Category Archives: political economy

An Economic Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and ex-President Barack Obama mentee Joe Biden had this to say about our economic progress over the last couple of years.

I know President Trump likes to take credit for the economy and the economic growth and the low unemployment numbers.  But…President Trump inherited an economy from [the] Obama-Biden administration—that was given to him….

The Obama-Biden “recovery” from the Panic of 2008 was the slowest on the post-WWII era record, though, and it was years behind schedule on the Obama-Biden promises of unemployment recovery and actual jobs creation recovery, and their “recovery” never did fulfill their promise of GDP recovery.  On that latter bit, Obama and Biden even asserted (proudly?  Certainly loudly) that under 2% GDP growth was the norm, and Biden’s hero even ridiculed the idea that better trade deals (and so better economics) could be done—”Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

Robert Southey anticipated Biden, I think.

“Now tell us what ’twas all about,”
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
“Now tell us all about the Panic,
And what the upset all was for.”

…

“They say it was a shocking sight
After the Panic had run;
For many thousand bailouts here

Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.

“And everybody praised the Veep
Who this recov’ry did win.”
“But what good came of it at last?”
Quoth little Peterkin.
“Why, that I cannot tell,” said he;
“But ’twas a famous victory.”

 

An Inapt Analogy

Posted on by
Reply

With friends like this….

I’m a firm believer in tightly secured borders with legal entry points established at one-mile intervals along it and the elimination of visa quotas for those who want to come here legally, whether with a goal of gaining citizenship or just for long-term residency and work—so long as they pass tight vetting procedures.

A Letter to the Editor writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal tried to make the same point, but his point was, and is, counterproductive.

In saying that demanding specialized skills as the criterion for entry might work for the short-term but was long-term short-sighted compared to a come one, come all (presumably subject to vetting) criterion, the letter writer offered this:

Our nation historically has been more like the Milwaukee Brewers than the New York Yankees.

Well, no.

The Brewers are perennial losers, having never won a World Series and whose last pennant win was in 1982.  That’s not the United States I know.  The Yankees, on the other hand, have 27 World Series titles and 40 pennants.  That, though, isn’t the United States I know, either; although, it’s closer to the mark.

The US benefits from taking on all comers who want to become Americans (not many all-comers stay with either the Brewers or the Yankees), and we also gain from taking on those who have specialized skills that directly and quickly benefit us, whether they want to become Americans or want to be here as long-term residents.

Value of $1 by State and State Government

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a look at the value of a dollar by State and by State governing party for the 10 States with the greatest value and the 10 States with the lowest value.  The value data are from 24/7 Wall Street via Fox Business.

Value of $1 by State and Party in Control
State Value of Dollar Party of Governor Party of House Party of Senate
Top 10
Mississippi $1.16 R R R
Alabama $1.15 R R R
Arkansas $1.15 R R R
West Virginia $1.14 R R R
Kentucky $1.14 R R R
South Dakota $1.13 R R R
Oklahoma $1.12 R R R
Ohio $1.12 R R R
Bottom 10
Alaska $0.95 R D R
Washington $0.95 D D D
New Hampshire $0.94 R D D
Massachusetts $0.93 R D D
Connecticut $0.92 D D D
Maryland $0.91 R D D
New Jersey $0.88 D D D
California $0.87 D D D
New York $0.87 D D D
Hawaii $0.84 D D D

Hmm….

Blowing Up Settlements

Posted on by
Reply

The one being sabotaged here is between Facebook and the FTC over the FTC’s proposed settlement of Facebook’s “mishandling” of consumer privacy data, including surrendering millions of consumers’ personal information to Cambridge Analytica.

FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has the (Republican) votes he need to impose the settlement, from the FTC’s perspective, on a 3-2 partisan vote.  He’s quite rightly trying to get at least one of the Progressive-Democrats on the board to vote with him, but they’re bleating that a $5 billion fine and other controls don’t go far enough.

This is naked obstruction, though, based on a cynically manufactured beef.

Another impediment to the settlement is a textbook example of why Federal agencies ought not be spring-loaded to settle cases with miscreants.  “Settlements,” should be vanishingly rare, and they should occur only after the teeth from a history of court cases have been manifested.  This time, the block is whether

to name Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a respondent in the complaint that would be filed by the agency as part of the settlement. Naming Mr Zuckerberg as a respondent could make him liable for future privacy missteps—and give the FTC leverage if it should seek to remove Mr Zuckerberg from the company’s management in the future.

Whichever party wants this included, it’s an entirely legitimate inclusion.

“Facebook representatives,” though, object, and they say Facebook will not accept a settlement that includes this.

There’s nothing here for Facebook to accept or reject, though. Facebook screwed up with consumers’ private, personal information, and the screwups identified in this putative settlement are just the latest in a long string of such…errors.  That those prior misbehaviors are not part of this case does matter in determining the price to be paid in this instance, but they should inform the FTC’s willingness to go to court rather than itself settle for a settlement.

There should be no settlement on the table or on offer in any guise.  The case should be in the courts, moving apace—the FTC should not allow Facebook’s lawyers to drag things out, and neither should the courts—with a court judgment sought. That judgment should include, at minimum, a company fine of $5 billion or more, Zuckerberg named as correspondent, and Zuckerberg personally fined for his role as the MFWIC condoning, if not actively authorizing, such privacy invasions and sales.

Charging Assange

Posted on by
Reply

Julian Assange, of Manning and Wikileaks infamy, has been indicted on violations of the Espionage Act in addition to the existing charges pending against him.

Naturally, the NLMSM is in an uproar over this putative attack on a free press.

…reignited debate over whether pursuing Mr. Assange for publishing classified information could lead to other cases against journalists who receive government secrets.

There are a couple of things on the NLMSM’s artificial dudgeon, though.  One is that a free press also has to be a responsible press—which includes respect for the law and acceptance of the consequences where the press engages in civil disobedience.  We’re all big boys and girls, though, the press’ and the Left’s contempt for us notwithstanding.  We’re fully capable of recognizing irresponsibility when we see it and disdaining pseudo-journalism when it’s presented.

The larger thing, though, is the role of law in our nation.  We’re either a nation of laws, or we are not.  We’re all equal under law, or some of us get special treatment—descending us into rule by law instead of rule of law.

The laws regarding receiving stolen goods are quite clear: that’s a crime, and the recipient(s) on conviction go to jail.  Except when it’s a journalist who receives the stolen property.  See, for instance, the news outlet that received and published the stolen Ellsberg papers, along with the hue and cry over holding Julian Assange—who’s not even a journalist, for all that he pretends to be—to the consequences from his having received the documents Manning had stolen and sent to him.

A free press requires journalists be allowed to break the same laws the rest of us must obey?  What’s the value of a press that cannot be trusted, that demonstrates its lawlessness by freely receiving stolen goods and profiting from the receipt by publishing the stolen material?

Here’s an alternative—a bare minimum of movement of the NLMSM back within the reach of the same laws the rest of us must obey.

Upon receipt of the stolen material, the news outlet and the receiving journalist must immediately return the originals of the material to the robbed entity and identify to law enforcement the person(s) and/or entity from which the material was received.  Upon return, the news outlet would be free to publish based on its copies of the stolen material.

Should the journalist or news outlet refuse, the journalist (or the news outlet’s chief editor, if the receiving journalist cannot be clearly identified) should be jailed until the originals are returned and the delivering person/entity identified.

Of course, overriding the above is whether the stolen material is classified (the Manning theft, for instance).  In this instance, the material and the receiving news outlet and its personnel would be subject to laws pertaining to (mis)handling classified material.