Tag Archives: economics

More Progressive-Democrat Disingenuousity

Posted on by
Reply

Now, with rising oil prices as demand increases as we start to come out from under the Wuhan Virus situation (which we’re doing despite the press’ and the Biden administration’s panic-mongering over the Delta variant), the Biden administration is pushing OPEC to boost their oil production to hold down prices.

The disingenuousness of this administration is breathtaking.

This is the same Progressive-Democrat administration that cut off our own, domestic, oil and gas independence by fighting our domestic production—to the ultimate benefit of Russia and the People’s Republic of China.

This is the same set of Progressive-Democrats that blocked an amendment to their reconciliation spend- and tax-a-thon that would have allowed new energy development—oil and gas drilling—to occur on Federal lands.

This is the same collection of Progressive-Democrats that unblocked Nord Stream 2 and pressured Ukraine to agree to it so Russia could benefit by selling its own natural gas production into Germany and western Europe.

This is the same collection of Progressive-Democrats who actively depress our own oil and gas production in the name of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels—while pushing for, allowing, increased production by others of atmospheric CO2-producing oil and natural gas.

This is the Progressive-Democrats elevating the welfare of foreign nations, including enemy nations, above our own.

Here is the Progressive-Democrats’ campaign slogan: Make Again Last, America. MAL America.

Economists and Economists

Posted on by
Reply

Casey Mulligan and Tomas Philipson open their op-ed on how free markets provided answers to the Wuhan Virus (my term, not theirs) that government gave us with this remark:

Economists are trained to believe that the purpose of government policy is to correct market failures….

No. Economists are trained to answer the question of what are the likely outcomes given a set of economic/economic-related inputs.

Political economists are trained to answer the question of what, if anything, ought be done about those outcomes. Sadly, political economists increasingly are “trained” to believe that every outcome needs something done about it and that every doer must needs be Government. Political economists are increasingly incapable of understanding that, in a free market, minimally regulated, economy, unfavorable outcomes are, in the very broad main, self-correcting, and favorable outcomes are, in the very broad main, self-perpetuating. They miss the fact that the actual actors in those economies, the individuals, make in their free market aggregation sound decisions.

That’s what comes from the invisible hand that somebody wrote about some years ago. That’s what political economists no longer understand.

Progressive-Democrat Controls over Individuals’ Lives

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some of those controls that are buried deep within the bowels of the so-called infrastructure bill just rammed through the senate.

mandate for vehicle manufactures to install “drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as a standard feature inside of new vehicles

Because all of us are simply too grindingly stupid to make our own decisions about drinking and driving. This is amply proven by the one or two among us who are so stupid, so we all must pay the price.

create a vehicle miles traveled system for taxing drivers based on their annual vehicle mileage is hidden away in the bill’s section 13002, entitled “National motor vehicle per-mile user fee pilot”

This also will create an opening for tracking where we go and who/what we visit in addition to tracking how we travel to get there.

grants select cabinet secretaries the authority to fully fund select infrastructure projects with taxpayer dollars by waiving cost-sharing rules

Just gimme the damned dollars and quit asking pesky questions. We Know Better. Never mind that the need for any of these dollars has yet to be established beyond yelling “Infrastructure,” as though that settles the science.

If these controls really were any good, and if average Americans really did take them seriously, Progressive-Democrats would offer them in separate stand-alone bills for public debate and scrutiny.

More important to the Progressive-Democrats, though, is that these policies vastly increase their surveillance state. Even waiving cost-sharing expands surveillance, since the Secretaries designated The Precious Ones will need to identify whose costs are going to be “saved” and who will be called upon to pick up the cost slack.

Infrastructure Sham

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate is grinding its way to passage of what some are pleased to call a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Leave aside the shoddy bookkeeping the Senators are engaging in with their claimed pay-fors, shoddiness that the CBO has seen through. By itself the bill still might not be so bad (though even that much is strongly arguable).

Republicans should walk away from this “infrastructure” bill altogether, regardless of its pretended cost, regardless of any amendment bones Progressive-Democrats might toss their way, regardless, even, if pay-fors could be found that actually balance the books on this sham.

President Joe Biden (D) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) each have irrevocably tied this bill to the Progressive-Democrats’ reconciliation bill, and Senate Progressive-Democrats have said they’d include in that reconciliation monstrosity whatever is left out of this “infrastructure” thing.

The “infrastructure” bill is nothing but a glorified amendment to the Progressive-Democrats’ reconciliation bill, and it will be adjusted accordingly when the Progressive-Democrats start ramming through their larger bill.

Republicans should have no part of this charade.

The Left is On the Move

Posted on by
Reply

…especially their political arm, the Progressive-Democratic Party.

President Joe Biden (D) has signed an Executive Order requiring all vehicle sales in the US to be electrically powered. Biden will masquerade his EO as “nonbinding.”

Sure. If he and his cronies in Congress didn’t intend for it to be binding, Biden would use his bully pulpit as President to stump for electrification of our vehicles. Instead, he’s going the cudgel route, covered by his velvet.

If he and his cronies in Congress didn’t intend for the EO to be binding, those cronies wouldn’t be pushing—via reconciliation, yet—their “green” mandates into law. They would, instead, use their own bully pulpits to stump for their “green” ideas. Instead, they’re going their naked cudgel—reconciliation—route to ram through their diktats.

Biden’s EO also is supposedly supported by the likes of General Motors, Ford Motor, and Stellantis (nee Fiat Chrysler). Given the nature of our current Progressive-Democrat-controlled government, the idea that these companies’ support is voluntary is…risible.

This is the Progressive-Democrat-controlled government telling American private companies what they must produce.

This is fascism on the move.