Category Archives: markets

Regulatory Capture

Posted on by
Reply

America’s automotive companies want ever stricter emissions standards.  Or so says Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund.

This, of course, is nonsense.

If car companies truly want stricter emission standards, they can do so without the cover of a government mandate.  Nothing is stopping them from setting and meeting their own stricter standards.  This is, after all, a (largely) free market economy, and it’s at the heart of a (largely) free nation.  Car companies can make their own decisions without Big Brother’s instruction.

Unless, of course, they have a different agenda.  Like, for instance, writing the regulations in a way to protect them from competition from upstart (as in impudent) companies that might have better products or better consumer appeal, or both. That’s classic regulatory capture.

Or, maybe it’s a path to writing the regulations in a way that beats the EDF climatista drum but that has little or nothing to do with producing quality, efficient, cost-effective cars that consumers actually want.

Surrendering to the Extorter

Posted on by
Reply

This is what Europe is getting ready, meekly, to do.

European diplomats are getting behind a French initiative to provide Iran economic relief from US sanctions in return for its full compliance with a multinational nuclear accord….

The “initiative” centers on these articles of surrender:

preliminary agreement aimed at allowing Iran to be able to sell at least 700,000 barrels of oil a day—more than double its current exports.
It also envisions a credit line of some $15 billion so Iran could draw on hard currency….

What makes this timidity especially bad is that, even with Iran actually complying with the terms of the JCPOA, the nuclear weapons agreement expires—and then, by the terms of that same agreement, Iran will be entirely free to resume developing its nuclear weapons, with nary a peep allowed by the signatories.

And here’s an example of Iranian integrity and a demonstration of its willingness to honor the commitments it pretends to make, including its acceptance of those terms:

On Friday, an Iranian tanker was set to offload crude onto ships that would take it to Syria, breaching terms of its release following its seizure by Gibraltar….

These European diplomats, including the French ones, know all of that full well.

Tactically Sound?

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps, but perhaps strategically disastrous.  British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked the queen to prorogue the current parliament, and the queen agreed, in order to block it from blocking him from taking Great Britain out of the European Union on schedule 31 October without a deal in the likely event that the EU continues its intransigence in negotiating.  Prorogation is the formal end of an existing session of Parliament, and normally it’s done just prior to the beginning of the next session, to clear the decks for that session.

The current prorogation would run until 14 October, at which point the Queen’s Speech, which would reconvene Parliament, would lay out her (the PM’s) agenda for the new session. Existing bills, including those currently planned to interfere with Brexit, cease to exist with the prorogation; although, they could be reintroduced—to take their turn in the queue in those two remaining weeks.

There are a couple of reasons why Johnson’s move might be tactically sound.  Parliamentary sessions normally last for one year; however, the current Parliament has sat [sic] since June 2017, more than two years.  It’s time for this feckless band to get out of the way, go home, and contemplate their navels.

That brings up the second reason: prorogation would prevent this Parliament from blocking Johnson’s effort to bring the nation out of the EU with no further delay and associated economic uncertainty—and that uncertainty’s follow-on deleterious effects on the British weal.

The longer question that arises is whether prorogation is a strategically sound move.  It’s very likely that prorogation will result in an on-time departure from the EU, with or without a deal governing the terms of the exit.  However, it’s entirely possible that the associated hue and cry will lead to new elections (possibly triggered by a successful no-confidence vote in November) and a new, non-Tory government installed.

That government is very likely to go, hat twisting in hand, to Brussels and beg for reentry into the EU.  What then?

What would be the result on British sovereignty; British economic and political welfare; indeed, British self-respect in such an eventuality?

Even if that new government doesn’t go begging (or even if it does), what else could happen? The alternative to a Johnson-led Tory, sort-of conservative, government is a Corbyn-led Labour government.  That means the prosperity of a limited (relatively, within the constraints of present British concepts) government that Margaret Thatcher made so much progress toward and that Johnson would seek to preserve and extend would be entirely undone by the destructively socialist government that Corbyn would install.

What then of British economic and political welfare; of British self-respect?

Still, Johnson’s move is worth the risk, for the sake of British sovereignty.

Pro-EU

Posted on by
Reply

Too many Brits in Parliament plainly favor the European Union over their own nation.  That’s what opposition MPs seem to do, as they look to block a no-deal departure from the EU by Great Britain, even expressing a willingness to bring down the government to achieve that end.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants a (new) deal, for all that he’s willing to take Great Britain out of the EU on schedule if Brussels continues to refuse to negotiate at all, much less in good faith. The MPs’ obstruction serves only to undercut such leverage as Johnson might have in these post-May efforts.

The most that can happen from their obstruction is the preservation of May’s Northern Ireland border agreement that gives open and unfettered entry into Great Britain. This destroys British sovereignty by eliminating its control over its own border—which was a major motivation for the Leave vote.

Since those MPs know this full well—after all, they’re highly intelligent and at the top of their respective parties—their motive can only be their favoring the EU and subordinating their own nation and its sovereignty to that continental entity.

Brazilian Forest Fires

Posted on by
Reply

Deutsche Welle‘s Loveday Wright wondered about the Amazon forest fires in northern Brazil:  Can international pressure help put them out?

Not when the Brazilian government, for good or ill, exposes them to fire by allowing clear-cutting in favor of agriculture.

But more importantly, not when climatistas openly lie about the extent and level of destruction of the fires.

Several of the most widely shared images aren’t actually from this month’s fires.
Some are old photographs of the Amazon, and some aren’t even from the area at all.

For instance:

Although [a fire image] shows a fire in the Amazon, it’s actually a stock photo taken in the 1980s by a photographer from National Geographic….

And

An image of a burned rabbit has been shared over 1000 times, but is actually from fires in Malibu, California.
One of those who shared it also posted a picture of a monkey crying over her sick baby, which is actually from Jalabur in India in 2018, by Avinash Lodhi.

And not when national politicians celebrating trading on their celebrity openly repeat the lies.

French president Emmanuel Macron and Leonardo DiCaprio were among those to share a photograph showing a wall of flame rising up from a swathe of rainforest.
Although it shows a fire in the Amazon, it’s actually a stock photo taken in the 1980s by a photographer from National Geographic….

While there are legitimate images of the real fires in the Brazilian Amazon, the lies and manufactured hysteria about climate! climate! climate! eliminate all credibility about global warming, and they hinder legitimate efforts to deal with the legitimate fires and other local ecological problems and their actual causes.