Tag Archives: politics

Duplicity and Mistaken Imperative

Posted on by
Reply

There was a ceasefire agreed between Iran and the US and Israel in the recent US-Israeli conflict against Iran aimed at preventing the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons. Then, amid skirmishing during this ceasefire, which remains in official effect, Iran showed its duplicity by welching on the terms of the ceasefire by insisting, de novo, that Israel’s conflict with Iran’s terrorist satrap Hezbollah, operating in Lebanon, was actually a part of that ceasefire agreement.

That conflict is a separate matter between Israel and Hezbollah, and never has been a part of the ceasefire. Iran’s insistence that it is is Iran’s confession that Hezbollah is an instrument of Iran’s terrorist government, and that lately insistence is a demonstration (as if another one is needed) of the Iran government’s duplicity and intrinsic untrustworthiness.

President Donald Trump (R) has long made clear his abhorrence of war, with its broad destruction and civilian casualty rate. The conflicts Trump has fought despite that abhorrence are emblematic of that, with their brevity, sharpness, and precision, which have vastly limited civilian casualties, including during the current conflict with Iran. In this latter case, sharpness and precision have limited destruction to Iran’s nuclear weapons development-associated facilities and military facilities and personnel. Civilian damage, damage to civilian infrastructure has been remarkably constrained.

Therein lies Trump’s mistaken imperative. In his desire to bring a diplomatic end to the conflict with Iran, he is overemphasizing his abhorrence for death and destruction by acceding to Iran’s insistence that Israel’s separate conflict with Hezbollah be included in any ceasefire agreement: Israel must end its conflict with Hezbollah. Trump pushed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into agreeing that separate ceasefire.

This is a broad mistake, and it will lead only to a prolongation of both conflicts with concomitant increased death and destruction. The better answer would have been (and still could be) to require Iran and Hezbollah work a separate peace with Israel and to resume full out attacks on Iran, this time with a view to destroying its ability to fight at all, with the conflict continuing in full force until Iran’s government men and women agree to forswear in a provable way its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, including an official statement acknowledging that the Strait is international waters and that Iran has no ambition to control it.

“Bound to Add Upward Pressure”

Posted on by
1

An American Enterprise Institute letter-writer wrote in Monday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal about his concerns regarding David Malpass’ view that the Federal Reserve needs to seriously set about reducing its balance sheet.

With the budget deficit projected at about $2 trillion a year and with foreign investors seeming to be losing their appetite for US Treasury bonds, any attempt by the Fed to reduce its balance sheet size today is bound to add upward pressure to long-term interest rates.

This, despite his stated position in his immediately prior paragraph that

David Malpass is certainly correct to argue that Fed balance sheet reduction is a worthy monetary policy objective[.]

If not now, though, then when? There’ll always be an excuse for today to put off the shrinkage until later, but there’ll always be some Next Big Thing coming up later that wants more delay. The letter-writer headlined his missive with the position that the Fed needs to take a long view in its determination of when to shrink its sheets.

It’s just barely possible, though, that the new Director has just that perspective. The longer the balance sheet reduction is delayed, the more expensive and disruptive to our economy that reduction will be when it is put into action. It’s the suboptimal short-term view to wait until later to begin for today’s convenience.

No, either way, short-term upward pressure will be added to interest rates. Better to grunt through that disruption now, before it gets really expensive.

Tradeoffs

Posted on by
Reply

We, as a nation, have three questions that we must answer in order to proceed optimally into the future, according to Matthew Slaughter, of Dartmouth‘s Tuck School of Business, and David Wessel, of Brookings‘ Hutchins Center on Fiscal & Monetary Policy. They’re largely correct, but they miss one Critical Item without which our path into a prosperous and growing future would be severely constrained, if not blocked altogether.

In their question regarding “walls or bridges,” the two argue against walls—tariffs—and for trade globalization as the path to prosperity via competition and its heavily encouraged innovation rates that such free trade creates.

[R]esearch has long shown that globally engaged companies tend to create the good jobs at good wages for which so many Americans are yearning. In 2023, the US parent companies of US-based multinational companies paid their 29.9 million workers in America an average total compensation of $97,078—about 20% above the average in the rest of the private sector.

They didn’t address, though, the downside of their largely unfettered free trade regime. That downside was amply illustrated by the recent Wuhan Virus situation, during which our dependence on the People’s Republic of China’s medicines—and not just for Virus medical supplies, but also for over the counter pain killers and anti-inflammatories, even a variety of flu medicines—was exposed, along with the world’s dependence on the PRC even for simple things like face masks.

