Category Archives: markets

Diversity vs Diversity

Posted on by
Reply

Nasdaq—the tech-oriented stock exchange (no irony there)—is demanding companies listed with it

appoint within the next four years no fewer than two “diverse” directors: at least one woman, and one person from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group or someone who identifies as LGBTQ. Any company failing this requirement would be obligated to explain why.

The SEC must approve the demand before it has legal effect, but look for the Biden SEC to grant that.

Nasdaq, and the rest of the social justice warrior-ettes and virtue-signalers, miss the point of diversity, though. Or they don’t miss the point; they just don’t care.

Diversity of thought, diversity of approaches to problem solutions, most assuredly is something desperately needed in the boardroom. And in the C-suites, in middle management, on the production floor. And in schools, legislatures, and other political entities. (Voucher and charter schools already have this kind of diversity, in the main.) And in the mainstay of our private economy, mom-and-pop and other small businesses. Diversity of irrelevant characteristics like race, gender, or anything other will fall out of hiring for diversity of thought.

That’s even the logical outcome of those who push for diversity based on those irrelevant characteristics: all men are fundamentally equal in capability, these worthies say, regardless of color, gender, or….

Diversity done for the sake of diversity of race, gender, any other form, however, is just bigotry for the sake of bigotry, regardless of claimed purpose for the bigotry.

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?

“We Cannot Erase the Last Four Years”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D, MD) lament as he closed the Progressive-Democrats’ case on the floor of the House during Wednesday’s impeachment “debate.”

We cannot erase the last four years.

Though the Progressive-Democrats tried every day of those four years. They and their Obama Executive Branch bureaucrats spied on the Trump campaign and trumped up charges against General Michael Flynn, false charges it took all this time to clear.

They and their Democratic National Committee commissioned a salacious and false dossier in an effort to besmirch a President and to serve as the foundation of an investigation that culminated in finding that President Donald Trump had done nothing wrong.

They and their FBI agent-assistants lied to courts in order to get subpoenas and warrants to “investigate” Trump’s team.

They ran a sham impeachment.

They obstructed financial aid to Americans fiscally harmed by government shutdowns ostensibly due to the Wuhan Virus situation—done as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) admitted after the election was done solely for the purpose of interfering with Trump’s reelection.

Here’s what Hoyer and his Progressive-Democrats want to erase.

A major tax rate reduction for American businesses and a major income tax rate reduction for Americans. This kept his campaign promise.

Unemployment endured by blacks, Hispanics, women reduced to historic lows. This kept his campaign promise.

Income inequality reduced to multi-decade lows—by previously unemployed minority citizens actually getting jobs while the rich got no better off. This kept his campaign promise.

Historic support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities by increasing Federal funding support for those schools and making that support multi-year. This kept his campaign promise.

An improved trade deal with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA. This kept his campaign promise.

Working toward improving and strengthening NATO by getting the European NATO nations to increase their financial and equipment commitments to NATO—commitments that those nations had voluntarily committed years ago but welched on subsequently. This kept his campaign promise.

Bringing American soldiers home from Iraq and Afghanistan—for good or ill, but this kept his campaign promise.

Overtly and concretely facing the People’s Republic of China over that nation’s trade, technology, intellectual property depredations. This kept his campaign promise.

Overtly and concretely facing the People’s Republic of China over that nation’s seizure of the South China Sea and the islands and resources therein, and its attempts to seize the East China Sea. This kept his campaign promise.

Strengthened our ties with the Republic of China. This kept his campaign promise.

Strengthened our ties with Japan. This kept his campaign promise.

Improved our defense arrangement with the Republic of Korea. This kept his campaign promise.

Attempted serious diplomacy with northern Korea vis-à-vis that nation’s nuclear weapons program. This kept his campaign promise.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, an accord that our compliance with would seriously damage our economy while strengthening, in relative terms, the PRC’s and so increasing its leverage over our Asian allies and over us. This kept his campaign promise.

Withdrawing from the JCPOA, which authorized Iran to freely develop nuclear weapons as soon as it expired. This kept his campaign promise.

Strengthening our physical border with Mexico, thereby strongly reducing illegal entry into our nation by illegal aliens. This kept his campaign promise.

Reducing Federal regulations that interfere with American business development and growth. This kept his campaign promise.

Reducing regulatory barriers to our hydrocarbon-based energy industry, thereby making us a net energy exporter and virtually eliminating our dependence on foreign energy. This kept his campaign promise.

I’m sure there are more; this short list is just the high points.

This is the economic, social, and political strengthening of the last four years that Hoyer and his Progressive-Democrats want so desperately to erase.

American Energy

Posted on by
Reply

…independence today. Tomorrow, American energy dependence.

Bloomberg is reporting that the US didn’t import any oil at all from Saudi Arabia last week, the first time in 35 years. That’s part of a longer term trend in declining Saudi oil imports over the last six years, especially. See the graph just below.

This trend is a result of the US technology advance of fracking which both drove down the cost of getting the oil (and natural gas) out of the ground and drastically increasing our own oil and gas production—virtually eliminating our dependence on foreign oil and gas and making us net exporters of both.

However.

Watch for American energy independence to (re)degrade into energy dependence on foreign nations under the Biden administration.

Watch that dependence made doubly vulnerable as the Biden administration reduces funding for our national defense, including particularly our Navy, so that we will be less able to defend the shipping lanes carrying that foreign energy to us.

The People’s Republic of China, beginning under the Obama régime, already is in a position to shut off the shipping lanes carrying trillions of dollars of goods, including crude, to us through the South China Sea, and they’re building/acquiring naval bases for the PLA on the west coast of Africa and creating “economic” ties with island nations on the eastern boundary of the Caribbean Sea, and on the north coast of South America. And Biden’s softness toward the PLC is well-known.

Sound Money and the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

In a Letter to The Wall Street Journal Wednesday, one writer had this on the idea of the People’s Republic of China being a competitor with its renminbi as global reserve currency and its bond market as debt safe haven:

Credible money paired with reduced government spending have long been pillars of conservative rhetoric stateside, and with good reason.

Indeed. However, what the writer elided are the capital risk the PRC poses with its history of limiting or barring repatriation of profit, the economic risk from the PRC’s requirement that foreign companies give up their technologies and intellectual properties to domestic companies as a condition of doing business in the PRC, and the political risk of the PRC’s requirement that companies supply its intelligence community with any information that community “requests.”

The absence of these risks in the US also is an important aspect of conservative economic and political thought—and not just rhetoric.