Tag Archives: economics

Vox Populi is a Thing to be Feared

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister David Cameron, as most of you know, has committed the UK to a popular referendum on the nation’s continued membership in the European Union if he doesn’t get what he wants in terms of a rewrite of the treaties that created the EU.

EU leadership thinks this is a bad thing, and they’ve acted on that badness in the past: referenda by France, the Netherlands, and Ireland to the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties, in which the people of each of those nations solidly to overwhelmingly rejected those arrangements, were ignored outright, and the Know Betters of Europe simply went to the more compliant national governments for the needed assents. They have no such capability regarding a UK vote to depart the EU altogether; neither does the EU have the guns with which to compel continued membership.

The Brexit message will be poured “like a pint of beer into a thirsty electorate,” one alarmed official warns.

And

Officials now speak of contagion.

And

The fear among EU diplomats is that if Britain’s demands to rewrite the EU’s underlying treaties are met, radical parties across the continent will demand their own tailor-made deals. The union unravels.

Can’t have the people speaking for themselves. What would the EU Know Betters and bureaucrats do for jobs if they weren’t needed in a pan-European government? Whom would they control, if not the people themselves?

The only ones who fear the voice of the people, though, are those Know Betters and bureaucrats. Everyone else welcomes that voice.

A Bipartisan Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

Congressmen Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) and Randy Neugebauer (R, TX) rightly decry the partisan nature of the Elizabeth Warren/Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but their solution is wholly wrong. They want the existing single-director power structure replaced by a multi-person bipartisan commission, one that wouldn’t be so prone to the party in White House…influence.

As an example of how well a bipartisan commission would work, the Congressmen cite the SEC, the fair and balanced commission that uses in house judges to act on and punish those the SEC accuses of illegal investing practices.

It’s interesting that they didn’t cite the FCC, of Internet interference notoriety, or the NLRB, the commission that’s an arm of Big Union.

No, the proper correction to the partisan nature of the CFPB is to get rid of this wholly unaccountable even to Congress, with budgeting on demand from the Federal Reserve Bank, monstrosity altogether.

Replace with what, then? Nothing. The function is not needed. American citizens aren’t as slack-jawed, droolingly stupid as the Know Betters in government—of either party—make us out to be.

Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

Or hypocrisy, you pick ’em.

The House passed, with a significant majority (and so, on the whole, a bipartisan majority), a bill that would repeal the oil export ban that’s long outlived its usefulness, and especially so in the last several years.

I’ve already noted how the head Progressive, President Barack Obama, has threatened to veto this bill out of his own timidity.

Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D, FL) decried the bill during debate, saying this:

This bill is an unconscionable giveaway to Big Oil at the expense of American consumers[.]

Because lower energy costs, including lower gasoline costs, for American consumers from the increased global oil supply is such an unconscionable expense.

Castor either is hugely ignorant about basic high school economics or she’s breathtakingly hypocritical in demanding that oil supplies continue to be limited, so energy and gasoline prices can continue to be elevated, so Castor and her fellow Progressives in Congress can continue to maintain the dependency of their constituents through these Progressives’ welfare programs.

Lower energy costs means less need for welfare payouts, which mean less dependency on government, which means more freedom for an American to make his own choices. Progressives—Democrats—can’t have that.

White House Timidity

Posted on by
2

President Barack Obama says he’ll veto a bill making its way through the House of Representatives that would repeal the oil export ban in place since Gerald Ford’s administration. Obama thinks he’s acting from a position of strength in saying “No” to anything Republican.

He’s actually acting from weakness and timidity. Leaving aside the destruction of potential American jobs such a veto, if carried through, would represent, there are a couple of foreign policy/national security aspects to lifting the oil.

The free flow of oil to Europe that lifting the ban would facilitate would go a long way toward weaning Europe in general and Ukraine, Poland, and Germany in particular from their current dependence on Russian oil exports.

Freely flowing oil will hold down the cost of energy and of materials industries: plastics are made from oil. Those lower costs strength the economies of all of the nations that use energy in their industries or that import other nations’ production—which is to say the economies of nearly every nation on the planer.

Both Russia and Iran need oil prices above $100/barrel in order to balance their national budgets and so to better fund their attacks on their neighbors, in Russia’s case, and to fund their terrorist clients and attacks on Israel, in Iran’s case. Freely flowing oil would keep oil prices in their current $50-ish range, if not push those prices lower.

But neither Putin nor Khamenei would like that.

Clinton and TPP

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has decided she doesn’t like the TransPacific Partnership free trade pact just agreed and now before the Senate for acceptance or rejection.

As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it[.]

Just what is it she thinks she’s learned about it that the rest of us aren’t allowed to know—since the text of the agreement hasn’t been published, yet? Or is she just another Know Better Democrat?

Oh, wait….