Tariffs and Fairness

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the way tariffs involved in the People’s Republic of China/US trade “dispute” and the simmering EU/US trade dispute impact a Scottish town, Alistair MacDonald posed a question.

Is it fair for the US, in its pursuit of trade concessions, to hurt smaller businesses that make iconic products in nations such as Scotland?

The question is a non sequitur.  The correction is, “Is it fair to single out particular subgroups for special treatment when addressing the rest of the group or the group as a whole?”

No, of course not.

Or MacDonald’s question is not a non sequitur (other than the business about iconic products, which is irrelevant in any case): the group that, at this stage, should be being addressed is the group known as Great Britain. In that light, it would be both fair and politically sound to exempt Scottish industries from tariffs applied in response to EU trade abuses. Scotland, after all, is first a part of Great Britain, and only through Great Britain a part of the EU.

Losing our Free Market?

And not just through Progressive-Democrats’ Big Government demands and planned impositions.  Now it’s fund MFWICs with bugs up their noses about their currently favored special interest, exemplified by BlackRock’s Larry Fink.

BlackRock, along with Vanguard and State Street, are the three most powerful investment funds, holding as they do roughly 20% of the S&P 500 through funds they run for investors.  And now Fink is starting to dictate to the companies his company owns shares in what they must do vis-à-vis climate change, Fink’s issue du jour.

Mr Fink is surely right that investors should worry about climate risks leading to big shifts of capital, and therefore big price moves.

No, Fink isn’t “surely” right, for all that he might be. More likely, the climate-related risks are political, as politicians extend their pandering, rather than empirical.

Regardless, though, Fink’s rightness or wrongness isn’t relevant. What’s important here is that Fink shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to those investors that they must invest according to his diktat rather than in accordance with their own imperatives or read of the factors relevant to their own investing.

Medicaid Block Grants

The Trump administration is planning to set up procedures for allowing States to convert the Medicaid funding they receive from the Federal government from matching funds to block grants.

The new procedures would represent a large change.

Medicaid funding is open-ended, meaning the federal government matches state spending. If that funding is converted to a block grant, a state could get a limited, lump sum of federal money instead.

There are two key differences here. One is that the funding would go from strings-attached matches to no-strings block grants. The other is that the decision to go to block grants would be each requesting State’s, resulting in less Federal control over that State’s internal affairs.

Of course, this has vested interests twisting in their knickers.

Consumer groups and [Progressive-]Democrats say that limitation means thousands of people could lose Medicaid coverage or be unable to enroll if states’ costs rise or enrollment swells.

This is cynical and disingenuous. Whether a State’s citizens lose or can’t get access to their own State’s Medicaid is a matter strictly for, and wholly under the control of, the politicians and bureaucrats in that State’s government and the citizens who elect those politicians—who are the bureaucrats’ direct bosses.

At bottom, there is nothing at all preventing a State from reallocating its own spending to cover those costs or enrollments. Or of limiting access to ensure the truly needy can get the aid, limits that too often are blocked by those Federal strings.

A Telephone Merger

The Wall Street Journal wrote about roadblocks in the form of nine Progressive-Democrat-run States’ lawsuit against a T-Mobile-Sprint merger.  In commenting on the article, a fellow reader wrote in part,

What about the customers?

His concern was centered on quality of service that would—might—flow from the merged company as well as the number of alternatives from which to purchase cell phone service.

Customers are an important factor, but businesses are obligated to make money for their owners, Progressive-Democrats’ virtue-signaling notwithstanding.

The importance of the customers will be exercised by their staying with the merged company or moving on if the post-merger business isn’t better.

Fiscal Management

In Tuesday’s Progressive-Democratic Party primary debate, Joe Biden made the claim that he couldn’t afford child care in 1972 on his then-income of $42,000/year.

Jan Brewer, ex-governor of Arizona, had a thought on that via Twitter:

“Jan Brewer @GovBrewer · 12h
“Biden just said he couldn’t afford child care in 1972 when he was making $42,000/yr. Today, that’d be $256,000/yr.  Really Joe?  If you can’t run your own household efficiently, I don’t think you can run our country!

“Vote @realDonaldTrump!”

She used an inflation rate of a bit over 3.5% to get there. I used an inflation rate of 3% to get a bit under $174,000. Over that long time frame, inflation rates bounce around; our two estimates, though, effectively bracket the situation.

Brewer’s point is eminently valid. If Biden can’t hack his own household budget, how can he be expected run our nation’s budget?

Oh, wait—the Progressive-Democrat thinks that, as President, he’ll be able to give himself a raise at convenience through tax increases and to borrow at will because…government.