Category Archives: political economy

This is Why

Posted on by
Reply

Georgia recently won a court case in which the Biden administration had—illegally, as it turns out—blocked its program to expand Medicaid eligibility to individuals making up to 100% of the federal poverty line ($13,590 for singles) while conditioning benefits on working, going to school, or volunteering 80 hours a month.

However, under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020, States are unable to remove able-bodied Medicaid folks—i.e., folks who are fully capable of working but who choose not to—from their Medicaid rolls as long as the Wuhan Virus emergency remains in effect. The CDC conveniently continues to extend that “emergency,” even though no less a light than our Progressive-Democrat President, Joe Biden, has said the emergency is over.

Alternatively, Georgia could remove those folks and the Federal government could withhold hundreds of millions in federal funds. In all, the Federal government mainlines $130 billion in additional Medicaid funds into all the States’ veins.

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

The emergency is a Faustian bargain for states….

This is why it’s at best idiotic for any State to take Federal (our taxpayer) money under any circumstance. The dollars don’t come with strings attached; they represent yokes around the States’ necks.

I Agree with the Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

California Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, the Progressive-Democratic Party member who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, claims she’s open to a tax cut deal.

Our ask is simple: if we can provide tax cuts for America’s corporations, we can certainly provide a tax cut for America’s kids[.]

I agree, and it is a simple ask. Provide the tax cut for America’s kids by reducing the personal income tax rates their parents have to pay.

Sadly, DeLauro isn’t at all serious.

Impressiveness

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell had this to say about handling the burgeoning inflation extant in today’s American economy:

Slowing demand growth should allow supply to catch up with demand and restore the balance that will yield stable prices over time.

It’s impressive that a government official as steeped in economics as Powell is has such a deep misunderstanding of the situation.

It’s not a matter of slowing demand growth, it’s a matter of slowing government demand growth. The private economy, especially when it’s not competing with government for goods and services—and for the inputs to those goods and services—will easily and efficiently take care of itself, with changing supply and demand comprising self-correcting stabilizers on our economy.

A Simple Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Even if it might be politically difficult and short-term expensive.

Recall that EU member Lithuania expressed support for the Republic of China and in naked retaliation, the People’s Republic of China imposed a nearly complete trade embargo on Lithuania and blocked import of any other EU member’s products that contained Lithuania-originated parts.

Now, a year later, the EU is haling the PRC into the WTO in a suit over that embargo. Be still, my heart.

There’s a better and more effective and permanent solution to this sort of behavior from the PRC.

A year later, Lithuania has learned that it can get along without trade with the PRC, and by that example, so has the EU (and so have the US and non-PRC Asia, come to that).

The solution includes these straightforward steps.

  • The rest of us increase our trade with Lithuania
  • The EU in particular, and the rest of us as well, stop trading with the PRC
  • All of us increase our trade with the RoC

Sadly, the parties involved make such moves politically difficult with their own fear of PRC retaliations. And certainly, through the middle-term, it would be economically expensive to locate and develop alternative markets and to move supply chain steps—from dirt in the ground to component parts to finished products—completely out of the PRC. However, once those transfers are completed, we’d all be better off politically and economically from no longer having our economies dependent on the good offices of an aggressive and acquisitive enemy nation.

The PRC’s behavior toward Lithuania and its attempt to extort Japan through withholding shipments of rare earths to that nation are just two examples of that benefit.

Isn’t This Interesting

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an oil tanker traffic jam at the Turkish Straits junction with the Black Sea. That jam is being caused by tanker insurers’ refusal to honor a Turkish demand that the tankers produce letters from their insurers assuring Turkey that the tankers’ Protection and Indemnity Insurance policies remain in effect following the G-7’s, EU’s, et al., imposition of a price cap on Russian oil that bars insurers from covering oil tankers carrying Russian oil for sale above the cap. The International Group of P&I Clubs provides 90%, by tonnage, of the policies covering the world’s oil tanker fleet.

That Club’s problem with that demand for proof of effectivity of its policies post-cap is this:

The insurers said they couldn’t agree to the Turkish request because it could lead them to violate sanctions….

Isn’t that rationale for the Club’s reluctance interesting. What sanctions do Club insurers think they might violate if their policies comply with the requirements of the cap? It’s certainly possible that Russian oil shippers and/or traders could lie to the insurers about the prices of their oil, but that just puts a premium on the insurers exercising due diligence before they issue their policies. And on refusing to insure further if the Russian shippers/traders are discovered after the fact to have lied.