Tag Archives: political economy

So What?

Posted on by
Reply

Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund, is worried that if the incoming Trump administration cuts off subsidies for battery cars, we’ll be ceding battery car leadership to the People’s Republic of China.

Leave aside the fact that our battery car component supply chain (as with so many other of our industry production) remains dependent on the PRC. Pushing battery cars on Americans will increase our dependence on that enemy nation.

Be that as it may, Americans don’t want battery cars. This is demonstrated by the continued need for government subsidies—the tax monies us average Americans remit to our Federal government—in an ongoing effort to con us into buying them anyway, along with outgoing Biden administration efforts to dragoon us into buying these white elephants by raising fuel and emission “standards” to usurious levels intended to ban ICE vehicles.

More than that, satisfying the so-called need for battery cars, the blandishments of left-wing climate Know Betters like the EDF notwithstanding, will not have any material effect whatsoever on slowing the non-existent existential climate crisis that the climatistas are on about.

The subsidies are a waste of our tax money and badly want elimination.

Let the PRC be saddled with—dare I say hobbled by—that transportation dead end and its enormous costs.

Self-Driving Cars

Posted on by
Reply

This Luddite remains strongly opposed to letting robots drive me around. However, the software that runs one version of a robot car, that package “guiding” Tesla’s latest iteration of its Full-Self Driving car, version 13.2, is a vast improvement of past efforts, according to BARRON’S.

Absent from the testing, though, at least as publicly reported, is how well 13.2 handles random (and frequent) traffic violations by the cars of other drivers that would endanger the occupants of the FSD or pedestrians or other vehicles. Such violations include the relatively minor, such as speeding; as well as the more dangerous wobbly bicycle(s) and inattentive bicyclists; pedestrians darting, at the last moment even, in front of the FSD in his last ditch effort to cross the road; crossing traffic running the red light or stop sign; oncoming traffic deciding to make a left turn at the last moment; the list is extensive.

Other risks are mostly in the residential neighborhood: the toddler in front of a parked car at the last moment darting into the street and the small pet under that parked car making the last moment dart into the street.

Many of those situations are difficult enough for a human driver to answer, often too difficult and the collision occurs.

Any robot-driven car needs to be able to handle those random situations at least as well as any experienced human driver.

Then there’s the classic moral paradox, usually cast in terms of a railroad exercise regarding which track to be switched to given the certainty of some measure of death regardless of the choice. Those choices occur on roads with cars and trucks, also, and they’re often badly handled by the human drivers involved. What can we expect from robot software?

To repeat: I remain strongly opposed to letting robots drive me around. The software involved is improving, but enough so? What constitutes sufficient improvement? At the least, satisfactory handling of the above situations.

Retreating from Net-Zero?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of The Wall Street Journal editors.

The climate policy retreat is accelerating as Citigroup, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley this week joined an exodus from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. Energy reality can bite.

The “retreat” consists of five banks out of the 140 that are members of the NZBA, a gang of banks sworn to refuse the business of any enterprise that isn’t sufficiently climate-sensitive and -activist enough to suit the syndicate. It’s true enough that the five are major players in the world of banking, but they’re still only five.

The editors wrote, also, that mutual fund manager Vanguard had pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers pledge. That’s one out of 350 enterprises that took that pledge. The editors wrote further that JPMorgan Asset Management, BlackRock, and State Street Global Advisors have left Climate Action 100+, a collection of some 600 investors who pressure businesses to comply. Three are part of this “retreat.”

However.

Leaving these syndicates and changing their ways of climate-woke behaviors are two different things. We need to see these banks’, investors’, and business’ altered behaviors over some period of time before it’s believable that they’ve changed more than their public rhetoric.

A Flat Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, and Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation economist, proposed last Monday.

Collapsing the personal-income and corporate tax rates to 15% would have huge economic benefits. America would suddenly have one of the lowest tax rates in the world, resulting in trillions of dollars of new capital flow and a spike in take-home pay.

And this:

The simplicity of a flat tax would reduce the deadweight costs associated with tax compliance—and the headaches. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs calculates that Americans spent almost eight billion hours filling out tax forms in 2024.

Using a naïve estimate of 97.2 million households (and even more naively assuming all households pay taxes, which provides an upper bound on the number of households relevant here), that works out to over 80 hours per household—two working weeks—of tax compliance labor.

This, too:

The Tax Foundation estimates that this cost the economy $413 billion in lost productivity, and the Internal Revenue Service estimates that we spent $133 billion on out-of-pocket compliance costs.

That’s $4,250 per year in lost productivity for each household, with an added $1,370 per year per household of unreimbursed spending just to comply with current tax law. Most households could find other uses for those $5,620.

Still, I don’t think Forbes and Moore go far enough.

I’d add getting rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Business’ customers pay the bulk of those taxes, anyway, rather than the taxed business; for the taxed business, the tax is just another cost center to be covered proximately through product/service pricing and indirectly through reduced spending on innovation, expansion, hiring, and raises.

Forbes and Moore suggest getting rid of some deductions, but I’d go farther here, too. Get rid of all deductions, subsidies, and credits, too, and tax all income from all sources as ordinary income. Let businesses make their expansion and financing decisions based on purely business and market criteria instead of having to game the tax implications of borrowing or stock issuances. Individuals also would go back to making their spending and investing decisions based on what’s good for their individual/family situations instead of having to game a byzantine tax system in the course of their decisions.

And those optimal decisions would include how to use those $5,620.

One More Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…to stop doing business in New York. This time, it’s the State’s move to tax energy producers who sell their fossil fuel products in the State on the risible basis of those producers’ (global) CO2 production over the years 2000 through 2018. Never mind that, as the Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

It’s impossible to determine a company’s contribution to climate change since the effects of CO2 emissions on temperature and natural disasters are mediated by myriad variables.

New York’s bureaucrats will make their assessments anyway, and those assessments will be, of necessity, wholly arbitrary. Then there’s this, too, which New York’s government personages consider irrelevant:

Most fossil-fuel emissions stem from their combustion rather than production….

The fossil fuel energy producers shouldn’t waste time litigating this in court, even though they’d likely win given the plethora of court decisions that hold moves like New York’s illegal.

These folks should simply stop selling their products in New York, and that should include no longer selling their products to utilities that provide electricity- and natural gas-related energy in New York. They’ll save more money that way, money that could be used for innovation and better fossil-fuel-related products for their other customers.

Nor will New Yorkers be harmed by the withdrawal. They have plenty of energy flowing from all those “green” and “renewable” energy sources. And those nuclear reactors on the horizon. The State government’s personages assure us so.