Tag Archives: economics

Buy These Backup Electric Power Stations

Posted on by
Reply

California is moving against the fossil-fuel energy generation industry, along with making its gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles meet ever more extreme mileage and emission criteria in the State government’s effort to run ICE vehicles off the road and…encourage…Californians to buy battery-powered cars and trucks.

Now California’s captive, if not outright State-owned, utility PG&E is proposing a new electricity feed into its greed to supplement its wind and solar generated electricity.

Using electric cars to charge the power grid.
PG&E…sees “great potential” for EVs to act as power grid backup generators. “The grid needs those electric vehicles. We need to make it available, and it can be a huge resource[.]”

And

PG&E believes in a future where everyone is driving an electric vehicle (EV) and where that EV serves as a backup power option at home and more broadly as a resource for the grid[.]

And especially,

The company also said tapping electric cars eliminates “the need for non-renewable resources” like fossil fuels.

Is this the reason California’s governing politicians are pushing so hard for—almost to the point of requiring—Californians to buy all-electric vehicles? Those vehicles are, in fact, intended to be used as distributed power (re)generating stations?

Biden’s Attack on American Free Markets

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration’s OMB is moving to eliminate consideration of opportunity costs from the administration’s estimates of the costs of proposed regulations, a move that would make those regulations seem cheaper than they are.

Opportunity costs are at the core of free market economics, and The Wall Street Journal‘s editors offer a succinct definition [emphasis added].

Consider a business that spends $1 million obeying a regulation by making an upgrade, installing new equipment, hiring lawyers, and whatever else compliance entails.
[O]pportunity cost is what the $1 million would have been used for absent the regulation. It might have been spent on research and development, hiring, increasing output, or paying bonuses to employees, who in turn would spend it on something else.
An accountant would say the cost of this regulation is $1 million, and this is basically how President Biden’s OMB wants regulators and the public to think as well. A good economist knows better and would account not only for the dollars spent but also the forgone rate of return on activities never taken up due to regulatory compliance.

Thus, opportunity cost estimating is a critical way in which businessmen—not just economists—estimate the value of a variety of potential moves in an effort to identify the one (or two in concert with each other) that make the most business sense/provide highest and most likely return(s) on the actual dollars that would actually be committed.

Biden’s move is not just an attempt to…mislead…us ordinary Americans regarding the costs of the Biden regulatory state, it’s an outright attack on our free market economy and an attempt to replace it with his regulatory state, economic decisions from the center, economy.

A Thought on Russia-PRC Relations

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline on a Wall Street Journal article that was centered on falling exports from the People’s Republic of China says it all regarding the growing relationship of the PRC with Russia.

Slide in outbound shipments reflects fraying trade ties with the Western world, even as exports to Russia boom

But at what cost to Russia are those exports? Russia hasn’t much with which to pay for them. The nation is short of hard currency, and its own goods are famous for their shoddiness. Russia, though, does have things of particular importance to the PRC: vast Siberian resources of oil, natural gas, coal, timber, and a variety of rare earths and ores whose extracted metals are critical for making batteries. To that end, Russia and the PRC concluded, a few short years ago, a trade treaty that has the PRC developing those fields and mines, extracting that output for PRC use alongside Russian use and in some cases for primary PRC use, and with PRC workers and their families moving into Siberia to do the work of development and extraction.

That last reveals one more item that Russia has to exchange for the PRC’s exports to it, an item of critical importance to the PRC: all that Siberian land.

And this, which subtext emphasizes the PRC’s dependency on Russia’s imports:

For China, weakening exports signal more trouble for its domestic economy….
…
July’s 14.5% drop in Chinese outbound goods shipments was sharper than the 12.4% year-over-year decline in June and outpaced the 12% decline expected by economists polled by The Wall Street Journal.
Chinese goods shipments to the US fell 23% in July compared with a year earlier. Shipments to the European Union and to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a group of 10 countries that includes Singapore and Indonesia, each dropped by about 21%.
Chinese shipments to Russia, a country under Western sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine, rose 52% in July from a year earlier, helped by sales of high-value goods including automobiles. For the first seven months of this year, Chinese exports to Russia soared 73% from a year earlier, even as China’s total exports have fallen 5%, data from Chinese customs show.

Thus, the dependency goes both ways, even as the PRC increasingly dominates the codependent relationship. As the West pulls back from buying goods and services from the PRC, the PRC becomes ever more dependent on Russian goods and services, especially those basic commodity goods of oil, natural gas, coal, timber, and Russian rare earths and battery-centric ores.

That growing PRC dependency makes the PRC’s land acquisitiveness even more dangerous for Russia.

A Step toward Downsizing the Federal Government

Posted on by
Reply

Rightsizing is what the cool kids call it in their desperation to avoid notice, but what the House’s Republican Party’s Freedom Caucus is proposing represents a small, but needed, initial step toward downsizing our bloated Federal bureaucracy. Some of the State Department cuts being proposed include

  • State’s US Agency for Global Media would be reduced from $798 million to $734 million
  • State’s Democracy Fund and the United States Agency for International Development would be reduced from $355.7 million to $227.2 million
  • State’s US Global Health Programs would be reduced from $6.3 billion to $5.7 billion
  • State’s Global Environment Facility would be eliminated altogether, cutting $139.5 million

And so on.

In absolute terms, these are, individually, chump change cuts, for all that they represent significant reductions in each agency’s budget. They do, however, add up to $1.2 billion, including other State cuts not listed here, and so are an initial cut of 2% of the $58.5 billion 2022 State budget.

Over at the Energy Department, the Freedom Caucus is proposing elimination of the Aquatic Decarbonization and the Algae-Related Bioenergy Technologies, cutting $80 million from Energy’s 2023 $149 billion budget.

Freedom Caucus is proposing similar reductions for Agriculture.

I don’t often agree with the Freedom Caucus’ “my way or nothing” approach, but on matters regarding our nation’s morbidly obese Federal spending (and a deficit of $1.62 trillion just in the first 10 months of this fiscal year) and our resulting even more dangerously fat national debt, the Republican Party as a whole needs to stand tall on actual cuts.

Even if it means shutting down (some of) the Federal government next fall and winter. And spring. And summer. That, in itself, would result in badly needed spending cuts.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Brief Thought on Taxation

Posted on by
Reply

And my brief response. Ramaswamy has said in the past that he favors an estate tax as high as 59% on his theory that passing wealth from parents to children breeds inequality and “hereditary aristocracy.” Stipulate that’s reasonably accurate: he needs to show that he’s considered other means of preventing that aristocratic development and how those alternatives are inadequate to the task.

More importantly, though, is this underlying theory of his:

I do believe in a vision of bringing income taxes as low as possible, if one could collect it back on the back end[.]

Collect what back, exactly? The money in question belongs solely to the one who has, or had, the income. Money being retained by its owner rather tautologically leaves nothing for government to “collect back” at some later time; government has lost nothing and so has nothing to regain.