Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an exchange between Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) and Donald Trump (Business Mogul) during Thursday’s GOP debate.

“I gave to many people before this,” Trump said at the debate today. “When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me.”

His comments came in response to an attack from rival Sen Rand Paul.

“You’ve donated to several Democratic candidates. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related affairs,” Paul said. “And you said recently, quote, ‘when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.’”

“You better believe it,” Trump responded.

In the end, then, we’ve got a crony capitalist who wants to be President of all the crony capitalists.

Hmm….

Another Thought on SEC “Courts”

Posted on by
Reply

The SEC runs its own courts as it looks to punish those it has decided have engaged in civilly, if not criminally, wrong doings. As I’ve written before, the SEC brings its cases, appoints and pays the judges who’ll adjudicate the cases, and it has first say on any appeals.

In just such a case, an accused person facing a flipped witness (one to whom the SEC has made certain blandishments regarding is own misbehaviors in return for his testimony against a fellow misbehaver) is worried about the effects of those blandishments over the course of his trial.

Critics…worry that key safeguards on the use of cooperators in criminal cases are lacking in the SEC’s administrative courts, where the agency…[has] the power to decide what to fine the cooperator after he or she testifies.

The agency’s multiple roles strike at the “fundamental fairness” of its hearings, violating the checks and balances required by the constitution, [accused’s’] lawyers said in a court filing.

Because the SEC is in an even better position—its in-house position—to effectively “encourage” proper testimony from its “cooperating” witnesses than are prosecutors in actual State or Federal trial courts.

Naturally, the presiding SEC administrative judge demurs.

The SEC in-house judge overseeing the case rejected this argument, saying it was an “attack on the administrative framework” of the SEC’s internal tribunal.

Well, NSS. It’s a valid attack, too, against a tribunal sorely lacking in fairness, much less due process.

“Gig” Economy Workers

Posted on by
Reply

These unfortunates are exploited by evil startup companies. Or so say unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and Democrats looking to maintain the dependency of others on them in government.

In the last year such companies as Uber, Lyft, HandyBook, Instacart, Postmates and Try Caviar have been slapped with lawsuits arguing that they have misclassified workers as “independent contractors,” which aren’t covered by most federal and state labor regulations.

Another startup, Homejoy Inc, has shut down because it couldn’t raise its next round of capital due to such suits.

The nuisance suits also demand such union froo-froo as

…backpay for overtime, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, unpaid meal breaks and business expenses. Homejoy was accused of not providing 30-minute meal breaks every five hours.

All of these things, all of the gig economy businesses, give initial or additional income to the folks doing the work. The business model also threatens the viability of unions and Democrats while representing money-making opportunities for the plaintiff’s lawyers, so it’s open season on these companies.

Never mind that the income these folks earn is more than the zero income they’ll earn after they’re priced out of jobs by unions; the startups that gave them their gigs have been closed down by plaintiffs’ lawyers looking for a fee, eliminating those gigs, and Democrats’ labor rules have made it the more difficult for startups to start.

None of that matters. All that matters is union and Democrat power and those fees.

Some Duplicity in Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that a while ago, in 2014, the GAO ran some tests of Obamacare: they set up 12 fake persons with invalid Social Security numbers, fake citizenship, and/or false income claims. Eleven of these got coverage, several of them got subsidies, many of them got renewed for this year, and some of the renewals got increased subsidies.

…officials running Obamacare told the GAO they possess “limited ability to respond to attempts at fraud….”

Worse, these guys added in wide-eyed innocence

that measures to ensure program integrity would undermine “consumers’ ability to ‘effectively and efficiently’ select Marketplace [Obamacare] coverage.”

It’s like voter ID: if we protect the sanctity of an American’s vote, the Democrats’ favorite demographic—the frauds—won’t be able to vote Democratic.

Change the Subject

Posted on by
Reply

At the Federal level, Republicans in Congress are attempting to take national-level steps to curb union abuses of members and nonmembers. The particular abuse is union use of dues to fund a particular party’s candidates, whether the union members support that party or candidate or not for now, at least, the Congress is ignoring union states’ practice of collecting dues from non-union members—which the employees are required to pay as a condition of keeping their jobs—and using those coerced dues also for political work rather than union activities related to work).

The Employee Rights Act, introduced Monday by Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT) and Congressman Tom Price (R, GA), would allow union members to tell their bosses they don’t want their share of dues going to certain candidates or causes, without fear of retaliation.

The response?

…Democratic strategists are accusing Republicans of ignoring the needs of hardworking union members, and instead just trying to re-route sizable campaign contributions.

Don’t address the subject of the bill. Talk about “rerouting.” Never mind that the bill doesn’t reroute a penny of union money.

Never mind, too, that the bill takes care of the “needs of hardworking union members,” particularly those hard workers who don’t want their dues to go to political causes they don’t support.