Tag Archives: political economy

Allies

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, the main governing body of the European Union, says

Dear America, appreciate your allies, you don’t have that many[.]

That’s true enough; we certainly don’t have that many who aren’t demanding to freeload off American blood and treasure for their defense while being unwilling to contribute much of their own to their defense.

Tusk tweeted soon after,

US doesn’t have and won’t have a better ally than EU. We spend on defense much more than Russia and as much as China.

What Tusk carefully, cynically, elided is the fact that most of the NATO nations won’t honor their own commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on their own defense—including in particular, Germany, whose “commitment” to increase their spending all the way up to 1.7% won’t be complete for two more years.  He also carefully equated the EU’s spending with the NATO nations’ spending.  Of course, any European schoolboy knows the EU is not a member of NATO, for all that many of its constituent nations are.  It’s also clear that the EU really isn’t that much of an ally on matters of defense.

On the other hand, Tusk’s native Poland feels differently.  That nation wants the US to permanently station an armored division in Poland—and they’re willing to commit €1.3 billion to €1.7 billion ($1.5 billion to $2 billion) of their own money to support the stationing.  (Aside: we have 30,000 troops stationed in Germany; that would be a very good source of armor.)

Some complain that this would violate the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which bars stationing nuclear weapons permanently in NATO’s eastern border nations along with Russia’s commitment not to station nuclear weapons near its western border.  However, those folks ignore the fact that Russia already has functionally abrogated the spirit of that treaty by stationing troops in occupied Crimea and occupied eastern Ukraine and in occupied parts of Georgia, and literally by beefing up its nuclear establishment in Kaliningrad and moving tactical nuclear missile units close to its own western border explicitly for targeting central and western Europe.

There are, though, now an additional five NATO nations (beyond the US, Great Britain, and Greece) who’ve raised their defense spending above their 2% commitment: Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania.  Notice that: not long-free, complacent central and western European NATO nations, but those only recently freed from the Soviet Union yoke.

Maybe, instead of wasting time jawboning with nations that don’t care all that much about their own security, we should form a new mutual defense alliance centered on those eastern European nations, who still appreciate the blessings of freedom.  And freeloaders like Tusk can be left free to see to their own devices without further American hektoring.

Free Food Stamps

Posted on by
Reply

The House passed a farm welfare bill that includes a requirement for food stamp recipients to work for their welfare payouts last month, and the Senate passed its version—carefully without that requirement for actual work. Or perhaps just timidly passed, since Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R, KS) was intimidated by Progressive-Democrat Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) and couldn’t find the backbone to oppose her.

Now the two bills go to conference for resolution, and the outcome doesn’t look promising for work.

In today’s tight employment environment, that work would be easy to find, too, and in light of that, The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board made the comment

What’s bewildering is that Democrats seem willing to write off so much human potential as permanent wards of the state.

There’s nothing at all mysterious about that, though. The only potential that Progressive-Democrats see in these unfortunates is their votes, not their human potential. Indeed, that’s the Progressive-Democrat work-for-welfare program: vote for us Prog-Dems, or we won’t pay you any money.

President Donald Trump should support the House and inject some backbone into Senate Republicans, including especially Roberts, and announce he’ll veto any farm welfare/food stamp bill that doesn’t include the House’s work-for-stamps requirement.

In a Contest of Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

In a piece purporting to show Where the Trade Battle Hurts the Most, Julie Wernau and Ira Iosebashvili had this comment:

Renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement are being closely watched in Canada, too. The Trump administration has used threats of auto tariffs to win concessions from Canada and Mexico, a strategy that hasn’t sat well with the two countries.

President Donald Trump also offered them, and the rest of the G-7, a regime of no tariffs at all. Their refusal even to discuss the offer doesn’t sit well with those of us outside the NLMSM.

A Thought on Auto Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board is worried about auto tariffs.  They do make a fair case concerning the national security aspect of our automobile industry (while eliding the fact that industry includes many more car companies than just GM, Ford, and Chrysler—and that none of them manufacture cars in the US, while all of them assemble cars in the US from imported parts).

They weaken, fatally IMNSHO, their argument, though, when they present only one aspect of the case for/against auto tariffs or the threat of significant increases in already extant auto tariffs.  In particular, the Editorial Board has carefully elided the fact that the Trump administration and German auto manufacturers have agreed in principle to a no-auto-tariff-at-all regime.

Now it’s on the German government and Brussels to agree.  It’s likely, although not certain, that plans to impose a 20% tariff on auto imports from the EU had an impact in moving the German companies toward eliminating tariffs altogether.

A no-auto-tariff regime also would render the security beef moot, but some folks on the Left don’t want that.

Business Models Don’t Create Business Rights

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a lot about which to criticize California, but in one case, early though it is, the State appears to be on the right track.  California passed a consumer privacy law, and businesses everywhere are in an uproar over it.  The bill

requires [businesses] to offer consumers options to opt out of sharing personal information, and it gives Californians the right to prohibit the sale of their personal data.

Business’ objections center on their premise that it

risked far-reaching damage to everything from retailers’ customer-loyalty programs to data gathering by Silicon Valley tech giants.

This is that business model granting rights to business foolishness.  The claimed damage to customer-loyalty programs is especially rich.  If the business earned customers’ loyalty with actual quality goods and services and actual customer service in response to the inevitable problems that arise, the need for loyalty programs would be lessened.  The still-useful loyalty programs would be easier to sell from that demonstrated quality performance.  Beyond that, businesses could make the perks of joining the program more visible, more actually usable—and do better at tailoring them to individual, or small groups of, customers.  Of course, that last would require collecting customer data, but they might be pleasantly surprised by the outcome of a customer-customizable set of personal data to give access to—and by saying “pretty please” instead of demanding broad-ranging data as a condition of doing business.

The tech companies are being disingenuous, too.  They have yet to demonstrate a need for the wide-ranging data they take without permission; they just say “we need it” without discriminating their claimed need from their obvious “we want.”  And they demand it as a condition of doing business, again refusing the simple courtesy of “pretty please” and the tailoring of the data they want as well as legitimately need.

David French, National Retail Federation Senior Vice President of Government Relations worried, with a straight face, about customers and personalized marketing campaigns.

The consumer will actually be the big loser.

Not this customer.  I object to personalized marketing campaigns aimed at me.  These folks don’t know what I’m in the market for; my past buys are no indication of my current or future needs.  Nor do I want my browsing circumscribed by what offers of what I bought yesterday.  I want the full range of what’s available.  I especially don’t need my time wasted with efforts to create a need or a want where none exists.  I won’t be losing anything by not being inundated with personalized “advertising.”

It’s early, but the law looks like a good start.