Tag Archives: economics

NATO and Mutual Defense Alliances

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was in Europe at the end of the week, and among other things, he pushed for NATO member states to honor their decades-old commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Germany, among other members, insisted that honoring their commitment was “unrealistic.”

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said demands for 2% of GDP spending were “totally unrealistic.” He said that to meet the US target, Germany would have to increase spending by some €35 billion ($37 billion).

After all, Gabriel has argued,

…a strong defense isn’t enough to ensure security.

That’s a cynically offered straw man, though; no one is arguing that a strong defense is sufficient, only that it’s necessary.  Gabriel will have to play with his dolly without me.

There are others who agree that the nations need to boost their own spending—Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, for instance, and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.  But it isn’t sufficient.

We need to be developing a mutual defense alliance that includes eastern European nations, anyway.  Maybe the result of that development should be a separate alliance, not an expansion of NATO.  Perhaps even the result should replace NATO, or at least our role in the new alliance should replace our role in NATO, since so many of the nations of NATO have so little interest in their own treaty responsibilities.

“Our Federal Dollars”

Posted on by
Reply

It doesn’t get any clearer than this.  Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has illustrated the addictive nature of Federal funds transfers to the States and lower government jurisdictions with that phrase.

In defending his city’s lawsuit against the Federal government over DoJ’s decision to withhold Federal monies from cities that violate Federal law by protecting illegal aliens from enforcement of immigration law, Murray said this:

The federal government cannot compel our police department to enforce federal immigration law and cannot use our federal dollars to coerce Seattle into turning our backs on our immigrant and refugee communities.

Our federal dollars.  The dollars aren’t theirs.  Those dollars are Texas citizens’ money.  Those dollars are New York citizens’ money.  Those dollars are Illinois citizens’ money.  Those dollars are Oregon citizens’ money.  Those dollars are the money of the citizens of every State and territory in the nation, including Washington.  Those dollars are money transferred from all those other citizens around the nation.

This is what such transfers lead to: the powerful addiction of a sense of entitlement to other people’s money and the loss of any sense of responsibility for a jurisdiction’s own money.

Port Automation

Posted on by
Reply

It’s coming to west coast ports, and the unions don’t like it.

The push over the last decade by international maritime ports to fully automate operations has sparked the ire of many US longshoremen whose high-paying jobs and way of life are at stake. The trend also sets up a battle between their unions and companies and governments who see automation as a cleaner, more efficient and more cost-friendly alternative to the current system.

Never mind that west coast ports—three in particular, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland—do 40% of the nation’s (not just the west coast’s) container traffic and so costs there have sharp impact on the nation’s economy.

Never mind that the west coast ports often are subject to expensive longshoremen union work slowdowns.

The Washington Council on International Trade this week released a report that attempted to quantify how severely the [2015] slowdown directly impacted Washington state businesses. That final price tag: $770 million.

Never mind that west coast ports often are subject to even more expensive longshoremen union strikes, including illegal strikes.

Never mind that longshoremen union strikes against west coast ports often turn violent.

The automation will reduce costs—good for the shippers and ultimately for us consumers—and increase profits—which means jobs, albeit different ones and with lags for the different jobs to develop.

And robots don’t do work slowdowns, robots don’t strike, robots don’t get violent when they don’t get their way.

Another Assault on US Intellectual Property

Posted on by
Reply

Beijing has proposed requiring cloud-computing services providers to turn over essentially all ownership and operations to Chinese partners and could result in the transfer of valuable US intellectual property, according to the letter, viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Not “could result”—technology theft transfer is the point of the requirement.  This comes against the backdrop of the People’s Republic of China’s ongoing technology requirements.

China already places restrictions on investing for foreign cloud providers operating in the country under rules passed in the last two years…including forced collaboration with rivals and technology transfer.

Is the PRC market really worth these losses?

House Freedom Caucus of No

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, the membership of the House Freedom Caucus of No forced the American Health Care Act, the first stage of a three-stage Obamacare repeal and replace program offered by the majority of the House Republican Conference, to be withdrawn from the day’s backup vote (recall that these No-ers already had forced a delay from Thursday’s vote over their demand to have their way or there could be no Act), and so there will be no AHCA.

As a result of the No-ers’ our way or nothing attitude, the American people now get nothing at all.  We’re forced to stay with Obamacare and the disastrous failure of that program. Of particular interest, included in those American people are these No-ers’ own constituents, whose interests these No-ers so loudly pretend that they’re protecting.  Yet, with their performance, they’ve ensured that their own constituents also get nothing; the No-ers have betrayed their own electorate.

I have to ask: on whose side are the No-ers; their tactics have led directly to the continuation of Obamacare?  Are they on the side of the Progressive-Democrats whose program Obamacare is?  Or are they in Congress for their own benefit?

They’re certainly not interested in the welfare of the American people, or of their own constituents.

For your reference in the 2018 election cycle, here are the members of the House Freedom Caucus of No, who put their demands ahead of the nation’s citizens’ needs:

  • Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chair
  • Justin Amash, Michigan
  • Brian Babin, Texas
  • Ted Poe, Texas
  • Randy Weber, Texas
  • Rod Blum, Iowa
  • Dave Brat, Virginia
  • Tom Garrett, Jr, Virginia
  • Morgan Griffith, Virginia
  • Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
  • Mo Brooks, Alabama
  • Ken Buck, Colorado
  • Warren Davidson, Ohio
  • Jim Jordan, Ohio
  • Ron DeSantis, Florida
  • Bill Posey, Florida
  • Ted Yoho, Florida
  • Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
  • Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
  • Mark Sanford, South Carolina
  • Trent Franks, Arizona
  • Paul Gosar, Arizona
  • David Schweikert, Arizona
  • Andy Harris, Maryland
  • Jody Hice, Georgia
  • Raúl Labrador, Idaho
  • Alex Mooney, West Virginia
  • Gary Palmer, Alabama
  • Steve Pearce, New Mexico
  • Scott Perry, Pennsylvania