Tag Archives: political economy

Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

Some statistics indicate a strong and growing jobs situation in our economy. Other statistics…not so much.

A couple of the latter, for instance.

The labor force participation rate has dropped for the second month in a row in the face of burgeoning inflation and wage growth that isn’t keeping up, so that real wages—what your money actually can buy in the grocery store and gas station and for your home in the form of electricity—are shrinking drastically.

According to BLS—the Bureau of Labor Statistics—the labor force participation rate, the per cent of Americans able to work and who actually are working or looking for work, stood at 62.1% in July. That’s down from June’s 62.2%, which itself was down from May’s 62.3%, and all of which are down from the nearby peak of March’s 62.4%. Folks seem to be giving up on finding work that will pay them enough to keep up with the Biden administration’s inflation, which stood at 9.1% year-on-year in June, up from May’s 8.6%.

The other statistic is this one [scroll to MULTIPLE JOBHOLDERS, near the bottom of the table, and keep in mind that the data presented are in the thousands], which seems reflective of the actual state of our economy and stands in opposition to the…optimistic…talk coming out of the White House. Of those folks participating in the labor force,

part-time jobs and multiple jobholders increased by 384,000 and 92,000, respectively….

This is the cost of President Joe Biden’s (D) war on our oil-, natural gas-, and coal-energy industry, given that energy is at the core of everything we do, and that oil and natural gas also are key to our materials industries, from fertilizer (see food price inflation) to automobile, including battery car, production to clothing, and on and on. This also is the cost of Biden’s explosion of regulation, which drives up the cost of simply operating a business to produce any of that stuff, and his insistence that the key to driving down inflation is to throw money at it (see his current $739 billion Build Reduced Back bill debated and passed in the Senate over the weekend).

On Governor Newsom’s Plan to Produce Insulin

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding that idea, a letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday Letters section offered this after suggesting that Newsom’s effort would have the salutary outcome of demonstrating the foolishness of such a move:

Targeted subsidies for at-risk populations cost a fraction of the investment needed to bring “affordable” medications to the people….

That’s true enough, could Government actually do that and, further, keep it limited to the truly at-risk. However, actual competition in the market is free, and that brings down costs for everyone. Additionally, that competition allows far better and more accurate identification of those remaining few at-risk who still can’t afford their meds and would be legitimate targets of largesse. That also would facilitate more effective use of sources of largesse, beginning in order with family and friends first, followed by church and local charity, local community, county, then state governments, with the Feds last on the list, rather than the default source.

Sue, Settle, and Biden’s Demand for Producers to Produce

Posted on by
Reply

There was a time when a million acres of land were available in California for oil and gas leasing and hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Then California’s Attorney General, Governor, and “other state agencies” sued, claiming that the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact analysis was inadequate. BLM then settled. Under the terms of BLM’s sue-and-settle agreement,

until the Bureau conducts a supplemental environmental review of the project, new oil and gas leases will not be granted in central California….

Three guesses when that review will be begun, and you get a pass on the first two.

This is the duplicity with which President Joe Biden (D) inveighs against oil and natural gas producers for not producing more.

The Manchin Tax Increase

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) continues to…misunderstand…the situation that would be created by his agreement to the Manchin-Schumer Build Back Reduced bill.

People should be paying their fair share, especially the largest corporations in America that have a billion dollars of value or greater.

Manchin—along with his Progressive-Democratic Party cronies—continue to not say what anyone’s “fair share” is. That forces us to conclude that their view of “fair share” is “more.”

And

Can’t they pay at least 15%, so that we can move forward and be the leader of the world and the superpower that we are?

Umm, we became the leader of the world some while ago, well before this 15% minimum tax was dreamed up. It wasn’t necessary then, and it’s destructive to our economy now.

To Repeat

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the problems volatile energy prices cause for central banks, there’s this allegation:

The pass-through of higher energy prices to other goods and services, along with their volatility, could make it harder for the Federal Reserve to tell what price shocks are temporary and thus set interest rates appropriately.

Wrong answer.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Instead of trying to play the market, or even to time it, the Fed needs to set its benchmark interest rates at levels historically consistent with the 2% inflation rate that it’s historically used for its target inflation rate, and then sit down and shut up.

Full stop.