Category Archives: politics

Much Ado About Another Nothing

Posted on by
Reply

The claim, now, is that atmospheric CO2 has reached 415 parts per million (ppm), according to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

That is, as the panicky scream goes, the highest level ever in human history.

And

Earth science analyses show that the atmosphere last contained this much CO2 some three million years ago, when global sea levels were higher and parts of Antarctica were blanketed in forest.

There’s a hint there regarding the lushness of life on Earth.

Sadly, a couple of things are being ignored by the climatistas.  One is that the only outcome of sea levels being higher is that humans living on the coast will be inconvenienced by having to move inland, neverminding that they’ll be able to continue their coastal lives.

The other thing is that in those 3 million years since, we’ve had a very severe ice age and several 40,000-100,000-year cycles of glaciation, the latest one of which ended only about 10,000 years ago—and we’ve not recovered yet: we’re still a few degrees below the geologic global warming trend line.

But there’s money in that manufactured hysteria.

A Ban on Facial Recognition

Posted on by
Reply

San Francisco is about to ban the use of facial recognition by city agencies.

I agree with the sentiment.

However, good luck enforcing this sort of ban. There’s also a general ban on lying under oath, but in the end, all perjury laws can do is attach liability to the lie; they can’t prevent the lying. The primary difference is that lying under oath is easier to detect than is using facial recognition, and so the ban on lying under oath is easier to enforce.

What’s needed more is the ability to detect the use of facial recognition.  Banning it and applying sanction to its illegal use, whether shaking the city’s finger very firmly at the misbehaver or applying heavy fines and serious jailtime, is an empty gesture without that.

A Textualist Justice Makes Folks Uncomfortable

Posted on by
Reply

Apple v Pepper is an antitrust case in which the plaintiffs argue that Apple’s requirement that all iPhone apps must be sold through Apple’s app store is a monopoly that Apple abuses by charging excessive commissions on app sales.

The Wall Street Journal has its editorial knickers in a twist because Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, rejected Apple’s plaint that the case be dismissed. The result is that the case continues in trial court.  Yet the editors are upset that Kavanaugh’s ruling “gutted four decades of precedent,” as though precedent cannot be erroneous and so must be unchanging for the ages.

Justice Kavanaugh [opined] based on the text of the Clayton Act, but the Court has long interpreted antitrust statutes alongside common law principles of proximate causation.

How shocking that a textualist ruled on the basis of the text and disagreed with judges imposing personal views of “common law principles” on what a law actually says.

Contrary to the editors’ thrust, all that has happened at this point is that the suit is allowed to proceed in a lower court. This actually represents a golden opportunity to apply the text of antitrust law to the likes of Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, et al., which have capabilities of which Clayton could not conceive. In what ways might tech giants exercise monopoly power (legal) or abuse it (illegal)?

At bottom, as the case itself makes it way to the Supremes, it would be a golden opportunity for that Court to tell the Congress to do its political job. Bleatings about “common law” and judges’ perceived principles inhering in “common law” notwithstanding, everything that Clayton means is contained in the text of that law.  Everything that that century-old Congress intended when it enacted that law is contained in the text of that law and nowhere else.  If the law needs updating to address today’s digitally-oriented monopolies, that’s the political task of today’s Congress, not the judicial task of any era’s Justices.

A Shift May Be Beginning

Posted on by
Reply

As the tariff volleys in the People’s Republic of China’s years-old economic war (of which trade is just one component) against us begin to grow, some potential changes in international trade and production for trade are becoming visible.  If these apparent changes represent the beginning of a solid trend, the changes and the trend will not be to the PRC’s benefit.

It’s true that consumer prices might start to rise in both our nation and in the PRC, but as a population—and as a people—we’re better able to absorb those increases than is the population of the PRC.  Our per capita GDP is $62,500, more than three times the PRC’s $19,520.

It might get worse from there.

  • Sweden-based telecom gear-maker Ericsson AB is preparing to shift some manufacturing from the PRC to the US, Estonia, Brazil, and Mexico
  • Republic of China-based AsusTek Computer Inc has been moving some production bases domestic facilities and Vietnam from the PRC
  • Foxconn, which assembles a huge share of iPhones, has been considering producing the devices in India and Vietnam
  • The 25% tariff on PRC-made lithium batteries means PRC producers will have difficulties competing with Korea’s LG Chem and Japan’s Panasonic Inc, both of which already have lithium battery production facilities in the US

If that sort of thing spreads and grows, and if US exporters find other markets (as US farmers are doing for next year’s crops, while others change the crops they grow for export), it won’t be good for the PRC’s economy—or for PRC President Xi Jinping’s political standing in his Party.

Much Ado about Nothing

Posted on by
Reply

Oxford Economics is worried about the costs of President Donald Trump’s tariffs as he fights back against the People’s Republic of China’s long economic war (trade, intellectual property theft, technology transfer extortions and thefts, etc) against us.

The move to 25% tariffs on imports from the PRC, coupled with the PRC’s answer of tariffs on its imports from us would cost our economy $29 billion and the global economy some $105 billion by 2020, Oxford Economics claims.  The CBO estimates our GDP to be $22.77 trillion; the projected tariff costs work out to 0.1% of our economy.  Taking the global economy as the OECD’s, the 2017 global GDP was some $49.6 trillion; the projected costs work out to roughly 0.2% of the world’s economy.

Oxford Economics sees all of that amounting to a 0.3% reduction in our projected 2020 GDP and a 0.8% reduction in the PRC’s projected 2020 GDP.  The tariff costs are chump change in our economy and the world’s.  Not so much, though, for the PRC: while our economy is burgeoning, the PRC’s already is stagnating.  The tariff costs are only adding to that slowdown.