Tag Archives: economics

A Proposed Response

Posted on by
Reply

Texas State Congressman Matt Shaheen (R, Dist 66 [which includes my county]) has tweeted access to a Request for Comment regarding last week’s snow and cold storm with various utilities’ associated failures to keep supplies of electricity, natural gas, and potable water flowing in major areas of the State.

Kudos to Shaheen for publicizing this RFP.

Below are my inputs.

  1. All, without exception, ERCOT board members and senior executives (C-suite equivalents and their deputies) must reside within Texas. Half of the board members, a separate half of the C-suite, and a separate half of their deputies must reside in separate rural regions of Texas. Within that last, a C-suite executive and his deputy must not reside in the same region.
  2. Each of these board members, senior executives, and their deputies must have demonstrated expertise and empirical experience in energy and potable water supply—e., they must be energy and water engineers. Personnel with legal expertise can serve as board consultants and as assistants to the senior executives’ deputies.
  3. The State government must encourage—but not mandate—all utility providers to amortize their bills that result from the sort of event the storm of 15-19 Feb 21 represents over the succeeding 12 months. Single bills of $9,000-$17,000 (to the extent these numbers aren’t just press hype) shouldn’t occur; they should be spread over the succeeding year.
  4. Exceptionally high single-month bills like those suggested in 3) above should be investigated for their legitimacy—but from the going-in assumption that they are legitimate free-market, high demand/limited supply prices. “Price gouging” is what must be proven.
  5. All utility providers and their suppliers must winterize their systems against worst-case scenarios, with the minimum threshold being a 100-year temperature excursion, sustained for more than “a few” hours. The current winterizing was against only “bad” case scenarios. This winterizing must come solely at the expense of the individual utility, that utility’s customers, and each utility’s supplier(s). The costs should be amortizable over a reasonable period of time, and PUCT should allow the rate increases needed for cost recovery within that amortization schedule for those utilities within its jurisdiction. Other regulators must be required to do the same. The amortization schedules should be those initially proposed by the utilities/suppliers, and the regulators should be spring-loaded to accept them, rejecting a particular schedule only for concrete, measurable cause(s).
  6. Utilities with out-of-state suppliers that can’t or won’t comply with 5) above should be encouraged to find Texas-domiciled suppliers with which to replace them. Failure to find substitutes should not absolve the impacted utility of its responsibilities or liabilities related to energy/water supply so long as they are making concrete, measurable, publicly viewable ongoing efforts to find Texas-domiciled replacements. The Texas government should support the search efforts with its own research facilities, but not with taxpayer funds.
  7. Eliminate energy subsidies—both renewable and hydrocarbon

“Working Off” Student Debt

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday Letters section posited an alternative to student debt: trade it for community service.

I would readily support loan forgiveness if the beneficiary were required to do community service for the forgiven debt.

Only so long as the community service work is low-skill, low-education work, with the student debt scofflaw—because that’s what he still would be—working directly under the controlling supervision of a low-skill, low-education person who’s had that job for a while.

Let the scofflaw see who he’s displacing with his preciousness and his debt-ducking.

Let him see the college student, during the school year, trying to earn some night shift money with which to pay for some college without “borrowing” money.

Let him see the high schooler trying to earn some summer job money and to obtain some initial, entry-level work experience for his future use in working his way up the employment and economic ladders.

On that last, especially, I employed a high school sophomore last summer to mow my lawn, edge it, and clean the sidewalk of the mowing and edging detritus. I ordinarily do my own yard work, but this enterprising young man, by his enterprise, earned the job. A student debt scofflaw would get this sort of work from me only if he worked under the hiring and firing authority of my high school sophomore contractor. Which would give the sophomore some valuable supervisory experience, too.

Which supervisory experience also would benefit those other low-skill, low-education workers for whom the community service debtors would be working.

Win Customers, Raise Revenue

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the Post Office’s goal. Doesn’t seem like they have a viable plan for that, though.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is preparing to put all first-class mail onto a single delivery track, according to two people briefed on his strategic plan for the US Postal Service, a move that would mean slower and more costly delivery for both consumers and commercial mailers.
[They plan to] eliminate a tier of first-class mail—letters, bills and other envelope-sized correspondence sent to a local address—designated for delivery in two days. Instead, all first-class mail would be lumped into the same three- to five-day window, the current benchmark for nonlocal mail.

And

The plan also prevents first-class mail from being shipped by airplane….

After all,

The Postal Service spent more than $457 million flying first-class mail in 2020, according to data it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission, and spent $314 million transporting mail by truck.

Of course, putting all that air cargo onto trucks won’t increase truck transport cost. Uh, uh.

Oh, and the Post Office is planning to raise postage rates in order to make up for this degradation of service.

Brilliant.

A Survey of Southeast Asian Nations

Posted on by
Reply

This one was done by ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute a research institute established by the government of Singapore.

Organizers sent the survey late last year to government officials, academics, and other stakeholders from the 10 countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Here are some interesting tidbits from the report. First, the nations’ overall concern about the situation in the South China Sea:

Notice that—even concerns about a US-PRC confrontation are a distant 3rd to concerns about the PRC’s misbehaviors. And of those 12.5% concerned about our own military presence, Singapore (6.3% [of those 12.5%]), Vietnam (4.6%), and the Philippines (4.5%) have little qualms about it. These are the nations most directly threatened by the PRC’s acquisitive adventurism.

Next, the nations’ preferred response:

The vastly preferred solutions are the nations’ enforcement of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which aligns to a large degree with the US’ position on freedom of the seas, and the conclusion of a Code of Conduct with the PRC, which agreement would severely hamstring the PRC’s seizures since the nations’ view of a legitimate COC would have it align tightly with the UNCOS.

And this:

The left pie chart reflects the view of the nations concerning who has the largest economic influence in the region: 76.3% view the PRC as havng the largest influence. The right pie chart shows that nearly ¾ of the nations are concerned about that economic dominance.

These results, excerpted from a broader-reaching report, show the opportunities that former President Donald Trump was working to exploit, and that remain for President Joe Biden to exploit.

The entire report is worth reading, and it can be read here.

h/t to Just the News

The Biden Budget

Posted on by
Reply

Carol Platt Liebau, Yankee Institute for Public Policy President, wrote in her Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed about President Joe Biden’s dangerously expensive Wuhan Virus “relief” bill. A truly Pyrrhic relief it would be, too, even were it not occurring on an already dangerously expensive pair of “relief” bills enacted over the prior year.

She had one statement, though, that particularly jumped out at me, perhaps because it centers on a matter I’ve been on about for a bit already.

President Biden wants to send $350 billion in unrestricted cash to state and local governments to fill their budget holes.

Money is fungible. It doesn’t matter whether a dollar is “restricted” or unrestricted in its use. Even if it is, its mere existence frees up another dollar for the supposedly restricted-from use.

Aside from that, the States don’t need the Federal (which is to say our taxpayer) money. State revenues are much higher than initially expected, even in Progressive-Democrat-locked down and -run States.

In addition, the public union shakedowns of which Leibau wrote further demonstrate the lack of need.