Tag Archives: economics

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.

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

…and not rule of law, which our Constitution so strongly pushes. That’s what SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has decided to do.

The SEC announced this month that it will suspend enforcement of new rules issued under former Chairman Jay Clayton that subjected proxy advisory firms to the same anti-fraud rules as public companies and required them to disclose their business conflicts.

Just pick and choose the rules the Biden appointee deigns enforce. Don’t move first to change the rule, while enforcing it while it’s in force. Gensler Knows Better which rules are fit, and disdains the need for someone so awesome to submit his wishes to lesser masses who might impudently comment contrariwise to any change he deems necessary during such a rule change’s comment period.

Oh, wait:

Mr Gensler has directed SEC staff to consider revising the rules.

Give him a rule that better suits him. But he’ll still ignore the existing rule as beneath his dignity.

This is rule by law—which is another way of saying rule by men with the raw power to reign.

Fair Share

Posted on by
Reply

CPA Jay Starkman asked a question in his Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed. His piece centered on the President Joe Biden (D) tax hikes and expansions. Starkman noted that as recently as 2018—after the Trump tax cuts—the top 5% of American taxpayers still paid 60.3% of all the income taxes paid that year while the bottom 50% paid just 3% of the total.

Thus, his question:

How much higher than 60% will satisfy calls for the rich to pay their “fair share”?

With the Progressive-Democrats’ refusal to say what a “fair share” is, or who should pay it other than their carefully nebulous “the rich”, the answer to the question is obvious: all of it.

As that hero of the Progressive-Democratic Party, John Nance Garner said: We have got to confiscate wealth.

Bipartisan Negotiations Progressive-Democratic Party Style

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bipartisan group of Senators who are close to agreement on a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill. Set aside, for the moment, whether the bill is good or bad. Consider, first, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) and his Socialist colleague Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) position and planned move regarding that bill.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders have started the process of adding elements of Biden’s agenda to a large-scale budget reconciliation bill, regardless of the outcome of ongoing bipartisan negotiations on infrastructure.
Schumer has said the reconciliation bill will include the parts of Biden’s $2.25 trillion American Jobs Plan and $1.8 trillion American Families Plan that are not included in a potential bipartisan agreement on infrastructure spending.

The bipartisan negotiation is a sham, a decoy, an attempt at a shiny object. The Progressive-Democrats in that group are fully aware of this, and they’re enthusiastic participants in the distraction.

This is what Republicans and Conservatives have to deal with.

An Expanded Child Tax Credit?

Posted on by
Reply

The current law providing for a child tax credit requires those children to have Social Security Numbers in order for their parents to be able to claim the credit.

Saira Soto, a Deputy Executive Director for Children’s Defense Fund California, wants immigrant children who lack Social Security numbers also to qualify their parents for the credit.

In order to ensure a fair and just system that helps grow and boost our economy, and one that supports our children, immigrant families must be included.

Of course, immigrant families already are included in the present form of the child tax credit. It’s illegal alien families and non-citizen families in our nation legally who are not.

Soto knows this full well; her demand is an illustration of the dishonesty of the Left’s Free Stuff for Everyone movement.