Category Archives: political economy

One Way to Make the Question Moot

Posted on by
Reply

The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case concerning whether the President personally has the authority to suspend new oil- and gas-lease sales. The particular case centers on climate change concerns as the rationale, but the authority is much broader than that, or it’s non-existent.

The State plaintiffs argue that

a 1987 law dictating the ways in which oil and gas leases will be sold stipulates that a sale must be held at least four times annually in states with eligible land. … “…President Biden put his campaign promises above federal law: By executive fiat, he halted oil and gas leasing on federal lands.”

President Joe Biden’s (D) government employee lawyers argue that

the US president is not an “agency” and therefore not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.

Biden’s argument strikes me as a frivolous quibble, and the States should win, with the Appellate court upholding the district court’s ruling that, in essence, in this sort of context, a President is, too, an “agency,” and so he has no such authority.

The question can be made non-existent in future, though, with a straightforward fix (however politically difficult it might be to enact): at least on Federal property, make oil- and gas-leasing and -permitting a will-issue matter with licensing requirements, including environmental questions and leasing costs, explicitly barred from being used as barriers to leasing and permitting.

A Bit More on Student Debt

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote a bit ago about what colleges and universities should be required to do regarding student loans and student debt.  Here’s a bit more concerning why college and university management teams’ feet should be held to the fire. Mike Brown, writing for lendedu, has some data that compares, by school, student salary expectations with salary reality. In general,

median expected salary after graduating was $60,000, but the PayScale data showed that the typical graduate with zero to five years experience makes $48,400.

Brown published salary expectation vs reality for 62 schools; here are those data for the first 15 schools in his table:

School Actual Early Career Pay (0-5 Yrs. Experience) Expected Median Salary (0 Yrs. Experience) Percent Difference
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale $49,100 $70,000 70%
Washington State University $54,600 $70,000 78%
Central Michigan University $47,000 $58,500 80%
University of Louisville $48,800 $60,000 81%
East Carolina University $47,200 $58,000 81%
University of California, Riverside $54,000 $65,000 83%
University of Tennessee, Knoxville $50,200 $60,000 84%
Binghamton University $58,900 $70,000 84%
University of Illinois at Chicago $55,000 $65,000 85%
Temple University $50,800 $60,000 85%
University of Alabama $51,200 $60,000 85%
University of Colorado Boulder $55,600 $65,000 86%
University of California, Los Angeles $60,000 $70,000 86%
Kansas State University $51,600 $60,000 86%
Oklahoma State University $51,700 $60,000 86%

 

Who sets these expectations? That’s not clear. Who allows these expectations to stand uncorrected? The management teams at those colleges and universities.

Allowing this distortion to stand uncorrected is one more reason colleges and universities should be required to publish

  • graduation rates for their students given
    • 1 year of attendance
    • 2 years of attendance
    • 3 years of attendance
    • 4 years of attendance
    • 5 years of attendance
  • by major, the average and median salary for their graduates one year after graduation and five years after graduation—note that these data are not for one and five years of employment

The data from Brown also demonstrate why colleges and universities should be required to play the decisive role in lending money to their students and prospective students. Colleges and universities should be required, with respect to borrowings taken in order to attend the college/university, to

  • be the lender for the majority of the money borrowed by each student or student’s parent/guardian and not allowed to sell or otherwise transfer the loan, or
  • be the co-signer with the borrowing student or student’s parent/guardian on loans the student or student’s parent/guardian originates, or
  • be the loan guarantor of such loans, or
  • any combination of those three

Colleges and universities must absorb the risk of students’ or parents’/guardians’ borrowing in order for the student to attend their school. It’s the colleges and universities that are misleading the students concerning the value of the degrees gained, whether that misleading is overt through their setting inaccurate expectations, or passive through their silence regarding inaccurate expectations.

Close in Spirit

Posted on by
Reply

…but wide of the mark. Wide of the target itself, even. In Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section, a letter-writer offered this on the matter of student loan debt:

The solution is to hold academic institutions accountable. If they want government to give my money to their students, they need to prove the value of their product. Set parameters: an 80% graduation rate in five years, and the ability to secure a job at a reasonable salary one year postgraduation. Failure results in withdrawal of federal money available to future students until parameters are met.

It’s entirely appropriate to hold the colleges and universities individually responsible for their product: students taught, successfully or not, for one or more years along with graduated students. But the writer’s suggestion still wants far more government intervention than is warranted.

Let the free market solve the puzzle, and here is where legitimate government intervention would be appropriate. Information is key. Require the colleges and universities to publish their dropout rates by number of years in school, graduation rates by major, and both the median and mean annual incomes, again by major, of graduated students five years after graduation.

One more path for government intervention: require the colleges and universities to be the primary lender to the student or to co-sign as borrower on the loan to their students. As part of the loan or co-signed loan document, require the borrowing student to answer the income survey.

A final act of government intervention: let the borrowing student discharge his student loan debt through personal bankruptcy, as with any other personal debt, and then deal with the economic and reputational consequences of that bankruptcy.

With this, there would be no need for government to lend to students or to guarantee any loans to students. Thus, a final final act of government intervention: government should withdraw entirely from the student loan industry.

Kind of the Purpose

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union’s antitrust bureaucrats demur from Apple’s seeming dominance in the no-contact payment market, and they may or may not have a case. They don’t, though, have one based on this sham argument from EU Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, who also serves at the EU’s Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age (because if the title is long enough the incumbent can be made to feel important enough):

Apple has built a closed ecosystem around its devices and its operating system. Apple controls the gates to this ecosystem, setting the rules of the game for anyone who wants to reach consumers using Apple devices.

That’s kind of the purpose of copyrights and patents—allowing the inventor or developer of the product to control its use. In addition to which, no one is required to use Apple products to do contactless paying—or even to make telephone calls.

Neither does Apple control the ecosystem of contactless paying—it only controls its own devices, which have a, not the, contactless paying capability.

Prolonging the Crisis on Purpose?

Posted on by
Reply

First, we have Brett Velicovich, a former US Army intelligence and special operations soldier, warning us that

There is a political logistics jam somewhere for the flow of training devices like this [Javelin simulators] into Ukraine, and it’s making it so they are less effective in the field and in some cases even failing on the front lines when being fired.

That political holdup is within the Biden-Harris administration.

Then we get Samantha Power, United States Agency for International Development Administrator, saying openly in regard to the relationship between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Left’s push to convert us to “green” energy no matter the cost,

Never let a crisis go to waste[,]

and that [as cited by Fox News]

fertilizer shortages would provide farmers the opportunity to “hasten” their “transition” from fertilizer to more “natural” resources.

And we get Jennifer Granholm, Biden-Harris’ Energy Secretary who, not so long ago, thought the idea of bringing down the price of gasoline and oil was laugh-out-loud hilarious, saying much the same thing, urging Congress to [again as cited by Fox News]

use this crisis to pass “clean energy” legislation and to “wean off” fossil fuels.

This along with Biden-Harris himself still slow-walking (albeit at a lessening obstructive pace) transferring arms to Ukraine so that nation can defeat Russia’s invasion—all while studiously continuing to refuse to say that Ukraine can, and must, win the war Russia has inflicted.

Is being green is more important than being free and sovereign?

Hmm….