Tag Archives: political economy

Oil, the Saudis, and Iran

Posted on by
Reply

As global oil prices plunge to levels not seen in more than a decade—and Saudi Arabia and Iran threaten to further flood the market with cheap crude as part of their ongoing feud—the possibility of rock-bottom fuel prices appears to be a blessing for consumers.

What’s the downside of that? With our own restriction on exporting oil lifted, we’re also in a position to keep producing and keep selling. The low prices are good for American consumers; they’re an opportunity to expand our own market (the Saudis’ logic in maintaining production rates in the face of falling prices is sound), and thereby wean Europe off dependence on Russian oil exports; and low prices hurts…whom?

Low prices hurts our own oil producers, but an advantage of free market competition is that it leaves producers generally, including in particular oil producers, well positioned and well experienced in dealing with pricing vagaries. We’ll do fine in the price-competitive markets. The Saudis will survive the competition; their pricing needs against their population demands are rather small.

On the other hand, both Russia and Iran need $100+ oil (against last week’s close below $35, and a more stable $40-$50) to fund their adventures.

Keep the oil flooding. Throw us into that tar patch.

The Feds getting out of the way of natural gas exporting would pay similar, and similarly large, economic and political dividends.

A Constitutional Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a constitutional convention, looking to revive support for an existing movement that seeks a constitutional convention. Abbott also offered a number of Amendments of his own that he’d like to see proposed at such a convention.

  • Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs in one state
  • Require Congress to balance its budget.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from creating law
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states of override a Supreme Court decision
  • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
  • Restore balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution
  • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law regulation.

But no constitution, whether our existing one (favored by me, with a single Amendment concerning term quasi-limits), our existing one as amended by Abbott’s proposals, or any other constitution, has no value whatsoever in the hands of a government whose men and women ignore it at convenience.

Abbott himself tacitly noted this, but he seems to have missed the meaning of his own remark.

The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution. Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare.

Before it’s useful to discuss modifications to our Constitution, it’s necessary to replace in toto the men and women of our government with men and women who understand and will respect rule of law and the supremacy—especially over their own actions—of our Constitution.

Once our Constitution has been restored to its proper place, then we can set about assessing where, if anywhere, it might profitably be amended. Not until.

“China Loses Its Grip on the Yuan”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the title of a Wednesday Wall Street Journal article at the time I write this, and I’m not sure it’s far wrong. This is the currency, too, that the IMF decided belonged in its basket of reserve currencies.

The yuan is having quite a number of troubles, courtesy of the PRC’s efforts to retain its (non-market) control. Two of these include

“People are losing confidence [in the yuan],” said Cynthia Wong, head of emerging Asia trading in Hong Kong and Singapore at Société Générale. “Positive hopes diminished with the stock-market crash at the beginning of the year…. She described the flow in the currency market as “one-way,” with investors betting on a weaker yuan.

Here’s another:YuanGap

What’s that devaluing currency going to do to the PRC’s economy as raw materials for its stagnating production base get more expensive? As imported goods for its (now stagnating) consumer sector get more expensive?

What opportunities for mischief accrue from the wide and increasing spread between the controlled yuan’s domestic value and the freely moving value as the yuan is traded (mostly sold) in the Hong Kong currency market? Arbitrage, for one. More and less trackable capital flight for another.

Hmm….

Greed and Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Greed is not good. And, here is a New Year’s Resolution that we will keep: if you do not end your greed, we will end it for you.

That’s Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (D, VT) claims.

Either he’s never read Adam Smith, never heard of the invisible hand, or he finds free markets and the individual freedom engendered by them anathema to his socialism.

When two men come together to make on exchange of goods—labor for money, for instance, or bread for money, or software coding for bread—each of those two men are acting strictly and solely for his own, personal benefit. Each of those two men is acting on his own greed. Yet, as a result of their voluntary exchange—the one’s money for the other’s item, or the exchange of goods—both men are made better off: both men have something of value to them that neither had before the exchange.

It’s this free market, it’s this basic freedom, that Bernie Sanders wants to destroy.

He uses his line as an excuse to break up entities (banks and insurance companies in his spiel) that he says are too big to fail. It’s certainly true that “too big to fail” is an unacceptable risk to us citizen-taxpayers. But the right answer is not to bail “too big to fail” enterprises out (the risk) or to force onto them a Big Government mandated business decision (the attack on freely agreed exchanges), but to let them fail, with no government—no citizen funded—bailout. Our existing bankruptcy laws are sufficient, and they work well within our free market economy.

We don’t need a Progressive, Know Better Government dictating answers to us, interfering with our own market choices.

Health Insurance and Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Faith-based organizations that share the costs of health care among their members are a tiny part of the health care coverage industry. They’re also not regulated by government.

[Faith-based] ministry officials say they aren’t offering insurance, don’t guarantee claims will be paid, and don’t need to be regulated.

Naturally, regulators object.

But now, some insurance commissioners are concerned that the ministries could put consumers at risk if bills aren’t paid.

This is the consumer’s choice to risk, though, not government’s authority to command not to. At least in a free society.

And more tellingly:

State regulators also say health ministries disrupt the insurance market because they tend to attract healthier consumers, siphoning them from commercial plans that can be left with sicker or older customers.

What these government regulators carefully omit to mention, though, is that the only “market” liable to disruption is their precious regulated “market.” In a free market economy, such competition is healthy, if disruptive, leading as it does to improving products and lowering costs.

Unfortunately, the number of faith-based health cost sharing entities that are exempt from Obamacare is carefully and deliberately circumscribed by Obamacare. That needs to change.