Category Archives: markets

Ukraine and Energy

Posted on by
2

America’s booming natural gas production could help Ukraine keep the heat and lights on amid Russia’s latest threat to cut off supplies, if the US cuts through troublesome red tape, lawmakers said. … The U.S. has port facilities that turn natural gas into liquid for export and more are under construction, but shipping to any country not bound by a free trade agreement with the US requires a federal permit. Since 2011, DOE has approved six [count ’em] applications for permits to export natural gas to non-free trade agreement nations, but Ukraine is not one of them. … [The] “Domestic Freedom and Global Prosperity Act”…would grant immediate approval of the 24 pending applications currently filed with the Department of Energy…. “This would send the clear signal that we are serious about enlarging the scope of natural gas exports, and immediately undercut Russia’s dominance,” [Congressman Fred (R, MI)] Upton said. “Russia has chosen to wield its energy resources as a geopolitical weapon to inflict harm on others. As the world’s emerging energy superpower, America has a newfound responsibility to help our allies.”

There are a lot of logistics problems along this path to work out, but that puts a premium on getting started; these problems cannot be allowed to serve as excuses for not bothering. Again.

On top of that, we also need to stop sending signals and start sending stuff—like oil and gas, like weapons, like intel, like…—to Ukraine, as well as sending oil and gas to Germany and the rest of the EU.

Government and Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This time in the milieu of the Internet. And it’s not good, if the FCC’s latest “rule” proposal is allowed to stand.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler went ahead with his proposal on Thursday to give his agency the power to decide whether the terms and prices of broadband Internet services are “reasonable.” That’s bad enough as political discretion, but according to dissenting Commissioner Ajit Pai, regulators from every state will also be able to get into the act.

Government, once again, is deciding that it’s better suited to determine what a proper business arrangement is than the participants in the business. Only this time, since it’s the Internet that’s at stake, and the Internet plays such an enormous role, not only in business per se, but in speech of all forms—political, business, communication of innovations, the list goes on—the FCC is plainly inserting itself into the business of government determiner of what appropriate speech is.

If this rule stands, government will be able to pass on the Internet-based “business arrangements” regarding, oh let’s say, a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. Worse, it’ll be able to do this, not overtly because it objects to the politics of the movie, but more sotto voce, under the guise of objecting to the appropriateness of the business arrangements surrounding its Internet distribution. And by allowing the States to get in on the censorship, the FCC is looking to broaden government…management…of permissible speech.

The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed points out a myriad of other objections to this harebrained scheme of the FCC, but this will do for this post.

Government Arrogance

Posted on by
Reply

Texas EquuSearch is a drone operating company, based in a Houston suburb, that uses small drones, in their case, model aircraft equipped with cameras, in searches for missing persons. Or at least they used to, before the Federal government put a stop to their effrontery. The FAA has ordered them to cease because the FAA doesn’t have a rule that allows for such a thing.

Texas EquuSearch has an appeal before the DC Circuit court, but in the meantime, they’re barred from helping various other government agencies—like local police—conduct their searches.

The FAA has rationalized its decision with this:

The agency approves emergency Certificates of Authorization (COAs) for natural disaster relief, search and rescue operations, and other urgent circumstances, sometimes in a matter of hours.

“In a matter of hours.” When the bad man comes and seconds count, the FAA will be only hours away. Sometimes. Other times, well, sorry about that.

In addition to which, “many law enforcement agencies in rural areas being searched don’t have the authorization certificates to use drones.”

The FAA went on with this appallingly arrogant remark:

We are not aware that any government entity with an existing COA has applied for an emergency naming Texas EquuSearch as its contractor.

Because a business requires government permission, at the least in the form of a government contract, before it can go about its affairs. Aside from this small matter, what problem does the FAA think it’s solving with its…position?

Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.

More Government Regulation Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

Used to be, brewers could send their spent grains, the leftovers after their brewing is done and the beverage…decanted…to ranchers to add to the latter’s feed supply.  Now, though, the FDA is “proposing” a set of regulations that would require brewers to treat their spent grains as pet food(!), meaning these leftovers must be dried and packaged without human contact.

This is expensive—too expensive for most brewers to handle.  Their landfill alternative isn’t any better: one Chicago brewer says it would cost him $100,000, every year, to send his leftover grains to a landfill.

To illustrate the benefits of this arrangement, so disliked by the government, for both parties, there’s this example.

…the brewers get those leftovers removed from their facilities for free.

And

…dairy and cattle farmers like Jim Minich, who gets 30 tons of spent grain from Revolution Brewing each week.  Not only does the grain save him more than $100,000 a year in feed costs, his 750 cows also produce more milk after [getting the spent grains.]

Never mind that there’s never been a problem for cattle or for humans eating/drinking the beef or milk from spent grain-fed cows.

There might be.  Sometime.  Maybe.  Gotta regulate.

The FDA does say, after a hue and cry, that they’re looking at revising these proposed regulations.  We’ll see.

Obamacare Rates

Posted on by
Reply

So much (to pound the dead horse) for rates going down $2,500 per, courtesy of Obamacare.

The research team at investment bank Morgan Stanley surveyed 131 brokers, finding that December 2013 rates are rising in excess of 6% in the small group market, and 9% in the individual market.

But that’s just chump change, so far (except for the victims of the rise).

More:

[H]ealth plans are also predicting higher cost trends in 2014, after years of stabilization (much of it attributable to the economic downturn [and its long-term non-recovery, say I], which reduced medical utilization rates).

And:

Among the states seeing the highest annualized rate hikes (for the full 2013 year) in the individual market are Connecticut, which is averaging a 37% increase; Florida (42%); Illinois (33%); Michigan (39%); and Minnesota (35%).

Among the states with the biggest annualized spike in the small group rates are Delaware, which is averaging a 35% increase; Michigan (30%); and Minnesota (50%).

It’s interesting, too, to note that these are some of the most tightly regulated states; their regulations (now superseded by Obamacare regulations) greatly suppressed health “insurance” rates.