Here’s another example. Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) claims President Donald Trump is holding our nation’s infrastructure rebuild/expansion hostage against the Progressive-Democratic Party’s “investigations” being ended.
So he’s gonna hold America’s infrastructure hostage, right, over the issue of investigations[.]
What’s being held hostage, exactly? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), just minutes before a scheduled meeting in which Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), and Republican leadership were to negotiate infrastructure projects, Pelosi, with Schumer’s prior agreement and support, accused Trump of impeachable behavior. The only plausible reason for the timing of Pelosi’s accusation was to blow up those negotiations. Progressive-Democrats didn’t want those negotiations to go forward; they didn’t want Trump to look good against the backdrop of election season and their efforts to make him look bad during this season with their faux investigations.
President Donald Trump has said that he’ll do infrastructure negotiations and legislation after the Progressive-Democrats end their investigations of his administration, not before. Pointing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) bad faith approach (my term, not Trump’s) to any such negotiations, he said that
he had watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…accuse him of a “coverup” in remarks to reporters shortly before their scheduled infrastructure meeting at the White House.
[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.
Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands. “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”
“It used to be Congress versus the administration; now it feels like the administration is at least coming around to the Republican point of view” on trade, a Democratic congressional aide said, adding that “it’s going to be hard for them to work with Democrats in a productive way.”
Never mind the Progressive-Democrats’ refusal to work with the White House or Republicans in a productive way. “A productive way” means, as it always has, doing it the Progressive-Democrats’ way.
Indeed, they are, and the one the People’s Republic of China has been inflicting on us for years is especially so. For the duration of the PRC’s economic war—of which its trade “war” is just one campaign—they’ve been conducting cyber espionage, stealing our intellectual property, extorting technology transfer as a condition of doing business inside the PRC, demanding government-approved backdoors into our companies’ core software as another condition of doing business there, even poisoning the powdered milk, pet food, and plywood they sell to us.
Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Je Biden gave a speech in Philadelphia Saturday at his first official rally.
I have some comments on excerpts from his speech—excerpts because he repeated a few themes time after time after time for 30 minutes.
Instead of debating our opponents, we demonize them. Instead of questioning judgments, we question their motives. Instead of listening, we shout. Instead of looking for solutions, we look to score political points. … This politics is pulling us apart, ripping this country apart at the seams. Our politics today traffic in division, and our President is the Divider in Chief.
Japan is examining MMT in its debate over its upcoming sales tax increase [emphasis added].
Some members of Parliament, led by ruling conservative-party lawmakers, argue Japan doesn’t need higher taxes because the country’s inflation is less than 1%. The theory suggests tax increases are needed only when inflation is out of control.
Notice that: MMT says increasing taxes is a means of controlling inflation. The idea is that taking money away from the citizens reduces demand and so inflationary pressure. There are a couple of problems with this concept. One is that government revenue gets spent so Keynes’ aggregate demand goes unchanged, except for a bit of Government-as-middle-man friction.
Apple v Pepper is an antitrust case in which the plaintiffs argue that Apple’s requirement that all iPhone apps must be sold through Apple’s app store is a monopoly that Apple abuses by charging excessive commissions on app sales.
The Wall Street Journal has its editorial knickers in a twist because Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, rejected Apple’s plaint that the case be dismissed. The result is that the case continues in trial court. Yet the editors are upset that Kavanaugh’s ruling “gutted four decades of precedent,” as though precedent cannot be erroneous and so must be unchanging for the ages.
As the tariff volleys in the People’s Republic of China’s years-old economic war (of which trade is just one component) against us begin to grow, some potential changes in international trade and production for trade are becoming visible. If these apparent changes represent the beginning of a solid trend, the changes and the trend will not be to the PRC’s benefit.
It’s true that consumer prices might start to rise in both our nation and in the PRC, but as a population—and as a people—we’re better able to absorb those increases than is the population of the PRC. Our per capita GDP is $62,500, more than three times the PRC’s $19,520.