Tag Archives: political economy

A Telling Graph

Posted on by
Reply

This one via The Wall Street Journal in an article positing three scenarios regarding our economy and the existing debt ceiling negotiations. The graph, which the WSJ sourced to the Bipartisan Policy Center, is especially dispositive given the backdrop of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden refusing to negotiate over an already House-passed bill that raises the ceiling along with some initial, and small, spending reforms. That backdrop also includes Biden’s, his Progressive-Democratic Party Congressional cronies’, and journalism’s shrill panic-mongering over default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.Notice that. Interest on our nation’s debt is tiny compared with the revenue flowing in for June; that means there’ll be no default if Biden and his Treasury Secretary obey our Constitution, the latter which makes the situation plain in the Preamble to Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….

There’s also plenty of revenue with which to make the scheduled principal payments on our debt. In addition to the lack of default, there’s provid[ing] for the common Defence: DoD, military salaries , and veterans’ benefits together, along with Homeland Security, are similarly tiny compared to the revenue coming in. Biden’s lies about cutting those veterans’ benefits in particular are exposed. Then there’s the general Welfare: these comprise the biggest share of that revenue—and there’s plenty of revenue with which to cover Medicare and Social Security as scheduled and with which to make the Medicaid transfers to the States.

The hard numbers will vary from month to month, but the revenues will be there to make the Constitutionally required payments.

What’s necessary to resolve the current situation are two things: Republicans need to stand firm on passing a debt ceiling increase only with spending reforms in order to reduce the need for future ceiling increases (along with, separately and subsequently, passing out of the House, where such things originate, a budget that reduces spending in the out years. There’s no need to wait for Biden’s foolishness of a sham budget proposal, ever), and for Biden and his Party cronies to get serious about negotiating specifics within that framework instead of blindly following an angry old man’s stubbornness.

Economic Coercion

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline on The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday editorial summarizes one spin on the case.

The best defense would be for the West to work together against Beijing’s bullying.

The editors then summarize the related conclusion of a Center for Strategic and International Studies report:

All of this suggests that the West can work together to deter China by increasing the costs of economic coercion.

No.

Rather than wasting time resisting the Peoples Republic of China’s bullying or “deterring” the PRC from its economic coercion, the better move would be for the West to work together to eliminate the PRC’s ability to economically coerce at all: cancel trade relations with the PRC and move supply chains—from dirt in the ground to product components and finished products—out of the PRC altogether.

Time to Stop

Posted on by
Reply

Despite sanctions, Russia is succeeding in importing technical products like computer chips, lasers, and the like, products which are usable in the barbarian’s weapons systems as well as his more general economy. Russia is doing so with the active complicity of a few ex-Soviet republics that remain in the sway of the barbarian.

In total, US and EU goods exports to Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan rose to $24.3 billion last year from $14.6 billion in 2021. These countries collectively increased their exports to Russia by nearly 50% last year to around $15 billion.

They brag about it, too.

Imex-Expert offers to “import sanctioned goods from Europe, America to Russia through Kazakhstan.” Its website boasts: “Bypassing sanctions 100%.”

This graph illustrates the extent of the problem.

It’s time to stop exporting any tech products—all of which are dual-usable—to these nations (Georgia’s complicity is especially disappointing). Not cut sales off company by company; that’s just nickel and dime quibbling. Cut off tech sales to these nations altogether.

Failure Proofing

Posted on by
Reply

The FDIC, in the wake of its own failure regarding the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapses (primarily caused by those banks’ managers’ failures, but the FDIC had its role, too, along with the Federal Reserve’s regulators), now wants to excuse failure by making those who failed whole again—and do it at the expense of the rest of us.

Those who failed, in this context, are those with uninsured deposits—deposits larger than the presently insured $250,000—at banks. The FDIC actually is proposing an assessment on larger, successful banks which would be used to…repay…those uninsured depositors who would otherwise be left holding the bag in a bank failure. Even an FDIC bureaucrat knows that such an assessment wouldn’t be paid by any of those larger, successful banks, but by those banks’ customers in the form of higher fees, higher loan interest rates, and lower deposit interest rates.

Ostensibly, the assessment is backward-looking and is only a one time good deal for those bag holders of SVB and SB.

The proposed special assessment would recoup the $15.8 billion paid out from the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund to protect depositors in SVB and Signature who had deposits in excess of the $250,000 insurance threshold. It would do so by imposing a fee of 0.125%—or 125 basis points—on insured deposits at banks with $5 billion in assets or more, which would remain in effect for eight quarterly assessment periods starting in the first quarter of 2024.

If this goes through, though, you can bet your own deposits, large or small, that the assessment will be made permanent and available to all future depositors. The FDIC never should have bailed out those two banks’ uninsured depositors in the first place; now it wants to cover up its mistake by spreading it around.

This is the path to destruction. If there is no failure, there can be no improvement, no progress, only poverty—and not only economic.

Not At All

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Proposition 12, which sets animal-welfare standards for meat sold within the state, has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It’s a ruling that should have been expected, and appellants’ claim that the California law violates the Commerce Clause notwithstanding, the ruling is proper. What a State requires of products sold entirely within it is not interstate commerce—which is the province, and the only aspect that is the province, of the clause.

All Prop 12’s law does is place requirements on the meat sold within the State; it imposes no requirements on how other States comport themselves, including how they raise their food animals. Nothing in the law forces other States to incur the costs of complying with it.

It is true enough that

Californians account for about 13% of the country’s pork consumption but raise hardly any pigs. That means that the costs of complying with Proposition 12 fall mostly in states like Iowa, which raises a third of the country’s pigs.

The Prop 12 law often is viewed as an attempt by California to dictate regulate what other States do regarding their own production requirements. The decision to accede to California’s “regulatory” efforts, though, is a purely business one and not at all a legal one. In fact, the ruling also makes it easier, from a legal standpoint, for states like Iowa to not sell their pork products in or into California at all.

And that’s what I recommend. There are a lot of markets other than California, including export markets, that would easily absorb those 13%. It’s long past time producers in the other 49 States, and our several territories, start ignoring California and its foolishnesses.