Tag Archives: political economy

Cynical Union

Posted on by
Reply

Recall President Donald Trump’s Executive Order limiting the amount of time public union employees can spend doing union business during their work day.

The American Federation of Government Employees has demurred and gone into court to seek an injunction blocking enforcement of the EO.  AFGE General Counsel David Borer insisted

We will not allow this or any other administration to trample on the Constitutional rights of federal workers[.]

This cynical claim is based on Borer’s insistence that his members’ freedom of association right is violated by the EO.

This, of course, is nonsense.

There is no constitutional violation here. No association right is violated by requiring union member employees of a government institution to do the work of the institution when they’re on institution time and the taxpayer payroll.  Union members remain free to associate with a union or with each other in a union.  They remain free to conduct union business.  There is no constitutional obligation, though, for taxpayers to pay anyone for associating or for doing non-work related tasks.

This is a case that should result in a declaratory judgment that the law—the supreme Law in this case—is on the side of the government.  Alternatively, it should be tossed on its face and Borer and such of his staff as are participating in bringing this case, as well as the AFGE, strongly sanctioned for wasting the court’s time with such a blatantly frivolous case.

Heads Up

Posted on by
Reply

As the People’s Republic of China responds to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, motivated in part by the PRC’s cyber-theft of American technology and proprietary information and the PRC’s extortion of the same and its demand for backdoors into foreign business’ (including especially American) core software as a condition of doing business in the PRC, buckle up, indeed, as the article at the link above suggests.

The PRC will do far more than this, though, as it attempts to coerce the US in the pursuit of its Warring States strategy.

Beijing retaliated against planned US tariffs on Chinese goods by targeting high-value American exports—including farm products, cars, and crude oil—bringing the world’s two biggest economies closer to an all-out trade war.

That’s just the beginning.  If we don’t abjectly surrender, the PRC will expand their conflict with open cyber-warfare against us, with rapidly expanding attacks on our government and our infrastructure with denial of service attacks against our financial structure, our distribution grids, DoD, State, OMB (again), etc.  These attacks also will include planting false data wherever they can and with simple vandalism on our key databases.

The PRC also will open the economic spigots with northern Korea and actively facilitate its final acquisition of a capability to deliver its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The PRC will object and seek to prevent the Republic of China’s businesses from altering their supply chains, which currently involve PRC companies, and they will in the end openly attack—politically, economically, even militarily—the RoC.

Tariffs may or may not be the best way to fight the PRC’s war, but this is a struggle that we must win.  Lose, and we will find ourselves badly curtailed.  Recall that trillions of non-PRC-related trade sails to us through the South China Sea, which the PRC has claimed for itself and has been steadily militarizing.

Non-NATO Defense Spending

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump often decries Europe’s NATO nations for their lack of seriousness about their defense, and he zealously insists that they honor their commitment to spend 2% of their national GDP on defense.  It’s arguable that Trump could ease off (a little bit) and acknowledge the progress he’s made in getting Europe’s NATO members to boost their spending.

But only a little bit because those nations don’t appear to be stepping up in any serious way, as these numbers from a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed demonstrate.

Overall inflation-adjusted military spending by every NATO member excluding America grew 1.8% in 2015, 3.1% in 2016, and 4.8% last year.

These are tokens, not real increases. A nation committing 1% of its GDP to defense that then increases its defense spending by these per centages will end up committing 1.11% of its GDP. There’s nothing serious about that.

Germany’s defense spending increase? The WSJ says that nation currently is spending 1.2% of its GDP on its defense, and it has plans for a 6% increase in next year’s budget.  Increasing that 1.2% by 6% would take it all the way up to 1.27%.

Be still, my heart.

What Hath Socialism Wrought

Posted on by
Reply

This image, from a Deutsche Welle article on Venezuela’s inflation rate—which last month reached 24,571% year-on-year—says it all.

The word drawn on the 100 bolivar note (and yes, it’s a real note, and it’s actually that big) translates to “hungry.”  In the context, it means more broadly, “a widespread, intense, and prolonged shortage of staple foods that a population suffers.”

Hungry indeed, too.  A bit over two pounds of meat cost about 2 million bolivars (or did once, daily inflation is running at 2.4%), or €16.9 or $20, against a surgeon’s monthly salary of not even 6 million bolivars.  Meat, not steak in particular.  That’s some expensive hamburger or shank cut.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, that works out to a bit over three ounces of meat per day, with nothing left over for anything else: vegetables, rent, transportation, etc.  And that’s for a relatively well off man like the surgeon.  What about the middle class, or especially the poort.

This is reminiscent of what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukrainians and White Russians when he collectivized—socialized—the Soviet Union’s kulak farms.

Gauntlet Thrown Down

Posted on by
Reply

The members of the Group of Seven, just met in Canada last week, were invited to form a tariff-free trade zone by President Donald Trump.

no tariffs, no barriers…and no subsidies.

International trade doesn’t get much freer than that.

Will anyone in the G-7 have the courage to take Trump up on his offer—or to call his bluff, if that’s what they think it is?

Anyone?  Beuller?