Category Archives: political economy

Boeing, Iran, and Aircraft Sales

Posted on by
1

Iran reportedly reached an agreement Sunday to buy 100 planes from Boeing, pending the final authorization from US Treasury officials.

These are passenger aircraft, ostensibly destined for Iranair and other Iranian airline companies.

There are a couple of questions about this deal, though.  One is where will the money (in the neighborhood of $17 billion) come from with which Iran will pay for these aircraft?  Who will lend Iran the money?

The second question has more dire possibilities.  Regardless of Boeing’s motives (and I do not doubt them), in the end, these are fundamentally transport aircraft.  What assurances can there be that Iran won’t turn them over to their military for transport of equipment and soldiers, whether to support Iranian military adventurism (Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, for instance) or to support Iranian terrorist clients (Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance)?

Laughingstock

Posted on by
Reply

The Pentagon held a video-teleconference with Russian defense officials Saturday, two days after Russia bombed Pentagon and CIA-backed rebels not once, but twice on Thursday near Syria’s border with Iraq and Jordan.

And especially [emphasis added]

The second wave of strikes occurred after the US military called Russia on an emergency byline established following Russia’s deployment of dozens of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Syria in late 2015.

This is how seriously Russia takes President Barack Obama’s (d) administration.  This is the contempt Vladimir Putin has for this President and for Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her Reset that she wants to extend.  A Reset that is too expensive, indeed.

Elections have consequences.

Hillary Clinton, Homosexuals, and Money Collections

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Hillary Clintons claims she’s on the side of gays, transsexuals, and others living alternative life styles.  She claims she’s against discrimination against these folks based on their lifestyle.  This is where a significant fraction of her foundation’s money comes from.

  • Algeria: ($250,000-$500,000) Algerian law states: “Anyone guilty of a homosexual act is punishable with imprisonment.”
  • Brunei: ($1 million-$5 million) Brunei’s penal code states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.”
  • Jamaica: ($50,000-$100,000) Gay men caught having sex face up to 10 years in prison.
  • Kuwait: ($5 million-$10 million) Kuwaiti law states: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
  • Oman: ($1 million-$5 million) Law states: “Anyone who commits erotic acts with a person of the same sex shall be sentenced to imprisonment from six months to three years.”
  • Qatar: ($1 million-$5 million) Sentences for acts of homosexuality range from one to seven years in prison.
  • Saudi Arabia: ($10 million-$25 million) Islamic law in Saudi Arabia enforces penalties for homosexual sex, ranging from public flogging to death. For a non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim, the penalty is death by stoning.
  • United Arab Emirates: ($1 million-$5 million) Emirati law states: “All sexual acts outside of heterosexual marriage are banned in the United Arab Emirates.”

Within the reporting precision levied on the Clinton Foundation, that works out to $19,300,000 to $55,600,000 from this subset of donors.  Even if the true value works out be on the low side of this range, that’s a lot of money for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Notice two other things about that list.  One is the penalty for being gay or for engaging in homosexual activity that these donors levy against their own citizens.

The other thing is that these all are foreign nations, and all of those donations are serious money compared to the donor nation’s economic capacity.  These nations plainly are buying influence with the candidate whom they anticipate being our next President.

Interestingly, gay rights groups think her hypocrisy is OK.  They’re carefully silent on the matter.  In the end, though, Clinton is the one running for President, not anyone from those groups pretending to favor gay rights.

Can our nation afford an additional four years of Democrat hypocrisy?

Time to Decertify the Local

Posted on by
Reply

Some employees of Cablevision in Brooklyn, members of the Communication Workers of America union, were at a company BBQ circulating a petition to decertify their local, 1109.  Naturally the local’s officials objected, and they threatened the petition circulators.

I just want you to understand, to be perfectly clear that CWA we’re probably going to personally sue y’all[.]
…
[W]e’re going after y’all personally[.]

It’s especially serious when an NLRB administrative judge objects to the union local’s behavior, ruling these union officials had violated Federal labor law with their threats.  It’ll be interesting to see how the NLRB board itself rules on the union’s inevitable appeal.

States Competing for Corporations

Posted on by
Reply

Competition is at the heart of America’s economic success, but not every type of contest benefits society.  Consider the growing trend of businesses cajoling states and politicians to compete for who can dole out the most corporate welfare.  It’s especially frustrating because there are already plenty of ways to promote job growth without robbing taxpayers.

And

States could start with eliminating tax carve outs and replacing them with lower-overall tax rates and lighter regulatory burdens.  Federal lawmakers could also do their part by lowering America’s highest-in-the-developed-world corporate tax rate.

And

Embracing these policies would protect taxpayers…multinational firms with multimillion-dollar profit margins.

You bet.  Lower-tax rate policies, among other things, would directly increase those entities’ profit margins by reducing the size of a cost center.  They also would let these entities lower their prices (if only slightly), which would increase their sales (if only slightly), which would then increase their profits if not their profit margins.

In the end, States compete better on the basis of who has the lower tax and regulatory rates over all rather than who gets to the better carve-outs and special treatments.  In fact, the carve-out/treatment path, among other things, leads to an enormously byzantine tax structure within which it’s increasingly difficult to measure which State’s carve-outs/treatments are better.