Tag Archives: regulation

An Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of socialism’s control of private enterprise. California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom has issued this diktat for how California-domiciled businesses must operate vis-à-vis the waning Wuhan Virus situation in that State.

Businesses were told by the state that they will have three options related to vaccines and mask mandates. Business owners can provide information to customers and not require anything at all. They can implement “vaccine verification” to determine which people must wear a mask, or they can require everyone to wear a mask.

Those three, and no other, options. Never mind that a business might wish, instead, to provide separate (not necessarily masked) seating for those not vaccinated. That’s not allowed.

No business decision to not ask at all a customer’s medical status regarding the virus. That’s not allowed.

No business decision to discriminate between not vaccinated by individual choice and not vaccinated by already having had the virus and recovered from it, and so not needing vaccination (another individual choice). That’s not allowed.

No business decision to do nothing at all, including not spending money on a State-mandated information campaign aimed at business’ customers. That’s not allowed.

No business decision to…. Don’t even think about it. That’s not allowed.

No, this is the socialist government dictating to private enterprise how it must operate. This is the socialist government dictating to private enterprise the government-allowed performance options.

Socialism: government control of the means of production. Government control of private enterprise.

Socialism: private enterprise isn’t private—it’s government enterprise.

The Biden Oil Price Spike

Posted on by
2

President Joe Biden (D) has killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, is blocking oil production from Federal lands, killed oil production in northern Alaska, is working to kill fracking altogether, is working to kill American oil (and natural gas) production, and has given the go ahead to Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. In sum, he’s actively working to kill American energy independence.

All of that is driving up American citizens’ energy costs, and that is reflected in the market’s anticipation of spiking oil costs. Here are a couple of graphs illustrating that. They illustrate the expectation that oil will soon cost $100/barrel, after several years of $50-$65/barrel. The first presents the spike since the start of the year in the number of West Texas Intermediate $100/barrel futures contracts against a current $70 price.

This graph reflects the price of a $100/barrel call option on WTI for delivery in December this year and next.

The expectation of actual market pricing of $100 is rising, also, sharply enough to drive up the price of the option.

This is what expert traders (some of whom are trading on the trends themselves and not on underlying oil prices, to be sure) are seeing as the future price of oil for our citizens. Even if oil settles out at its current price of $70 or just a little higher (and the anticipations turn out to be overstated), this current price represents a sharp increase over the last several years, when Government wasn’t moving so zealously to restrict our nation’s oil supply.

This is what Biden has wrought for our nation’s energy supply and cost of energy.

Maybes and Could Bes

Posted on by
Reply

Illumina is a company that makes platforms that do genetic sequencing for the likes of Covid variants and fetal abnormalities. Grail is a company that has blood tests that can detect DNA from cancer cells before people show symptoms. At the outset, Illumina created Grail for that purpose then spun the company off so each could focus on what it does best.

Grail succeeded, strongly.

Now Illumina wants to (re)acquire Grail, and Grail wants to be (re)acquired. Illumina says its regulatory satisfaction expertise can greatly facilitate bringing Grail’s tests to market and to the benefit of countless folks at risk of any of the 50 cancers Grail’s tests can detect quickly and reliably, along with the 12 most deadly cancers with 60% accuracy. All with a simple blood draw.

Potential competitors petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to block the merger, and the FTC agreed and has sued to block the merger.

That’s a problem. The FTC’s case centers on two premises and a false underlying assumption. The merger would, according to the FTC,

lessen competition in the US multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test market by diminishing innovation and potentially increasing prices.

“Diminishing innovation”—not at all. Aside from the lack of actual evidence of such a diminution—this is just tacit speculation—this sort of development only spurs competition (my own, no more or less valid speculation).

“Potentially increasing prices”—again, not at all. That first word says it all: the plaint is just overt speculation. There are no increasing prices here, and there’s no evidence that increasing prices are per se anticompetitive (as opposed, for instance, due to too high demand for too little product. Never mind that neither demand nor product yet exist.)

The false underlying assumption is that a market for this sort of thing even exists. It does not, and that lack renders both of those speculations, individually and severally, wholly irrelevant.

Maybes and could bes in a nonexistent market—what a way to regulate.

College Entrance Discrimination

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wants the Supreme Court to rule in favor of racial discrimination, at least as practiced by Harvard, in the Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard case.

If the plaintiffs…win, you can bet that elite college- and graduate-admissions offices around the country will establish workarounds to assure that opportunities remain for admittance of significant numbers of underrepresented minorities.

Therefore, he asserts,

The justices would be wise to take a pass on the Harvard case, or to affirm the lower courts’ decisions.

Which decisions upheld Harvard’s practice of racial discrimination for admission to its ivy-coated halls.

Harvard, to the letter writer’s first plaint, already uses “workarounds”—opaque and obscure criteria for assessing admissions “essays” and “descriptions of what this means to me” for starters—in selecting entrants on the basis of race while nonselecting other entrants on the basis of race.

Were the letter writer serious, he’d stop demanding free passes for the “underrepresented minorities” solely on the basis of their under-representation; that’s just racism under another guise. They’re underrepresented because they’re not qualified.

The solution is not free passes at the late date of college admissions applications, it’s getting these high school “graduates” actually educated and qualified.

More importantly, the solution is working to correct the K-12 systems and broken families that are the cause of unqualified-ness. But that takes actual work, and it’ll be a generational struggle to correct the ills so deeply embedded in what we’re pleased to call our education system. That solution is not the feel-good quick fix of which the Left is so enamored.

Another letter writer, however, takes a markedly differ view of the matter.

It [The Supreme Court] ought to take this case and apply strict scrutiny to the rationales advanced to justify treating some students more favorably than others merely on account of their ancestry.

But that doesn’t go far enough. As Chief Justice John Roberts already has said, [t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. On this, he’s right.

There is no justification for discriminating on “account of ancestry.” No more strict scrutiny; end the use of race as a discriminant, no matter how far down the list of selection criteria. Any—any—use of race as a selection criterion is rank racism.

Full stop.

Definitions

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which is about a Mississippi law that substantially bars abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Court’s ruling, whatever they decide, however united or split they decide to be, will substantially impact their 1992 Planned Parenthood v Casey ruling that created a bar against “substantial burdens” on a putative right to abortion and their Roe v Wade ruling of 20 years earlier that manufactured out of the umbras a “right” to abortion.

The Court, though, in keeping with Chief Justice John Roberts’ timidity, is unlikely to decide the matter broadly, possibly even avoiding Constitutional matters altogether. It has taken up, from the several questions in front of the lower courts, only the narrow one of whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution.

It occurs to me that even that much hinges on the definition of “viability.”

Here’s the Merriam-Webster Online definition of viability as it pertains to babies:

the capability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus

Roe‘s creation set an implicitly technology-based threshold of the third trimester for its viability standard. There’s nothing in the definition of viability about requiring medical support—or medical intervention of any sort—for the fetus to survive outside the uterus. Medical technology has advanced considerably in the 40 years since Roe; the 15 weeks of Dobbs is within the capability of today’s medical technology.

Texas just enacted a similar ban, but that State’s threshold was set at 6 weeks. That does stretch the bounds of today’s medical technology, but maybe doesn’t exceed them. The Court’s Dobbs ruling will, of course, impact the Texas law if it goes one way. Or, the Court could uphold Dobbs, but say 6 weeks goes too far.

In any event, while the technology basis of Roe‘s threshold is strongly implied, it would be good if the Court in its ruling explicitly stated that the threshold depends on medical technology and can be moved toward conception as medicine increases its ability to sustain fetuses and bring them to term outside the uterus.