Tag Archives: political economy

Because There Isn’t Enough Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do Democrats. The vacuum Democrats abhor, though, isn’t a natural one, it’s manmade—gaps in regulation. Americans are just too stupid to manage our own lives, on our own, insist Democrats, and so Democrats demand to regulate our lives for us. For our own good, you see. And for the good of Democrats’ political power. Here are two examples.

In Houston, the Liberal city government didn’t think bathroom accommodations for those who can’t accept who they are should be a matter of negotiation between employer and employee or prospective employee.

More importantly, the Liberal city government thought religious beliefs should be a matter appropriate only to Sundays in churches and not available in the workaday world or to the men and women who operate businesses in the city.

The Liberal city government didn’t think such perks or rights should be competitive offers in free market competition among employers for labor—the way “full dental” was exactly such a competition offer in the last century. So, after having an outright city ordinance struck in court, they put the regulation to the city’s voters in full expectation of being able to ram it through, with the help of millions of dollars from outside Liberals and Democrats.

Houston’s mayor, Annise Parker, even sought to justify this regulatory overreach:

No one’s rights should be subject to a popular vote[.]

No, they shouldn’t. But the Liberal, looking to fill a regulatory vacuum, did exactly that; she put Christians’ and employees’ in general rights to a popular vote.

In San Francisco, the regulatory vacuum involved what private property owners should be allowed to do with their private property when the Liberal city government and its special interest supporters object to those uses.

In another referendum, San Frisco voters rejected the city’s efforts to limit short-term housing rental, a move made by a number of house owners to earn a few extra bucks letting a room to freely agreeing renters needing a place to stay.

[T]enants-rights organizations, a group representing landlords, a hotel workers’ union and hotel associations

all supported the limiting measure because it might compete with their interests. Freedom to compete—or even just to earn some money in an enormously expensive city—should be limited because, well, because competition must be regulated. The argument they put forward wasn’t even intended to be a serious one. Such room-letting would drive up housing costs. By reducing demand for housing, I suppose.

Both of these moves were demonstrations of how much the Left—the Progressives in government and the Democratic Party at large—abhor American citizens’ behavior being unregulated. Americans are just too dumb to handle our own affairs; every action we take has to be regulated to the last detail.

Remember these Democratic Party attempts next year.

Debt Limits

Posted on by
Reply

The reason we need to raise the national debt limit is to be able to borrow to pay existing obligations. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s threats that he can’t won’t pay our veterans, soldiers, and retireds is nothing but politically motivated, dishonest foolishness. He can pay these; the tax revenues are plenty for that. What he won’t be able to pay are the payables to Federal contractors and a number of other bills. Those are legitimately owed, though, and they need to be paid.

There’s also plenty of money coming in to pay the interest on our national debt—so there’ll be no default, either. That’s just nonsense.

What’s unacceptable, though, is the Democrats’ refusal to go along with a debt-raise bill that includes spending cuts that will obviate the need to raise the debt ceiling next year and in the out years. President Barack Obama has even said he’ll veto a debt-raise bill that includes such preventive measures. He’s said it’s nonnegotiable.

That’s unconscionable. The Democrats’ addiction to spending—and it is an addiction—has got to be broken. If the only way to cut spending so we don’t need to increase our borrowings next year is to close the Federal government, so be it.

But the Republicans, including the right side, and their “communications” directors had better be able to sell the shutdown to the nation’s public. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) said it:

[T]hey ought to all be fired[.]

Unfortunately, he wasn’t looking in a mirror when he said it.

Turn the rascals out in a year and a month.

Minimum Wage Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Some empirical data are starting to accumulate. The following graphs are from AEIdeas. The first one shows the apparent impact of Seattle’s minimum wage law, which hiked the minimum to $15/hr, with the first increment to $11/hr taking effect last April. The graph shows restaurant employment in the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area and Washington other than the Seattle MSA from 2010 through Sept 2015.RestaurantJobs

There are a couple of things of interest here. One is the headline comparison: Restaurant jobs went up nearly 6% since January (5,800 jobs added to an original value of 87,000 jobs), while the city’s restaurant employment fell those 700 jobs (a drop a skosh under 1%). The other is the trend. Since January, restaurant jobs have risen at a high month-month rate, while Seattle’s restaurant job growth rate has been flat.

There’s another tale in this graph.RestaurantJobsRecessions

The shaded area are recessions. Only one other time since 1990 has Seattle’s restaurant employment fallen outside of a recession. That was in the year leading into the dot-com bust, with Seattle being nearly as techy as California’s Silicon Valley.

Hmm….

Stimulus

Posted on by
Reply

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has indicated that he intends to expand the EU’s version of quantitative easing as economic stimulus: he’s looking to increase the ECB’s bond-buying program and cut even further the ECB’s already negative deposit rate.

His rationale for this is to boost economic growth in the EU, a growth that has been stunted since the global Panic of 2008.

No, Mr Draghi, adding to a failed program won’t convert it to a success, it’ll compound the failure and make digging out from under it the more expensive.

What you need to do is jawbone the EU governance bodies to do what they need to do: jawbone the sovereign (more or less) EU member nations to do what they need to do. What those governments need to do is to get out of the way of their national economies by cutting government spending and commensurately reducing taxing.

Leaving the people’s money in their hands will let them apply their money to their purposes, not government’s, and they’ll do that with far greater skill than even a well-meaning government can hope to do. Reducing government competition for goods and services by cutting government spending will further expand the reach of that private money left in those private hands.

Now, there’s a stimulus worth applying.

There’s Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

…and there’s sovereignty.

The European Union said it will require Starbucks Corp and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to pay tens of millions of euros in back taxes after ruling that tax deals they negotiated with two European governments were illegal….

Notice that. Supposedly sovereign governments negotiated contracts with businesses, and the European Union has said that those governments don’t have the authority—the national capacity—to make their own arrangements. In the particular case, tax contracts solemnly negotiated by Luxembourg and those two corporations are illegal because they don’t comport with the supra-national EU’s desire.

This is the Europe that the Progressive Democratic Party, the party of President Barack Obama; of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; of Democratic Party, and self-identified Democrat Socialist, Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders want us to be like.