Bank Experts Need Risk Management Advice from Government Bureaucrats

Federal Reserve System Governor Lael Brainard actually said that with a straight face [Wall Street Journal‘s paraphrase]:

…financial regulators should direct the nation’s biggest banks to take new steps to manage climate-related risks as part of a broader effort to monitor potential hazards posed to the financial system.

She said this (quoted by WSJ) at last week’s conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston:

Ultimately, I anticipate it will be helpful to provide supervisory guidance for large banking institutions in their efforts to appropriately measure, monitor, and manage material climate-related risks.

Yeah. Because finance businessmen, bankers, whose businesses live or die on their abilities, are incapable of understanding the financial risks to their businesses without the…guidance…of government bureaucrat/regulators.

PRC Pyramids

The Egyptians invested in pyramids, but those were concrete, physical edifices that satisfied then-national needs.

The People’s Republic of China and its builders invested in a different sort of pyramid, and those ephemeralities are fading into the mists at great cost to the suckers investors.

First, it was the PRC’s Evergrande, with its serial defaulting on its debt obligations. Now it’s the PRC’s Fantasia, reneging on $US206 million worth of its own bonds. It seems likely that others of the PRC’s builders will follow, unless the PRC government men decide to interfere and require different outcomes, regardless of economic and fiscal reality.

I mentioned pyramids. These builders finance their future operations in very large part by selling apartments before they’re even built. That puts their borrowings at risk, unless they can come up with more money—which they do in large party by selling yet more unbuilt apartments.

Bernie Madoff, if not exactly a piker in comparison, certainly didn’t accomplish this much.

Domestic Terrorists

They aren’t the parents who object, however vociferously, to the misbehaviors of school boards, even though the National School Boards Association and Biden-Harris’ Attorney General Merrick Garland overtly claim so.

On the contrary.

If Garland—and through him, President Joe Biden (D) and Kamala Harris (D) of the Biden-Harris administration—think mothers and fathers vociferously protesting the misbehaviors of school boards are domestic terrorists, then he needs, also, to investigate those school boards’ acts of terrorism.

The school boards’ terrorism of actively abusing children by demanding they wear masks all through the hours of school, which various pediatricians and child development experts have shown stunts those children’s development by strongly inhibiting their socialization and delays their ability to learn the nominal subjects of their lessons.

The school boards’ terrorism of forcing those children to hate themselves and each other over the color of their skin.

The school boards’ terrorism of actively abusing children by demanding they be injected with experimental and unapproved for routine use vaccines.

But, no, nor Garland nor Biden nor Harris have any interest in protecting the rights—or the obligations—of parents or of protecting those children.

Those Progressive-Democrats are interested only in extending their political power and stifling those with the impudence to demur from their abuses.

More Biden, et al., Disingenuousity

On the matter of raising our nation’s debt ceiling, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) and the Republican caucus in the Senate have been crystalline for months: Progressive-Democrats in both the House and the Senate have the votes to raise the debt ceiling by themselves, and they have the responsibility to do that, given their decision to pass spending bills with no Republican input, without even talking to Republicans in any serious fashion to seek their input on spending.

Now comes President Joe Biden (D).

He called on Republicans to “get out of the way” and let Democrats quickly raise the debt limit. Asked whether he could guarantee that the US would be able to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline, he put the onus on Republicans: “No, I can’t. That’s up to Mitch McConnell.”

Of course, it’s impossible for the Republicans, being the minority party in both houses of Congress, to be in the way in any shape or form. They can’t stop the Progressive-Democrats from raising the debt ceiling; they don’t have the votes.

All that’s required is for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and his Progressive-Democrat caucus, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) with her Progressive-Democrat majority, to move the raise along through reconciliation—either as a stand-alone bill or by each house passing the extant reconciliation bill, then adding the debt ceiling raise during Conference Committee discussions. Bills coming out of Conference are passable via simple majority votes—no Senate filibusters on Conference-agreed bills.

The latter move, in particular, would let Schumer put Senators Joe Manchin (D, WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) on the spot, forcing them to choose between reneging on their pious promises to not vote for a $3.5 trillion bill they say is too much to spend all at once and whose breadth of content they say is too broad in order to vote for a debt ceiling raise, or sticking to their promises and thereby vote down the debt ceiling raise.

Nor would that jeopardize a subsequent clean debt ceiling raise bill, should Manchin and Sinema prove themselves good for their promises: the Senate’s Parliamentarian has already said that the Senate’s two reconciliation bills per session limit would not be applicable. A third bill, dedicated to passing a debt ceiling raise, could be done functionally as reconciliation by “modifying” the second reconciliation bill.

Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi know all of this full well. They’re just trying to duck their personal and Party responsibilities.

Essential Services

A Florida bill is starting to make inroads on defining what services are essential in an emergency.

State Senator Jason Brodeur (R, Sanford) filed Senate Bill 254 on September 17. It stipulates that “emergency orders may not expressly prohibit religious institutions from regular religious services or activities.”
On Thursday, state Representative Nick DiCeglie (R, Indian Rocks Beach) filed a House companion, House Bill 215, which reiterates that an emergency lockdown or shutdown order must apply equally across businesses and religious institutions.

The bill, a shockingly concise one-pager, says

An emergency order…may not expressly prohibit a religious institution from conducting regular religious services or activities. However, a general provision in an emergency order which applies uniformly to all entities in the affected jurisdiction may be applied to a religious institution if the provision is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

I’ll go them one further. Keeping our economy open and running is an essential service. Unless bombs are falling, there is no emergency that justifies shutting down, damaging our economy, destroying businesses, destroying livelihoods, even lives.

On the contrary, an open and operating economy is the best means of dealing with the emergency because that keeps operational the ability to generate the weal and mechanisms necessary to bring the emergency quickly and efficiently to a favorable conclusion.

 

The bill can be read here (the bill actually spills onto a second page by one line).