Tag Archives: political economy

This Pretty Much Says It All

Posted on by
Reply

At a Pennsylvania State House Consumer Affairs Committee hearing, solar industry representatives decried the level of State interest in solar energy production relative to more traditional sources of energy production.

[T]he potential for the industry to flourish still exists, said the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), if only the state revamped some of its policies to incentivize more investment.

And this from SEIA’s Mid-Atlantic Senior Manager of State Affairs, Scott Elias:

Some states have more aggressive goals. Even 2.5% by 2030 would increase the demand in Pennsylvania.

If only the state revamped some of its policies to incentivize. That attitude clearly illustrates solar energy’s dependence on Government for its growth.

When solar energy becomes an actually viable source of energy, the industry won’t need government “incentives;” the free market will drive interest and facilitate industry growth.

Debt Ceilings and Spend-Thriftiness

Posted on by
Reply

One hundred and three House Republicans have signed a letter committing themselves to never vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances. Forty-six Senate Republicans have signed a substantially similar letter.  (Aside: the nine Republican Representatives and four Republican Senators should be asked why they’re not signing on.) The signatories

will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, whether that increase comes through a stand-alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle.

Of course, Congressional Progressive-Democrats are in a snit over that. Their beef centers, amorally, on “You guys are spendthrifts, too!”

They say most of the spending that will cause a breach of the debt limit later this year was passed on a bipartisan basis before President Biden assumed office.
They also note that Republicans significantly increased the deficit when they were in power during the first two years of former President Donald Trump’s term….

True enough. Both parties are guilty of spending American taxpayers’ money like it’s all Modern Monetary Theory’s bottomless bank of monopoly dollars. That, however, is no excuse for continuing the fiscal—and national economic security—folly.

Progressive-Democrats are in control now, with a majority in the House and control of both the Senate and the White House.

Progressive-Democrats have, today and in the coming months, the political capacity to show that they’re not just a bunch of woke virtue signalers and to live the virtue they claim. Today and in the coming months, the Progressive-Democrats can adjust their spending ways to limit themselves to the existing debt ceiling.

Inflation

Posted on by
Reply

The headline screams Fed’s inflation measure soars by most in 30 years. The lede then cries out

The Core Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation measure, accelerated last month by the most on an annual basis in 30 years.

And

Core PCE, which excludes food and energy, rose 3.6% year over year in July, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the most since 1991.

2020 is an aberrational year, though, with its economic dislocation caused by government fiat rather than by economic forces. All comparisons with 2020 should come with an asterisk.

A better comparison is with 2019, the last year prior to the government’s interference. Core CPE rose only around 2.4% per year compared to those two years ago, according to my third-grade arithmetic and data from FRED (with the graph adjusted to start 2019-01-01), roughly in line with the Fed’s target of 2%.

That’s a rate worth watching, but it’s nothing to get excited over. It’s also the case that, within the current year, month-over-month inflation may be decreasing. It’s too early for this to be taken as a serious trend, but it also bears watching.

Escalating

Posted on by
Reply

First (well, almost first, but the early large), President Joe Biden (D) surrendered in Afghanistan, and he did it so abjectly that he abandoned Americans (he was correct when he said through his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, that he wasn’t merely “stranding” them), allies’ citizens, and Afghan partners in his desperation to meet the terrorist Taliban’s deadline.

Then Baby Kim has resumed northern Korea’s weapons grade plutonium-producing nuclear reactor—and not even troubling to conceal that effort.

Now this.

In a move that could have ramifications for the free passage of both military and commercial vessels in the South China Sea, [People’s Republic of China] authorities said on Sunday they will require a range of vessels “to report their information” when passing through what China sees as its “territorial waters,” starting from September 1.

And

[The PRC] claims under a so-called “nine dash line” on its maps most of the South China Sea’s waters, which are disputed by several other countries, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

And by Japan and most of the rest of the world, including—used to be, anyway—the United States.

It’ll be instructive to see how the Biden/Harris administration responds to this demonstration of contempt for their timid fecklessness. Compare their response, then, with the prior administration’s reaction to the PRC government’s declaration of an ADIZ that encompassed significant swaths of the South and East China Seas airspaces and tried to require all air traffic to check in with the PRC. (Spoiler: that administration ignored the PRC’s demand, and so did most of the rest of the world.)

It’s shaping up to be a disastrous period of American headlong retreat under this Progressive-Democrat administration.

Government Fiat

Posted on by
Reply

This is what the Progressive-Democrats in charge of our Federal Government are plotting [sic] in the way of drug pricing under Medicare Part D (the drug provision of Medicare), per the Tax Foundation.

Under HR 3 [the Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act], if drug manufacturers do not agree to participate in negotiations, or do not agree to the negotiated price, they would be subject to an escalating excise tax on the sale of the drug in question. The tax would kick in at 65 percent and would rise by 10 percentage points each 90 days the manufacturers are in “noncompliance,” reaching a maximum tax rate of 95%.

What “negotiation?” This is the price we’re negotiating for, says the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Government official that HR3 says will represent the Government.

Here’s our counteroffer, says the drug manufacturer.

No, no, that’s too high, says SecHHS, repeating his original offer. Then he says, Here’s your noncompliance tax.

This isn’t negotiation, yet that’s what will occur, with the Government holding all the cards. Targeted drug manufacturers and sellers would not even be allowed to opt out of Medicare under HR3.

The Tax Foundation is concerned about drug innovation, and rightly so.

I’m also concerned about the fate of free enterprise and of individual freedom.