Tag Archives: political economy

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.

Business and Climate Risk

Posted on by
Reply

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants information from our businesses

about their climate risks as it gears up to propose new disclosure requirements on the topic.

In particular (so far):

The SEC requested information from the companies [43 or more US public companies] about significant risks related to climate change. The risks ranged from physical effects such as severe weather to litigation and regulatory compliance costs.

However, the only real risks American businesses face from the claimed climate situation are two. One is from Government regulations as Government men and women overreact to claims of dire climate evolution. Examples of this risk are that litigation and regulatory compliance cost bit and this:

The Biden administration and the SEC under Chairman Gary Gensler have made combating climate change and nudging investors to deploy more capital toward greener businesses a priority.

The other risk is from Government men and women using claims of dire consequences of climate evolution to expand bureaucratic power. The SEC’s demands for “climate risk decision-making” data preparatory to issuing related disclosure regulations is an example of this.

This is Just Dumb

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) says there are only two alternatives vis-à-vis Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

You have two options. Start a Third World War, go to war with Russia physically. Or two, make sure that a country that acts so contrary to international law ends up paying a price for having done it[.]

Biden-Harris went on to admit that sanctions can have no immediate effect.

Leave aside the simple fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin is perfectly willing to “pay a price;” he’ll still have Ukraine after ponying up.

No, the problems here are two. One is that effects of sanctions that take effect (maybe) at some time in a nebulous future do Ukraine no good in the present with Ukrainian men, women, and children dying now. Ukraine—soldiers and civilians alike—is fighting for its survival against Russia as the latter’s soldiers invade and kill now. Biden knows this.

The other problem is that there is at least one additional alternative: sending serious arms, ammunition, and training in serious quantities to the Ukrainian military. So far, what Biden—and the weak European government men and women—are delivering is insultingly limited quantities: the ammunition amounts, for instance, that they deign transfer are good only for a few days.

A bonus alternative: cyber attacks against Russian government-military communications. Hacks into Russian financial facilities to completely drain (or simply to completely corrupt) the financial holdings of Putin and his oligarch cronies and of the officers and their civilian counterparts of the General Staff of the Russian Defense Ministry.

Interested readers can think of more. It’s appalling that Biden-Harris cannot. Or chooses not to.

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.