The downside was graphically demonstrated much more recently by the PRC’s control over rare earths, from ore through processed rare earths to finished products, and its use of that control to throttle their export and thereby threaten our economy and that of Japan’s.

The Critical Item is this tradeoff. Carry out free trade globalization; it is valuable, but do it within this framework. There are a few items that are critical to our national security and to our economy (there is a lot of overlap between them): those rare earths, the raw materials for medicines. For these, we need to have our own supply paths, wholly contained within our borders, that stretch from dirt in the ground through final product deliverable to the domestic end user. These nationally-contained supply lines need not be the only sources for these materials; it’d be sufficient for them to be in place, actively used, and able to be rapidly expanded during periods when overseas sources become constrained.

That tradeoff will be expensive, but that cost is simply—and necessarily—a cost of maintaining our national security, our ability to defend ourselves, whether militarily or economically. The cost of being unable to will be far greater, and not only fiscally.

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

Former Vice President Mike Pence (R) is the one misapprehending this time, and he laid it out early in his Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Where conservatives have historically viewed politics as the art of the possible, progressives see politics as a path to alter society beyond recognition in a quest for material equity, environmental nirvana, or other alleged perfections. Progressives invariably try to destroy whatever stands in their way.

That last sentence lays bare his misunderstanding. Perfecting our society has nothing to do with today’s progressives’ goals, goals hard-sought after by today’s Progressive-Democratic Party and epitomized by that sentence. Were Party interested in perfection, it would adopt a more patient approach and seek to bring along those presently disagreeing with them. Instead, Party politicians try to destroy whatever stands in their way.

For further proof, see Party’s plans, annunciated by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ (D, NY) remarks and his chief minion for this, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D, MD):

The Supreme Court is a disgrace. In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court, and let me be very clear: everything is on the table—everything to deal with this corrupt MAGA majority.

And, as paraphrased by the WSJ‘s editors:

[Raskin] recently introduced a bill that would deny the Justices the power to choose which cases they hear. Under the SCCOTUS Act, petitions would be reviewed by a rotating committee of 13 random appellate judges. This is such a radical change that it’s hard to imagine all the implications.

Jeffries sees the Court, especially the conservative Justices, as corrupt because the majority seeks to adhere to what our Constitution and any statute before them actually say, rather than what the other Justices too often insist: that, in the manner of former Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court should rule on what they want and expect the law to catch up, with the added fillip that if the law isn’t catching up quickly enough, these Justices will rewrite them from the bench.

Raskin would actually corrupt our Court by packing it to thirteen Justices because thirteen appellate circuits. He ignores in his revisionism the history that the number of appellate circuits had been growing beyond nine long before Congress set the number of Justices at nine. In fact, though, that’s just his covering excuse for adding four activist, progressive men and women to the Court, men and women who view our Constitution and statutes as suggestions to be ignored or modified as they see fit.

Pence’s piece loses its import with his lack of understanding of the underlying problem, even as he’s entirely correct in his conclusion: it’s time for Republicans, and especially the dismayingly meek Republicans, to get up off their backs and address these problems loudly and firmly. In particular, this includes Vice President JD Vance (R), who’s busily toadying up to Big Labor in his desperation to become our next President.

Else we lose our Republic.

Yet Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union is moving toward passing legislation that would allow it to curb imports of heavily subsidized foreign products. The legislation doesn’t single out any particular nation; although, the Peoples’s Republic of China is infamous for such subsidies.

Those subsidies allow PRC businesses to sell their products at less than their cost of production in order to sell at lower prices than European businesses can due to their own, unsubsidized, costs of production. That allows the PRC to put those businesses out of business and to seize nearly all of the market share. In the aggregate, this cascades into steadily increasing PRC influence over European economies.

Naturally, the PRC wants to continue this domination, so it’s threatening countermeasures if Europe continues with the impudence of defending itself.

Chinese authorities could initiate anti-discrimination and supply-chain security investigations into the EU’s “overcapacity instrument,” a social media account run by China’s state broadcaster said Friday, citing unnamed sources.
If the EU advances the tool, China will take immediate action and deploy comprehensive countermeasures, it added.

Of course, that retaliation wouldn’t matter if Europe’s nations were doing no business with the PRC or with businesses domiciled there.

The PRC keeps providing reasons for discontinuing business with or within it. It’s time for the EU and for Europe’s nations individually to act on at least some of those reasons, for their own economic survival.