Tag Archives: political economy

Biden Says

Posted on by
2

President Joe Biden (D) sees no problem with his spending proposals. Could he actually be right? Here’s a thought on that.

Biden said runaway government spending isn’t inflationary (although he doesn’t recognize the runaway nature of his spending).

Biden missed the opportunity to claim that runaway government (re)regulation also is a net good (although he wouldn’t characterize his reregulation as runaway).

But the two work in concert to control inflation.

Government spending crowds out the private economy’s spending. Government regulation makes the means of production a government concern.

One buyer—Government—and one supplier—Government—means only one price—Government’s. One price means no inflation.

It’s simple, really.

Failing Money Market Funds and Dysfunctional Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Money market funds had trouble during the Panic of 2008, and Federal regulators felt like they had to justify their jobs by Doing Something. So by 2014, they developed and adopted a rule that, in essence allowed money market funds to tell their investors that they couldn’t have their money back under certain fund- and SEC-determined conditions. For the investors’ own good.

Fast forward to the then-active Wuhan Virus situation in early spring 2020, and money market funds found themselves in trouble again. Enter the Gotta Do Something regulators again. This time the international consortium that is the Financial Stability Board (created in the panicky aftermath of that Panic and to which then-President Barack Obama (D) surrendered much of our financial regulatory sovereignty) is contemplating

proposals would discount the value of shares in money funds when lots of investors all want to cash them in simultaneously.

Telling investors they can’t have all of their money back when they need it most. For their own good because the money market fund “needs” their money more, and the money market fund’s “needs” are more important.

Think about that.

Think, next, about a couple of alternatives. One would be to require money market funds to hold a measure of cash capital in reserve and separate from investors’ money. But that’s those regulators, again.

Another would be to let the money market fund that finds itself in trouble go ahead and fail. Let several of them fail. Certainly, that will be painful in the moment, and for more than those funds and unlucky or bad judgment investors. But it also would be the only time, as the industry would be forced by free market imperatives to clean itself up. That would result in far less pain in the medium- to long-term.

On the Verge

Posted on by
Reply

…not only regarding the vast damage that will be done to our economy by President Joe Biden (D) and his deliberately anti-bipartisan Progressive-Democrat cronies with their soon to be unilaterally inflicted spend- and tax-o-rama bills.

Biden’s Progressive-Democrat Treasury Secretary is about to surrender American national sovereignty to an international consortium in the form of putting our Congress’ Constitutionally mandated taxing authority under the control of an international taxing agreement.

The Wall Street Journal worries about Congress’ careful silence on the matter and the paper’s editors are right.

The only saving grace, such as it is, to Yellen’s behavior and Congress’ complicit silence is that Yellen and her cronies will be able to enter into such disastrous tax agreement only via a Biden-executed Executive Agreement, and that sort of thing can be undone with a pen by the next President. The Yellen Tax Abrogation will not become a treaty so long as there are 34 Senators who care about American national sovereignty.

The destruction wreaked in the interim, though, will be broad and deep.

Biden’s Duplicity Confirmed

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Joe Biden (D) proudly announced that he’d reached an agreement on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Then, a short couple of hours later, he belligerently announced that he’d not sign that agreed bill unless it were accompanied by a reconciliation bill that contained all the rest of his Progressive-Democratic Party’s wants and demands, regardless of whether those had anything to do with infrastructure. Then, two days later, he called king’s x and said he really didn’t mean what he’d said in that two hours later announcement.

Leave aside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) parallel announcements that the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill would never see the light of day in her House until the Senate first passed that reconciliation bill and sent it over to the Pelosi House.

Now we have confirmation of Biden’s duplicity.

In a late-night announcement Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Budget Committee had reached an agreement to allot $3.5 trillion for a spending package that would complete President Biden’s infrastructure plan.
“The Budget Committee has come to an agreement,” Schumer told reporters following a closed-door meeting with Democratic lawmakers.
“You add that to that the $600 billion in a bipartisan plan and you get to $4.1 trillion, which is very, very close to what President Biden has asked us for,” Schumer said. “Every major program that President Biden has asked us for is funded in a robust way.”

This is bipartisanship Progressive-Democratic style. Do it their way. Full stop. Notice the implementation of Progressive-Democrat bipartisanship: Schumer told reporters following a closed-door meeting with Democratic lawmakers. No Republicans present.

The Senators who self-identify as Republicans will demonstrate their level of fitness for their Senate office by whether they vote for that “bipartisan” infrastructure bill after all this. If they do, they will show that they need to be replaced in the Senate.

More Federal Intrusion

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D, NY) and Senators Ron Wyden (D, OR) and Cory Booker (D, NJ) will soon unveil their plot to legalize marijuana at the Federal level. Among other steps in the initial stages of their plot is this:

establish dedicated funding streams for women- and minority-owned marijuana businesses.

Leave aside the destructive nature of marijuana. There are two other aspects of this particular step that are especially destructive. One is the sexist and racist nature of their “funding streams,” explicitly and deliberately favoring particular groups of government-approved Americans while simultaneously, and necessarily, excluding other groups of Americans, those of whom government disapproves. The contempt these Progressive-Democrats have for average Americans is obvious in the Senators’ decision to include this rank discrimination in the face of repeated court strike-downs of Progressive-Democrat moves to provide farm debt relief to favored races while deliberately excluding disfavored races.

The other utterly destructive aspect of this marijuana plot is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of those funding streams. With those Federal dollars will come Federal demands to control the recipients.  This is the Progressive-Democrats’ push for control.