Tag Archives: economics

“Democrats fall for Socialism Again”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of a WSJ op-ed, and it misconstrues the Progressive-Democratic Party’s ideology.

Party and its Democratic Party ancestor have long favored socialism, at least since Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to nationalize American factories “east of the Mississippi River,” holding onto them until the Supreme Court made him give them back. That came shortly after one of the founders of the modern Progressive movement campaigned for President on nationalizing our railroads. Government ownership of the means of production is a core tenet of socialism.

Party continued that with subsequent Democratic Party actions presuming to dictate to those producers what wages they must pay and what prices for their produce they would be allowed to charge.

The modern Progressive-Democratic Party has continued that push for Central Government to control our nation’s economy with its constant demands for private enterprises to produce what Party wants produced and attempts at curtailing production by enterprises of which Party disapproves. Capping success, determining who would be allowed a measure of success, and redistribution of the results of such success as is allowed is another core tenet.

Party is now being more open about its preference for socialism with its enthusiastic embrace of the Democratic Socialists of America and their inclusion into the center of Party.

The Next Carrington Event

Posted on by
Reply

“Authorities on space weather” are worried about a Carrington Event, a solar storm of civilization-destroying magnitude, happening in the relatively near future. Three scientists, including Brian Walsh, Boston University Associate Professor of Engineering; Daniel Welling, University of Michigan Assistant Professor of Climate & Space Research; and Allison Jaynes, University of Iowa Physics Professor—have dreamed up a program called StormWall that entails launching a half-dozen school-bus-size satellites into geosynchronous orbit, holding in their aggregate 838,000 pounds of barium, lithium or sodium. On warning of an inbound Carrington solar storm, the satellites would release that material, sunlight would “quickly” ionize it, and the resulting plasma would mitigate the surface effects of the storm as well as shield, mostly, satellites in orbits below geosynchronous, for a few hours.

It would be a single-use system that, like the automobile airbags to which the designers liken it, then would need replacement. They sell their system’s tens of billions of dollars cost as trivial compared to the losses an unprotected modern population would suffer, and in this much they’re correct. Further, in the best-case scenario, just the research would require at least five more years just to develop the rockets capable of launching such mass so high.

As often is the case in academia, they’re overthinking and over-engineering a solution to the real, once a century threat of a Carrington event. The Carrington Event of 165+ years ago burned a few telegraph stations. The threat today is the wave guide that is our electrical power grid. It would be much cheaper to harden our grid by installing surge-protecting circuit breakers in a multiplicity of places throughout the grid to break up the wave guide. This also is a well-established technology, easily emplaced, and far cheaper to do so. All that’s necessary is the political will (tacitly assumed to be extant for those satellites and their launches) to install them.

A not very distant secondary threat is the fragility of all of our computing requirements, primarily financial, control nodes of our distribution networks, defense establishments. Faraday cages would protect them—even older, more established and cheaper technology—as would surge protectors.

Of course, the surge protectors are one-use affairs, too, but they’re much more cheaply and easily replaced than those half-dozen school-bus-size satellites with their heavy payloads. The Faraday cages themselves would be undamaged by the electrical surges the Carrington event would generate.

In orbit, our satellites still would need protection, but hardening them is equally straightforward, and it could be done as we replace them–which we ought to be doing anyway to protect them from EMP that our enemies would create in any kinetic war.

A Question

Posted on by
Reply

With all the hyped up fears of a coming crash in the stock market and in the economy overall—some pundits are claiming the coming crash will make the Panic of 2008 look like a little burble (e.g., the Federal government will have to make a choice between letting banks and other financial institutions fail en masse or firing up its printing presses)—more and more folks are pushing buying gold and silver or bragging about the gold and silver they already hold.

So my question: what’s the value of all that gold and silver in such a catastrophe? Do these folks really think they’ll be able to exchange their gold or silver for their rent/mortgage payments? Their grocery and utility bills? Their gasoline down at the filling station? Or get those things with markers for their gold and silver held in brokerage accounts rather than in their closets in physical form? What if their broker is one of those financial institutions that went bust? Those holdings, if not lost forever, will be inaccessible for weeks or months while the broker’s assets wend their way through bankruptcy courts and the innumerable legal fights over distribution.

And: how will the holders sell their gold or silver, whether held in physical form or in brokerage accounts? Who will be willing to spend their cash on hand to get those metals?

The Pope’s Error

Posted on by
Reply

Pope Leo XIV, sitting on the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa decried the fate of folks who made it that far and others who did not as they left their home countries, mostly in Africa, looking for a better life in Europe.

There are also those who choose not to be a neighbor and those who choose not to make a decision. Those who have lost their lives in this sea are victims both of decisions that were made and of decisions that were not made. Indifference to the common good and corruption in their countries of origin; a global economic system that generates poverty and exclusion; fear that fuels prejudice and contempt; the belief that such problems do not concern us; the criminal calculations of those who profit from the suffering of others; the slow and difficult transition from mere emergency management to the development of comprehensive and shared policies[.]

No. The problem here is not that the European nations are not accepting all of these folks, nor is it that they are beginning actively to block their entry. The correct answer is for Europe to leave off its [i]ndifference to the common good and corruption in their countries of origin and devote the resources those nations are misallocating ins to supporting those folks making it to Europe and to blocking further flows, instead to working the source: the criminal natures of the home countries so those folks don’t feel the need to try to leave.

The Pope sort of recognized this, but with badly misplaced emphasis.

Thanks to its geographical location and institutional framework, Europe is capable of addressing the crisis, in this region, in a comprehensive manner, integrating immediate relief efforts into a long-term strategic plan capable of receiving, protecting, supporting and integrating migrants, while at the same time assisting developing countries so that no one is forced to emigrate.

The Pope further muddles his argument with his insistent conflation of migrants with illegal aliens, which is what most of those making to Europe are and most of those getting to Lampedusa, and other waypoints, want to become.

That geographic location does place Europe conveniently close to the source, but it should be committing those resources exclusively to assisting developing countries so that no one is forced to emigrate. Half measures don’t accomplish anything other than waste and lost opportunity.

Then there could be fruitful trade between those nations and the nations of Europe, and that would potentiate the benefits for those then-erstwhile home nations and their populations as well as work to the economic—and moral—benefit of Europe.

There’s a Reason for That

Posted on by
1

As The Wall Street Journal‘s astute editors noticed, less than a dozen—10, by their count of the fingers of two hands and no toes of either foot—members of the Progressive-Democratic Party caucus in the House of Representatives are willing to oppose the Democratic Socialists of America agenda. My count via the thumbs of just one of my hands (or maybe the social finger of that hand), only one Progressive-Democratic Party Senator is willing to oppose the DSA agenda.

It’s an agenda of government control of our larger businesses (but it won’t stop there), government control of private property, government given (and so able to be taken away) national medicine, ever rising taxes because…”necessity,” and political rather than economic globalization through entirely open borders and an end to deportation of illegal aliens (there being no such thing in the DSA ideology).

Less than a dozen across our Congress. Eleven, out of an aggregate of 255 Progressive-Democrat Congressmen. Those 244 Progressive-Democrat Congressmen demonstrate pretty conclusively that the Progressive-Democratic Party is an overtly socialist party, the direction in which it began moving with the election of Barack Obama as President just 18 years ago, with the pace sharply accelerating after the election of the “squad” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley just eight years ago.

The Progressive-Democratic Party is rapidly and enthusiastically coming out of the closet, assimilating the DSA (or being swallowed by DSA), and openly asserting that DSA political and economic positions are its own. Those policies are what Party will attempt to inflict on our nation if it gains majorities in the House and Senate after this fall’s elections.