Tag Archives: economics

One Price of Central Control

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s Cyberspace Administration of China is investigating the alleged wrong-doing of Didi Global’s ride-hailing arm, Didi Chuxing Technology Co; both entities are domiciled in the PRC.

By itself, that’s no big deal; governments are allowed to investigate businesses that regulators suspect of wrong-doing.

Here’s the problem:

No new user registration is allowed during the review….

That’s ostensibly to keep risks from any alleged misbehaviors from growing further.

However. Never mind that Didi Chuxing hasn’t been shown to have misbehaved in any way; it must be restricted.

Suppose that in the end, the regulator indeed finds no actual wrongs done. How would a Didi Chuxing be made whole after the investigation’s closure? How would such a company (re)gain all those missed new customers (for instance)?

Worse,

[t]he regulator didn’t say how long the review would last….

That damage is made worse the longer the investigation is allowed to go on.

Now, there’s this: how many governments would consider using a regulatory agency or a regulator’s enduring investigation to punish a disfavored business or person solely on political grounds?

I can think of at least three….

And now, just two days after that move, the PRC has ordered app-store operators to remove the app altogether–even though the “investigation” is only just begun.

Hmm….

Another Progressive-Democrat Gives Another Part of the Game Away

Posted on by
1

Laura Saunders, in her Friday Wall Street Journal column concerning the Roth IRAs, the rich and deplorable, and us average Americans, has a striking quote from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D, OR).

Saunders was writing about how efforts to lay punitive limits and punitive taxes on the Roth IRAs of the super wealthy can only have deleterious effects on the rest of us.

Here’s Wyden’s statement on the matter:

IRAs were designed to provide retirement security to middle-class families, not allow mega-millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying taxes[.]

Wyden has two beefs here. One is his progressive view that the wealthy don’t deserve to be under the same law as the rest of us Americans; the success of the wealthy must be called out and that success denied them—because the rich are the piñata of government disfavored groups of Americans.

The other is that business about avoiding paying taxes. Never mind that the rich and deplorable—and the merely rich—already pay the vast bulk of the taxes the Federal government collects, while the bottom half of income earners pay close to nothing in taxes, and the very bottom—including those who don’t have any job-related income—get tax payments from the rest of us. The amount the rich pay isn’t enough for Progressive-Democrats. More is better.

All of it is better, yet.

Repealing SALT

Posted on by
Reply

John Tamny, FreedomWorks’ Center for Economic Freedom Director, wants the SALT deduction cap repealed, and he thinks all Republicans should agree with him.

Among the several Tamny rationalizations for why Republicans should leap at the chance to repeal SALT is this gem.

Repealing the SALT cap might not restore that vision [convolutedly, of limited government], but it would direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities.

No. A better way, the only truly effective way and the only legitimate way, to direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities is to end altogether the interstate transfer of taxpayer monies.

The money us citizens allocate to our various government jurisdictional levels are best left within those jurisdictions entirely. Taxes allocated to our central government should be exclusively for the Constitutional purposes of paying the national debt, funding a defense establishment adequate to defeating external threats, and seeing to our nation’s general Welfare as enumerated in Art I, Sect 8. Those taxes allocated to our respective States and lower jurisdictions are best left within those jurisdictions, subject to the requirements and specifications the citizens of each State set for their State.

The only legitimate interstate transfer of tax dollars is in response to a declaration of a regional or national emergency.

Also Too Weak

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Joe Biden (D) came before the American people and touted a bipartisan infrastructure deal, to the tune of $1.2 trillion.

Recall, further, that barely two hours later, Biden again came before us all and said he would refuse to sign that deal unless and until he had, at the same time, a reconciliation-passed bill that had everything in it that was not included in the bipartisan “deal.”

Now Biden is back before us all, saying he’ll sign the bipartisan “deal” and then work on getting further bills passed that have everything in them that he wants.

So—which time was he lying: the first time, speaking from his heart when he said he’d refuse to sign the bipartisan bill unless he got the reconciliation bill with everything else in it, also, or the second time when he was speaking politically, to cover his political behind?

Or: was he simply engaging in the Biden Flip-Flop and speaking in whichever way gives him the most personal political advantage?

Or: does he not truly understand the situation for longer than a few hours?

Under any of those alternatives, Biden’s word is worthless, his commitments entirely unreliable. Any further negotiation with Biden will be just a waste of effort. Any Republican who takes anything Biden says seriously after this—and that particularly includes Senator Rob Portman (R, OH)—is simply exposing himself as wholly gullible.

Too Weak

Posted on by
Reply

Nike’s CEO, John Donahoe, has given his company’s game away. Recall that, earlier this year he claimed dismay over the People’s Republic of China government’s, and the Communist Party of China’s, abuse, slavery, and overt genocide against the Uighurs.

We are concerned about reports of forced labor in, and connected to, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Nike does not source products from the XUAR and we have confirmed with our contract suppliers that they are not using textiles or spun yarn from the region.

Even that weak statement turns out to have been just pretense, virtue-signaling for his American audience, which is doubly dishonest just for that.

Now, via an earnings call, he

called the sportswear apparel giant a “brand of China” this week, following a fiasco it was involved in earlier this year over concerns about human rights abuses committed by the communist government.

And

…we are a brand of China and for China[.]

With that call, Donahoe announced his utter rejection of everything for which the US, the nation with the economic, political, and moral environment that enabled his Nike to flourish, stands.

With that call, Donahoe has announced his complete acceptance of abuse, slavery, genocide by the nation he prefers to call home.

Reasons enough to not do business with Nike.