Tag Archives: political economy

Ransomware Shame

Posted on by
Reply

Corporate executives openly confess that they would aid and abet ransomware criminals by paying them for their crimes.

  • 78% of C-suite executives claim that they would be willing to pay a ransom
  • 56% would be willing to pay over $100,000 to resume operations

That’s deliberately hanging a target on their enterprises.

And this…

  • 74% of executives with hybrid work environments believe their in-house IT and security teams lack the capability to defend against ransomware
  • 60% of executives believe their employees could not identify a cyberattack

…indicates that those executives aren’t even trying seriously to train their IT and security teams or their employees, or to enforce security measures by their work-from-home employees.

Worse than that, they actively cover up their crime enabling:

well over half (61%) of business owners admitted to concealing a breach

This willingness to reward hackers for their hacking not only endangers their own companies, it endangers other companies, as well, by making the crimes routinely lucrative—which these executives are smart enough to know.

That willingness to pay the fee-for-hacking-services aggregates into a threat to our nation’s weal and security. After all, where are the hackers so willingly rewarded located? In our nation’s enemies: 82% of the attacks come from within Russia and the People’s Republic of China, split evenly between the two.

Worrying about the Wrong Time Frame

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece subheadline well summarizes the piece itself:

the Speaker pushes Democrats to take votes that will end careers in 2022

The WSJ‘s Editors write this as if they take the matter seriously. But they, and far too many others who also should know better, are taking far too short a view.

“Career ending” votes were taken in favor of Obamacare, too. Obamacare survives, and here is the Progressive-Democratic Party back in power.

So it will be with the Progressive-Democrat reconciliation bill and the pre-amendment to it that is the “infrastructure” bill. A few Progressive-Democrats might lose their seats as they vote to force passage, but these two destructive bills will live on.

And, dangerously, the Progressive-Democratic Party will recover.

This is Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article on the difficulty of estimating ridership on roads and highways to be built in the future and so the need for them, and the poor allocations of costs and Federal dollars that result from the inaccuracies, there was this statement.

If lawmakers enact the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill now before the House, state and local officials will have to decide which projects to spend money on.

This is backwards. State and local officials should have to decide first what infrastructure projects they want to complete, their cost, their priority, and have contracts already let contingent on receiving Federal dollars before Congress contemplates an infrastructure bill that would send taxpayer money to any of those States.

Those are critical first steps in getting to shovel-ready jobs to which to commit funds.

What Should the Fed Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Nick Timiraos, in his Wall Street Journal piece expressed some concern about the tightrope the Federal Reserve bankers must walk (his phrasing) regarding its bond purchase taper and what others, especially market players, might say about the Fed’s dot plot—a graph that’s generated from individual board members’ views of raising and lowering interest rates and to what level.

Getting that message [regarding bond purchasing] to stick could be tricky when the central bank’s two-day meeting concludes Wednesday if new interest-rate projections—the so-called dot plot—show officials are considering rate increases at the same time….

The only way to make any message stick is for the Fed to do what it says it will do in its “messaging,” regardless of any outside dumpster-diving interpretations of their tea leaf scraps. Seers are going to claim to see regardless of what the Fed does. If the Fed says it’s going to taper its bond purchase program, that’s what it should do. Full stop.

Rather than tapering, though—my humble opinion—it’s long past time for the Fed to reduce, to below zero, its bond buying, selling off the bonds it already holds to enormous excess. Put an end to half-measure tapering.

Separately, the WSJ asked

What action, if any, should the Fed take on interest rates?

The Fed should set their benchmark interest rates at levels historically consistent with their target inflation rate of 2%, more or less, and then sit down and be quiet. Stop trying to micromanage market rates.

Neither case is complicated, except that Government bureaucrats overcomplicate them with overthinking.

Ratification Bonuses

Posted on by
Reply

Mondelez International has settled its dispute with its workers as the company and the union representing the workers, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, signed a new four-year deal.

One importance of this, as far as I’m concerned, is that the supply of Oreo cookies is secured for that period. But what do I know; I’m a sucker for chocolate- and sugar-based junk food.

The deal, however, consists in large part, of

ratification bonuses, hourly wage increases, and a higher company match for 401(k) contributions….

The real importance of the deal is the inclusion of those ratification bonuses. Mondelez isn’t alone in agreeing to these artificial demands, made by unions for no serious reason, but only as an exercise of union strike-based extortion power.

Businesses need to stop being so meek; they need to stop bending over and accepting “ratification bonuses.” The only thing these things do is serve as an incentive for striking again so the unions can collect yet more vig for ending that one. And the next one. And….