Tag Archives: markets

Political Disapproval of Private Enterprise Production

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are touting the withdrawal of Sarah Bloom Raskin from the nomination to the Federal Reserve Board’s Vice Chairman position, laying that defeat off to this:

But Ms Raskin’s most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels.

It’s good that this one failed, but it’s just an early skirmish.

The problem is broader than this. It’s dangerous to our republican democracy that anyone would be nominated to the Fed or to any Executive Branch position who would willingly abuse that position’s authority to discriminate against any government-disapproved American enterprise.

Drill, Baby, Drill

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats really do not want our nation to be energy independent or to be able to support our friends and allies—and acquaintances around the world—with energy exports for the foreseeable future. For motives known only to themselves, they want to kill our energy capability until their dream of “green” energy comes to fruition, in that future distant beyond the foreseeable.

Senate Democrats are threatening to punish US oil companies with a windfall-profits tax if they increase production.

This also illustrates Progressive-Democrats’ utter disinterest in the way economics and economies work (I’m reluctant to say these Know Betters are ignorant of those ways).

The Senators plan would require companies that produce or import at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day (or did so in 2019) to pay a per-barrel tax equal to 50% of the difference between the current and average price between 2015 and 2019 (about $57 a barrel).

Since increasing supply relative to demand brings down price, one counter to this Progressive-Democrat war on our energy economy is to drill, baby, drill.

Another counter becomes available this fall—we need to fire Progressive-Democrats from our State and Federal governments so that energy producers can drill, baby, drill.

Yet Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to adjust our supply chains, especially the beginning points of them in this case.

Palladium and neon gas are seriously needed for chip production, and Russia’s invasion and attempt to conquer or destroy Ukraine is about to have a major effect on the supply of those items if nations and businesses don’t make the required adjustments.

Russia and Ukraine produce 40% to 50% of semiconductor-grade neon, according to market-research firm Techcet CA LLC. Largely derived from steel manufacturing, neon gas is used in lasers that help in the design of semiconductors.
Approximately 37% of the world’s palladium production comes from Russian mines, according to Techcet, and the metal is used in sensor chips and certain types of computing memory.

As a follow-on, palladium at least might be sourced from the People’s Republic of China, expanding that nation’s influence over the economies and national security of the US and the nations of Europe.

However expensive the shift will be, changing to other sources are critical to security. The PRC notwithstanding, South Africa is nearly as large a palladium producer as Russia. The US can produce our own neon gas either directly, or as a byproduct of steel production with further refinement for use in chip production.

It’s not only production of palladium and neon that matters, though. Currently, the PRC is the major producer of finished chip components and of finished chips themselves. That, also, needs to change, and other producers of chips and components need to be found, and producers need to be developed domestically.

In any event, there’s also little reason to go back to buying either of these from Russia, even if it is driven out of Ukraine. So long as the current men and women of the Russian government—at all levels—remain in place, that nation cannot be trusted with anything.

Yes, He Can

Posted on by
Reply

Since Russia President Vladimir Putin—the man then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden (D) bragged was so afraid of him—invaded Ukraine, oil prices have gone up to levels not seen since the Obama years, even beyond the inflation levels Biden-Harris’ current war on our energy industry had already driven them: $105/barrel. Biden-Harris proclaimed last Thursday,

I know this is hard and that Americans are already hurting. I will do everything in my power to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump.

Jason Furman, one of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) economic minions, claims—and he’s actually serious—

This is a world price and the president is largely powerless to do much[.]

Both men are being cynically disingenuous; Biden-Harris’ dissembling, though, given his position in our current government and on the world’s stage, is especially pernicious.

Our President actually could do quite a bit about oil prices for our nation and for our friends and allies; he could do quite a bit about energy prices generally, were he not in thrall to the “green” extreme Left.

He could, for instance, reopen the Keystone XL pipeline and work to get Canada to reopen oil flows from its end.

He could get out of the way of drilling leases on Federal land.

He could get out of the way of fracking for domestic oil and natural gas.

He could get out of the way of American exports of oil and liquid natural gas to Europe.

He could rescind the myriad anti-hydrocarbon regulations he enacted via Executive Order or that he had his several Cabinets enact through rules.

The list is really quite extensive.

Biden-Harris has moved to release oil from our strategic reserve, but that’s merely insulting in its puniness and in its use to distract from energy price inflation.

Instead, Biden-Harris is allowing energy prices, especially those for oil and natural gas, to rise rapidly, and that benefits no one more than it benefits Russia, which needs high oil prices to support its budget—especially during its assault on Ukraine.

I-Bonds

Posted on by
Reply

For a partial solution to our nation’s high and growing inflation rate, Joshua Rauh and Kevin Warsh propose increasing the existing cap on I-Bonds that Treasury issues. Under the present cap, Americans are barred from buying more than $10,000 of I-Bonds per year plus committing up to $5,000 of a year’s tax refund to such purchases. Rauh and Warsh want to raise those caps.

However, the connection between this and inflation mitigation is at best tenuous. Selling more I-Bonds only gives the Federal government more money to spend, which is inflationary; it increases the interest payments that must be made annually, which is government spending and so inflationary; and it increases the national debt, which is future inflation.

It’s no solution at all.

Furthermore, given the Biden-Harris administration’s penchant for ever more, and acceleratingly more spending—and that of their cronies, the Progressive-Democratic Party in control of both the House and Senate—it’s not clear to me how raising, or even eliminating, the cap on I-Bond purchases by us citiens would have any material inflation-mitigating outcome.

On a larger matter regarding I-Bonds; TIPS; and other Treasury Bonds, and Bills, and Notes in general—I’m not sure why anyone would want to lend any money at all to a Biden-Harris-led US government. Maybe we should stop lending, and stop rolling existing loans. Collect on the bonds instead, and invest the proceeds in productive endeavors, like, say, the private economy where us average Americans conduct our commerce through our mom-and-pop enterprises and our businesses, small, medium, and large.