Tag Archives: economics

A False Choice

Posted on by
2

And a politically hard, but eminently straightforward alternative.

California’s regulators want to ban older diesel locomotives from operating in California after 2029, requiring only battery locomotives or some other form of net-zero emission locomotion process to be the motive force over freight trains (and passenger trains after 2030).

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors think that would ban diesel locomotives nation-wide, and in one sense they’re right.

Since locomotives can’t be swapped at the state border, the rules in practice would affect trains far beyond the left coast.

That offering is a false choice, though. There’s nothing in California’s proposed regulations that would stop rail freight shippers from simply ceasing to ship goods into California. California’s businesses could use their State government-mandated battery locomotives to go get the goods warehoused just outside the State’s border.

The transition to this new shipping paradigm would be expensive, but there would be clear winners, both during the transition and after. During the transition, there would be a proliferation of construction jobs as the warehouse would be built along with a net increase of jobs for warehouse operators. There would be more jobs building and then operating new transshipment facilities for unloading the trains and short-haul transportation of the goods to the warehouses.

Longer-term, warehouse operators would make money, short haul truckers would see a large increase in business and business opportunities, and railroads would save money by not having to gussy up all of their rail equipment to meet California’s requirements. Even California’s range-limited battery locomotives would gain by not having their range limits play such a major role in their operation.

The biggest winner of all would be the railroads, which would have successfully rescued themselves from under the boots of the California government.

One More Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

The Environmental Protection Agency is turning more and more into a Progressive-Democratic Party agenda protection agency and less and less devoted to protecting our environment. Recall that the EPA has been busily using some of its Inflation Reduction Act funding allocation to fund an outfit backing anti-Israel protests. It turns out that the EPA is using another tranche of its IRA allocation to fund groups that oppose immigration enforcement. The EPA received $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice block grants.

Here’s what the EPA is doing with those dollars:

EPA tapped Fordham University as a grantmaker to distribute $50 million, in collaboration with the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) and the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice (NJAIJ).

Aside from those agencies having nothing to do with climate, as the WSJ‘s editors note (I note, also, that climate is only peripherally related to the EPA’s environment DOC), the NYIC (at the least) sees its immigration role as one of defunding and getting rid of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This is just one more reason to abolish the EPA altogether and return its personnel, from Secretary on down to the janitors, to the private sector.

We do need an agency of some sort to protect the environment, but not this one, which is so badly damaged that it cannot be rehabilitated. The replacement needn’t be a huge and sprawling agency devoted to pseudo-science (atmospheric CO2 is more pollutant than plant food?), and so what’s used for the EPA’s budget needn’t be so monstrously huge, either. The difference could even be used to pay down some small part of the debt the Progressive-Democratic Party has been inflicting on our federal government.

Maybe…

Posted on by
Reply

California has been getting plenty of rain for a couple of years—the State even has declared its drought over—and so reservoirs are nearly full and aquifers are refilling.

However.

…many farmers in Central Valley, America’s fruit and vegetable basket, will get just 40% of the federal water they are supposed to this year.
Why? Endangered fish.

The problem, to the extent it’s a legitimate problem (spoiler: it isn’t), is that those reservoirs and aquifers are in northern California, and the Central Valley…isn’t. That water must pass through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to get to the Central Valley. Fish swim in the Delta, though, including some that are on the Endangered Species Act’s lists.

California’s environmentalists have functional control over the Delta, and they insist that fish are more important than food.

And downstream fallout—here’s just one example:

The nonprofit Latino Equity, Advocacy & Policy is converting a former cantaloupe and asparagus plant into a center to teach new work skills.

Maybe California’s farmers should look hard at eschewing planting for one year; leave their fields, en masse, to lie fallow. Alternatively, look into leasing their farm fields for that year (or longer if the deal works well enough) to ranchers to graze their herds. Either of these would be good for the fields, too.

Let California’s environmentalistas and regulators live without California’s farm crops for an extended period of time.

The rest of us need to move to reclaim the US Bureau of Reclamation and get it back under control or entirely rescinded and its employees, top to bottom, returned to the private sector.

RFK Jr’s National Defense Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Third party Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr, now is promising to cut our national defense spending by 50% if he’s elected.

I will push for [a] 50% reduction in military expenditures in my first four years in office, with more cuts to come thereafter. A way to keep the dollar strong is to keep the country strong. We can do that by redirecting our bloated military budget toward infrastructure, education, and health, and building our economy and building small business.

Kennedy insists, instead, that the United States should

project strength through moral leadership and strong economics.

What would this Kennedy have us do, though, when our arming-up enemies—Russia, People’s Republic of China, Iran, among others—come with actual guns and bullets and destruction and killing. Does he expect our remaining armed forces to defend our nation by throwing copies of Aristotle’s Nicomachean or Eudemian Ethics at them? Or perhaps Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations? Maybe Summa Theologiae, the compendium of St Thomas Acquinas’ writings? All nine volumes—there’s some heavy artillery. Or something both older and more current, the Christian Bible, which contains—rapid fire, now—Judaism’s Torah.

How strong does Kennedy think our economy would be when moralizing in the face of bullets fails to persuade?

Does he really think our infrastructure, education, and health really will matter when they’re controlled by our conquerors? That our economy and small businesses will be for our benefit when they’re controlled by our conquerors? That our dollar will matter when the currency in effect is that of our conquerors?

Kennedy badly misunderstands the parable of the mouse and the owl: the mouse thinks the owl’s ways are wrong, while the owl thinks the mouse is lunch.

A Progressive-Democrat Governor and a Surtax

Posted on by
Reply

New Jersey’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Phil Murphy once promised to let the State’s 2.5% surtax on businesses with incomes greater than $1 million expire and then, by implication, to leave it alone. He did the first part, and it did expire. But it turns out he dissembled on the second part.

Mr Murphy and his [Progressive-]Democratic Legislature are scrambling for money even though tax revenue has increased 35% over the past five years—faster than inflation.
…
Mr Murphy now wants to re-impose it on income above $10 million, retroactively to the start of this year.

Progressive-Democrats are so addicted to taxing Americans and our businesses that their promises to lower taxes or to leave alone existing taxes are worthless. Which calls into question the value of any other of their promises. Indeed, their addiction is so powerful that they’re not capable even of saying the words “cut spending,” much less actually doing so.

Maybe Murphy’s renewed surtax will hit only the wealthiest businesses, many based in other states, hard enough to persuade those in New Jersey to relocate to more business—and average American—friendly locations and persuade those based in other States to reduce or forgo doing business in New Jersey.