Blunder or Opportunity?

Russia has filed a claim for some 463,000 square miles of Arctic Sea “coastal” shelf, extending more than 350 nautical from Russia’s Arctic Sea shore. Russia intends to exploit the vast oil and natural gas deposits below the sea floor.

Senator Dan Sullivan (R, AK) thinks has demurred, thinking this in combination with Russian military force transfers into its northwest coupled with our own military drawdown is a “strategic blunder.”

Aside from Russia’s land claim and the military contrast not being particularly related to each other, Sullivan is badly overstating the implications of Russia’s seabed claim before the UN. In fact, this is a vast opportunity for us, did we have an administration astute enough to take advantage of it.

Certainly, we should oppose the claim itself, if only to retain the accesses to those deposits, along with the rest of the sea bed’s deposits, for ourselves and for our friends and allies. However, Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone already extends for 200 of those 350 miles; reaching another 150 is significant, but if the territorial claim is blocked, it’s not that big a deal.

Now. Notice that phrase “vast…deposits.” Recall, too, that Russia’s economy is almost exclusively an extractive one, that is, the revenue Russia earns from trading with the world is almost exclusively from selling physical assets—and physical assets have finite supply. In his case, those Russian assets are oil and natural gas (much of it underneath Siberia and as yet undeveloped), and Siberian timber. Finally, recall that Russia needs oil prices to be above $110/barrel in order to balance its budget (as long as it’s as dependent on oil exports as it is), while oil prices following the shale and fracking boom in the US and Canada have been in the $50-$60 range for the last couple of years, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

While we should oppose the claim itself, we should be helping Russia develop and extract all that oil and natural gas (while retaining access to the technology itself. Russia already has played out most of the oil and gas that it can with its own technology; it needs western—or Chinese—technology in order to extract the rest, like that below Siberia, for which it’s working on a deal with the PRC). With that large increase in supply, the price of oil (and of natural gas) will remain depressed compared to what Russia needs to balance its budget if the price doesn’t fall further from this supply increase.

This could be a big win for us.

The FTC Misunderstands

The Federal Trade Commission in its 100-year history has never agreed on formal principles for policing companies engaged in “unfair” competition. That looks set to change.

Members of the FTC are close to a bipartisan agreement to lay out for the first time how the commission views its authority to bring cases against businesses it believes compete unfairly, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

An accord would be a breakthrough for Democrat and Republican commissioners who have clashed over when and how the FTC should deploy the century-old Section 5 of the FTC Act in enforcement matters. The provision declares “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful. But the agency has faced criticism that with no formal guidelines or parameters, it is hard for anyone—businesses as well as regulators—to know what may be considered unfair.

“Unfair” in this context is a purely legal definition, and there already are laws on the books governing what is and is not permissible in our commerce. We have anti-trust laws that govern abuse of monopoly power. We have truth-in-advertising laws that govern how businesses can market their products. We have contract laws that sanction dishonesty in contract negotiations and that define liability when mistaken, but fundamentally honest, statements are made in those negotiations.

That’s all that we need, that’s all the FTC needs, and the FTC has had that for well over 100 years, dating at least to the Sherman Antitrust Act. This new “accord” will be just another bureaucratic nightmare, adding layers of compliance requirements and determinations to any FTC action—and so elevating costs for any business the FTC contemplates violating in some way.

Underlying all of that is all of this: Americans don’t need a rule, or a “guideline,” to govern every aspect of every action in their lives.

Free College

Hillary wants to rein in the rising cost of a college education.

States would have to increase their own spending on higher education, and universities would be required to control spending[.]

With those strings, Clinton would send an additional $350 billion of your tax money (including your higher taxes she’s proposing to pay for some of this) over the next 10 years to the states for their public universities and community colleges.

And

…new rules would ensure a certain portion of total spending is directed to instruction….

How like a Progressive to think the answer to stopping a rise in the cost of a thing is to spend more money on the thing. And then to add to the cost of the thing with compliance cost imposition.

Can our nation really afford another four or eight years of this lack of understanding about how a free economy works?

Messaging

Even Republican presidential candidates who have declined to jump into the political fray and comment on Donald Trump’s frequent, headlining remarks are struggling to stay quiet, as the top GOP challenger continues to dominate the news cycles.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) has for weeks told Fox News and others that he would rather talk about his campaign than score political points by criticizing Trump. However, Trump’s comments about Fox anchor Megyn Kelly this weekend and reporters’ hunting for a reaction have practically forced a response.

Emphasis added. No, the reporters aren’t forcing anything; the Republican candidates’ responses are entirely their own choices. If they want to talk about their campaigns, then they should talk about their campaigns.

Even Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) knows this. She’s a Senator, in fact, because during her election campaign, she didn’t just deflect questions about her supposed ties to “Pocahontas,” she actively ignored them: whenever she was asked about her claimed Native American ancestry, she would simply talk about this or that policy that she intended to pursue once in the Senate.

The Republicans need to show similar courage and stop ceding their messages to the press.

Jeb Bush Misunderstands

In a post-debate interview on CNN, Presidential candidate Donald Trump (Businessman) had this to say about the allegedly tough questioning regarding his remarks about women that he had to face from one of the debate moderators, Megyn Kelly:

She gets out, and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her [pause] wherever.

Among the responses to this…statement…was this from Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush (R):

Do we want to insult 53% of all voters? What Mr Trump said is wrong. That is not how we win elections. And worse yet, that is not how you bring people together to solve problems.

Yes, Mr Bush, what Trump said was wrong—insultingly, imbecilically wrong. Full stop.

Full stop. Trump’s slur was intrinsically wrong, it wasn’t wrong because it’s bad political tactics.