component parts to finished products—completely out of the PRC. However, once those transfers are completed, we’d all be better off politically and economically from no longer having our economies dependent on the good offices of an aggressive and acquisitive enemy nation.

The PRC’s behavior toward Lithuania and its attempt to extort Japan through withholding shipments of rare earths to that nation are just two examples of that benefit.

Isn’t This Interesting

There’s an oil tanker traffic jam at the Turkish Straits junction with the Black Sea. That jam is being caused by tanker insurers’ refusal to honor a Turkish demand that the tankers produce letters from their insurers assuring Turkey that the tankers’ Protection and Indemnity Insurance policies remain in effect following the G-7’s, EU’s, et al., imposition of a price cap on Russian oil that bars insurers from covering oil tankers carrying Russian oil for sale above the cap. The International Group of P&I Clubs provides 90%, by tonnage, of the policies covering the world’s oil tanker fleet.

That Club’s problem with that demand for proof of effectivity of its policies post-cap is this:

The insurers said they couldn’t agree to the Turkish request because it could lead them to violate sanctions….

Isn’t that rationale for the Club’s reluctance interesting. What sanctions do Club insurers think they might violate if their policies comply with the requirements of the cap? It’s certainly possible that Russian oil shippers and/or traders could lie to the insurers about the prices of their oil, but that just puts a premium on the insurers exercising due diligence before they issue their policies. And on refusing to insure further if the Russian shippers/traders are discovered after the fact to have lied.

Courts and State-Controlled Federal Elections

In Moore v Harper, the Supreme Court is being called on to decide whether State courts can rearrange State elections laws—in particular, write their own Congressional district maps—as these pertain to how a State runs Federal-level elections.

It shouldn’t even be a question. Our Constitution is quite clear on the matter of who is responsible for setting the rules for Federal elections. Here’s Article I, Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof….

And only the Federal Congress can adjust those Times, Places and Manner. Not State courts, not even Federal courts.

Our Constitution and every State constitution also is clear on the place and role of the court system in our Federal and State governments. The Judiciary branches are coequal with the Legislature and Executive Branches—neither subordinate nor superior to either. Especially, the Judiciary branches are separate from the other two branches; they are not additional legislative facilities.

State courts, including State Supreme Courts, the facility at proximate case in Moore, have no role in setting or adjusting State Legislature-written Federal-level election rules for their States.

One argument that is being pushed on the Supreme Court for allowing State courts to overrule State Legislatures is “the Founders couldn’t possibly have meant no court oversight of State election laws.” This is obviously inaccurate. In the first place, what the Founders meant in our Constitution is what they actually wrote down and passed out of Convention to submit to the people to ratify.

In the second place, what We the People meant when we ratified that Constitution is that written-down, passed out of Convention, Constitution, with a single modification by us. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate, which involved a number of folks in We the People, resulted in a commitment to pass Amendments comprising what came to be called the Bill of Rights—the first 10 Amendments—and We the People ratified those Amendments promptly out of the First Congress. None of those Amendments address in any way how an individual State conducts its Federal-level elections.

No court oversight State election laws is precisely what the Founders intended, and it’s exactly the intention of We the People.

Full stop.

Supporting Ukraine’s Ability “to defend themselves”

Against the backdrop of three probably Ukrainian attacks on Russian defense facilities well inside Russia, Secretary of State Antony Blinken “assured” one and all that

the US was determined to make sure the Ukrainians had “the equipment that they need to defend themselves, to defend their territory, to defend their freedom.”

That is, to use the technical term, a crock from the Biden administration.

A Critical Item in defending themselves, defending their territory, defending their freedom is a Ukrainian ability to attack the barbarian’s launching sites, including those inside Russia proper, that the barbarian uses for the missiles and drones being fired on civilian targets like apartment buildings; hospitals; and electricity, natural gas, and water distribution nodes.

Yet this administration demurs from facilitating Ukraine’s ability to do that. It has supplied Ukraine with HIMARS crippleware, artificially modified to prevent those systems from firing into Russia, it continues to block delivery of fighter aircraft, and it continues to jawbone Ukraine against attacking into Russia.

What the Biden administration also continues to do is refuse to explain why Russia should be a sanctuary state, even as it prosecutes its barbaric war against Ukraine.

Economic Failure

An example is in the housing market, provided by this bit in a Wall Street Journal article centered on housing costs as a major component of our current economic inflation. The article suggests, among other things, that housing cost inflation may be abating.

If shelter inflation does drag overall inflation closer to 2%, that doesn’t mean the inflation problem is over. Economists assume increases in rents and home prices will remain subdued, given the slowing economy and high mortgage rates.

Say that the shelter inflation is easing and that it does, indeed, drag overall inflation down. Inflation is a measure of the rate of price increases, it is not a measure of prices themselves. If shelter prices stop rising so fast, the cost of shelter—rent, house purchase (and associated interest rates on those mortgage), rent/housing utilities—and of fuel, food, and on and on all will remain at their current levels; they most assuredly will not fall back.

But those prices must be paid out of a household’s income, and that income—wages and salaries—has increased only at half to three-quarters the rate of inflation. That means that in real, practical, terms, a household has less money with which to pay those costs: a larger per centage of monthly household income will be absorbed by those monthly rent/mortgage payments and those monthly household utility, fuel, food, etc bills than was the case before this inflation explosion.

That’s the failure of the Biden administration’s and Congress’ fiscal policy of throwing trillions of dollars at our economy with no means for it to absorb that money though increased production and productivity. That failure is exacerbated by the Powell Federal Reserve’s monetary policy failure in artificially suppressing interest rates for so long, and in printing dollars like the presses would run out of ink tomorrow through its bottomless purchases of Treasury debt instruments.