Tag Archives: political economy

What Happens When

Posted on by
Reply

This is an example of what happens when President Joe Biden (D) presses his assault on our nation’s energy production industry, presses his enthusiastic destruction of our energy independence, and does his kowtowing to Russia (and to OPEC) regarding that nation’s and that cartel’s oil and natural gas production and sale.

He’s reduced the United States of America to begging other nations for energy, and those nations along with Russia are now showing their contempt for Biden’s obsequiousness.

The headline summarizes the matter.

As Oil Nears $100, Saudis Snub US, Stick to Russian Pact Amid Ukraine Crisis

And this:

Rising oil prices and fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine have created a dilemma for Saudi Arabia: help the West by pumping more crude to tame the market, or stand by a five-year-old oil alliance that is helping Moscow at the expense of Washington.
For now, the world’s largest crude exporter is sticking with Russia.

And this:

President Biden has repeatedly called on Persian Gulf producers to pump more oil to reduce gasoline prices that, for Americans, are about twice as high as they were earlier in the pandemic. Those calls have grown more urgent as oil prices have risen toward $100 a barrel….
Instead, the Saudis have said they won’t pump more than they agreed to last year as part of a deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and Russia[.]

It doesn’t matter a whit to Biden that this problem wouldn’t exist if he got his Biden-Harris administration out of the way of our domestic oil and natural gas production so we could go back to being independent of our enemies and acquaintances for our energy, our economic life.

It doesn’t matter a whit to Biden that European nations’ dependence on Russia for their energy wouldn’t exist if he got his Biden-Harris administration out of the way of our domestic oil and natural gas production so we could go back to supplying Europe with oil and natural gas.

Monarchism Returns to Canada

Posted on by
Reply

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked his nation’s Emergencies Act because Canada’s national security is at risk from the truckers’ peaceful protests against his government’s…over-exercise of Federal power.

The blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. We cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue.

As is typical of modern-day liberals, who resemble 18th century monarchists more than they do actual liberalism, Trudeau is shifting blame for the crisis in Canada, while also mischaracterizing the actual crisis.

What’s actually harming Canada’s economy are the vaccinate-or-be-fired mandates that prevent, for instance, Canada’s shipping industry from shipping.

The actual crisis is Trudeau’s monarchical invocation/misuse of the Emergencies Act to directly assault Canadians’ individual liberties, demanding, in the present instance, vaccinations in complete disregard of those personal liberties. Trudeau’s invocation is aimed at Canadians’ right to protest their government’s misbehaviors and is nothing more than a personal power grab in response to his ego being bruised by those peasants not listening to him.

Maybe the truckers need to go truly nationwide and without any sort of blockade, even by Trudeau’s fevered standard, simply refuse to ship anything at all, at least to Federal government facilities.

No More Private Ventures

Posted on by
Reply

Our Progressive-Democrat-controlled government is continuing its actions to limit our private economy, this time moving explicitly against private enterprises.

In a meeting that starts at 10 am ET [last Wednesday], the Securities and Exchange Commission plans to vote on a proposal that would force hedge funds and private-equity funds to provide basic disclosures to their investors and guard against conflicts.

Because “private” can’t be allowed; Know Better Government must control what private companies do.

Because Know Better Progressive-Democrats must “protect” us grindingly stupid average Americans from our own foolishness or stupidity. Never mind that no one forces us to invest in hedge funds or private-equity funds, with or without knowing the financial details of those funds.

Such decisions used to be our responsibility. But now Progressive-Democrats insist on arrogating our responsibilities to themselves.

A USPS “Upgrade”

Posted on by
Reply

The USPS is being pressured by President Joe Biden (D) and his EPA to go greenie-er in its vehicle upgrade. So,

The proposed action, which we are evaluating under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), includes an initial order plan for 5,000 electric vehicles, and the flexibility to increase the number of electric vehicles introduced should additional funding become available.

The US Postal Service wants to convert 10% of its 230,000 vehicle fleet to battery-operated “in the coming years,” but says going all electric would cost an additional $3.3 billion beyond its normal budget of $6.3 billion.

What jumped out at me, though, was this comparison between the replacement vehicles for which the USPS has contracted and its present fleet:

In response to a report that the NGDV [Next Generation Delivery Vehicle] only achieves a fuel efficiency of 8.6 mpg in typical use, compared to the Grumman’s 8.2 mpg, the USPS pointed out that the comparison was flawed because it was conducted with the NGDV using its air conditioning system, which the LLV [Long Live Vehicle] does not have. With it turned off, the NGDV achieves 14.7 mpg, according to the USPS.

A 70% increase in mileage with the a/c turned off? That seems to me a poorly designed air conditioning system, even with the windows open for mail delivery every few feet. That just means the compressor is running all the time; it shouldn’t be imposing that big a load on the engine. And: what’s that bump going to do to the battery in the electric NGDV, both its miles between charges and its charge-discharge lifetime?

The Fed and Social Engineering

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) wants our Federal Reserve System to engage in economic social engineering, so he’s nominating as the Fed’s banking supervisor the climate activist Sarah Bloom Raskin. Among her lately remarks concerning credit allocation and climate change was her last-spring op-ed in The New York Times. She led off that piece with this:

Climate change poses the next big threat. Ignoring it, particularly to the benefit of fossil fuel interests, is a risk we can’t afford.

She had this, too, in the same piece:

The Fed is singularly poised to seed strategic investments in future economic stability.

And this:

The decision to bring oil and gas into the Fed’s investment portfolio not only misdirects limited recovery resources but also sends a false price signal to investors about where capital needs to be allocated[.]

Raskin had this in her September 2020 Project Syndicate op-ed, reprinted by Duke Law:

US regulators need to be encouraged to think more imaginatively about how they can engage with local transition efforts. For example, how might financial policies from diverse agencies be stitched together to produce outcomes that enable firms to hit their net-zero targets? How can financial policy be used to help accelerate a transition that redeploys workers for new jobs, or to assist households that are being asked to change their spending habits? And how can regulatory changes relating to disclosure, access to credit, and pricing of risk support a rapid and just green transition?
…
In short…[f]inancial regulators must reimagine their own role so that they can play their part in the broader reimagining of the economy.

That’s not the Federal Reserve’s role, though. The Fed’s statutorily required goals are to maximize employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. There’s nothing in there about climate change, or “guiding” lending to this or that government-favored group of Americans and away from that or this government-disfavored group of Americans, or any other sort of social engineering.

One more thing. Aside from Raskin’s own altered-state understanding of the Fed, a larger problem regards the present administration’s overall attitude. That Biden-Harris actually nominated Raskin says volumes about his own view of law and his own willingness to disregard it in order to increase his administration’s power.