Tag Archives: markets

An Example of Irrationality

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Donald Trump decrying Germany’s willingness make itself dependent on Russian energy supplies by pushing for Nordstream 2, which will mean that Germany will get 60% of its natural gas from Russia, to go with the 40% of its oil imports that already are from Russia.  Aside from becoming so dependent on an enemy for its energy, Germany will be paying Russia billions of euros for the privilege.

I have to say, I think it’s very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia, where you’re supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia.

The Progressive-Democrats went hysterical over Trump’s remark.  Here’s House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) in a joint statement:

President Trump’s brazen insults and denigration of one of America’s most steadfast allies, Germany, is an embarrassment.  His behavior this morning is another profoundly disturbing signal that the President is more loyal to President Putin than to our NATO allies.

Because not wanting billions of euros to go to Russia in return for dependency on Russian good offices is somehow being loyal to Putin.

Sure.

Not Far Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

In an interview with the British newspaper The Sun, President Donald Trump said that Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit “blueprint” for Brexit would likely kill any opportunity for special trade deals with the US.  A critical part of that blueprint would have Great Britain

stick[ing] to a common ­rulebook with Brussels on goods and agricultural produce in a bid to keep customs borders open with the EU.

The EU’s trade rulebook, not just on goods and ag products, but covering all trade, explicitly blocks nations from entering into unilateral trade deals with non-EU nations.  Trade deals with non-EU nations can only be EU trade deals.  Sticking to the EU’s trade rulebook, then, would make it impossible for Great Britain to enter into its own deals with other nations—including with the US.

If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.

If they do that, then their trade deal with the US will probably not be made.

Trump isn’t far wrong on that.

At a joint news conference the day after the Sun interview, though, May said that

the leaders had agreed to pursue an “ambitious” trade deal between the two nations that “works for both countries right across the economies.”

That would seem encouraging for Great Britain, implying as it does that May’s blueprint doesn’t, or will be modified to not, include a commitment to the EU’s trade rulebook.

Free Food Stamps

Posted on by
Reply

The House passed a farm welfare bill that includes a requirement for food stamp recipients to work for their welfare payouts last month, and the Senate passed its version—carefully without that requirement for actual work. Or perhaps just timidly passed, since Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R, KS) was intimidated by Progressive-Democrat Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) and couldn’t find the backbone to oppose her.

Now the two bills go to conference for resolution, and the outcome doesn’t look promising for work.

In today’s tight employment environment, that work would be easy to find, too, and in light of that, The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board made the comment

What’s bewildering is that Democrats seem willing to write off so much human potential as permanent wards of the state.

There’s nothing at all mysterious about that, though. The only potential that Progressive-Democrats see in these unfortunates is their votes, not their human potential. Indeed, that’s the Progressive-Democrat work-for-welfare program: vote for us Prog-Dems, or we won’t pay you any money.

President Donald Trump should support the House and inject some backbone into Senate Republicans, including especially Roberts, and announce he’ll veto any farm welfare/food stamp bill that doesn’t include the House’s work-for-stamps requirement.

Protecting US Technology

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is moving toward a set of rules that would heavily restrict the People’s Republic of China’s ability to acquire American technology-developing companies and American technology.

Of course, there are objections to protecting our stuff.

Industry groups…are mainly concerned that the export controls could negatively affect their businesses by preventing them from using their technological edge.

If such groups were truly serious about this, they’d be truly serious about hardening their member companies’ facilities against hacking.

And

While many object to the investment restrictions, they are seen as having less practical impact because Chinese investment has fallen off so drastically.

This is short-sighted to the point of being disingenuously so.  The PRC’s investment has fallen off because, through theft, hacking, and their extortionate requirement of “sharing” technology and inserting backdoors into core software as a condition of doing business in the PRC, they’ve largely caught up.  When we get our edge back, the PRC’s “investment” efforts will pick back up.  The restriction objectors know this.

Bad Bonds?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Michigan State University agreed to pay $500 million to victims and associates of Larry Nassar’s sex abuse victims while he was pretending to treat our women gymnasts’ injuries.

Now the school intends to float bonds to raise the money to pay the bill.

Were I an investment advisor—which I’m not, nor do I play one on the radio—I’d advise against buying these bonds; I’m not satisfied Michigan State will be able to pay them off in the end, even with OPM.

Aside from their investment quality, or lack, I also think it’s immoral to bail out the school until there has been a serious cleaning house of school management, from middle management layers all the way up through the top layer.  This house-cleaning must include the athletic department as well as HR, student affairs, extracurricular affairs, and the President’s office.  Especially in the latter and in the athletic department, no one should be left but the secretaries.

And none of this gets to the fact that the bond offering is just a cynical back-door effort to get taxpayers to pay for the school’s failure.  That’s also morally unacceptable.

And this:

[The school] is in talks with its insurers and has said it expects to recover at least some funds through them.

Is the school seriously suggesting that it bought insurance against the risk that its medical personnel would engage in sexual abuse?  I can think of no other way in which insurers would be liable for a payout here.