Tag Archives: political economy

Rewarding Thuggery

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the rioting, looting, and graffiti-spraying—on l’Arc de Triomphe, yet—in France over the Macron government’s decision to raise fuel taxes and utility rates.  Now the government has abjectly surrendered to the rioters: it will not implement the new tax and utility rates at all (Deutsche Welle has reported that the tax is suspended for six months rather than canceled altogether).

The tax and rate hike were bad moves on principle: it’s nearly always wrong to raise taxes before cutting spending or to raise utility rates for reasons other than to cover expenses and preserve a measure of profit, but these were especially foolish: they were intended to fund the nation’s even more expensive—to the citizenry, and especially the nation’s poor and unemployed—move to a purely “green” economy.  This, though, was the wrong time to correct the error, and it’s the wrong reason to do so.

This was done, not in response to the will of the people demurring, it was in immediate, meek obedience to thugs.

And far from putting an end to the troubles, it has had the opposite—and obvious to objective outside observers—response from the thugs.

France’s Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe:

No tax is worth putting the nation’s unity in danger[.]  …  The violence must end[.]

I plead with you.

The response for his reward:

But the announcement is unlikely to put an end to the road blockades and demonstrations, with more protests possible in Paris this weekend.
…
“It’s a first step, but we will not settle for a crumb,” said Benjamin Cauchy, a protest leader.

And

Segolene Royal, a former candidate for president, lauded Philippe’s decision but said the course correction on the climate change tax came too late.

And

Marine Le Pen lashed out at the decision as too little, tweeting it was “obviously not up to the expectations of the French people struggling with precarity.” … “A moratorium on taxes is being considered. But a moratorium is only a postponement.”

President Emmanuel Macron:

I will never accept violence.  No cause justifies that authorities are attacked, that businesses are plundered, that passers-by or journalists are threatened or that the Arc de Triomphe is defiled.

Tough talk for someone who has just surrendered to the thugs.  No, Macron’s government isn’t finished paying up.

Another Free Trade Deal

Posted on by
Reply

As Ashley Tellis, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pointed out, a free trade deal with “Taiwan” would be a Good Thing.  Indeed, that would be a good start, but it really would be better to sign a free trade deal with the Republic of China rather than with an island.

He also pointed out that such a trade deal would go a long way toward easing, if not stopping, the People’s Republic of China’s effort to diplomatically isolate the RoC.

Accordingly, a free-trade agreement would demonstrate American solidarity with Taiwan is just a bit ironic given the thrust of Tellis’ piece.

Second Thoughts?

Posted on by
Reply

The New York City city council has decided to hold a series of hearings on the just concluded Amazon HQ2 deal cut with the city.  The council’s beef is the secretive nature of the negotiations between amazon.com and the folks purporting to represent the city.

Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, Economic Development Corp President James Patchett, and Amazon executives have been invited to the hearings, which will take place during the next few months, City Council Speaker Corey Johnson’s office said Thursday.

There’s nothing wrong with the negotiations themselves being done behind closed doors; that’s the only place “frank and open” discussions can occur.

However.

Now that the negotiations are concluded, and before the city council has to vote on accepting or rejecting the deal—especially over what the negotiated deal wants to commit the city to—it’s time for the city council and its members’ constituents to hear the full details of the arrangement.

The council’s hearings should be open to the public and moved to a larger venue if needs be.  If the constituents don’t like what they hear, the deal should be voted down.  Or maybe the deal should be put to a referendum.

If amazon.com walks away from that, that would demonstrate the uselessness of the deal to the city’s residents.

Desperation

Posted on by
Reply

With his legacy mostly erased, and more of it on the way after the current temporary interruption—an outcome ex-President Barack Obama (D) will thank us for in the fullness of time and his clearer understanding—Obama is desperate to preserve such of it as he can with his revisionist history.

Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday took credit for the boom in US oil and gas production, saying, “That was me, people.”

Of course, it was.  His sequestration of Federal lands and offshore fields from oil and gas exploration with his slow-walking of the necessary permits were instrumental in triggering the boom.

You wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. That whole—suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas….

Never mind that those year-on-year increases—small as they were—were driven by exploration and exploitation of those fields on private and other non-Federal lands.  The increases didn’t get serious until Obama and his administration were out of the way, but we’ll not mention that.

Another bit of history that the revisionist Obama carefully elided was provided by ex-Shell Oil Company President John Hofmeister:

…he tried to remake the power generation industry without involving Congress, and the Paris accords—again without involving Congress.

That remake was his threat—which he tried most enthusiastically to carry out—to eliminate our carbon-based (mostly coal, but oil and gas, also) electricity production industry, along with the wholesale destruction to our overall economy that acting on his Paris Accord would have wreaked.

The extent of Obama’s desperation is sad.

Paying for Groceries

Posted on by
Reply

A farm bill is wending its way through Congress, finally, as the House and Senate have agreed to a common version.  What’s in this version?  Good question.

Lawmakers for months have been deeply divided over the farm bill, which funds crop insurance and farm subsidies, as well as programs to help low-income people pay for groceries.

But these…lawmakers…won’t talk publicly about the details of their compromise.

There are a couple of things here, though, that are clear despite the lack of transparency.  One is the inconsistency of having farm price supports—farm subsidies—along with funding programs to help the poor pay for that artificially costly food.  The other is the premise that Government belongs in the insurance business.  One would have thought Obamacare would have driven home the utter foolishness of that, even as it concerns such long-standing involvements like crop insurance.  Silly me.

No.  It’s long past high time for price supports to be eliminated and to let competition drive food prices to their naturally lower levels.  It’s also long past high time to get Government out of the crop insurance business (all insurance business, come to that), and let free market-competing private enterprises sell the relevant policies—and relieve tax payers of the burden.

As for the poor who still wouldn’t be able to afford those free market lower prices, the Senate-passed version that went to House-Senate committee (and about which outcome we’re told nothing) had no work requirement as a criterion for eligibility for welfare support/food stamps: the Progressive-Democrats won’t hear of any requirement to take steps to earn one’s way off welfare.  That work requirement needs to be a part of the bill that goes to the President for signing; those folks should have the opportunity to escape the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.