Tag Archives: political economy

Crimea and Sanctions on Russia

Posted on by
1

Promptly opening the export spigot on our own oil and gas production and accelerating our development of those fields, including on Federal land (which will have minimal production effect today; although it’ll have significant effect in the near- to mid-term by significantly expanding the supply of oil and gas on the global market) will produce an immediate spike down in the global price of oil and gas, which will have an associated immediate negative impact on the value of Russian oil and gas exports.

Blocking Russian access to credit on the global banking system—even just on the American banking system—and requiring cash-only transactions will have a negative impact on Russia’s cash reserves.

Seizing the personal banking and physical assets held by the Russian oligarchs and by Putin will remove billions of dollars’ worth of value from these folks—and it’s the oligarchs as much as a mendacious Russian legislature who are the source of Putin’s political power.

Of course, a significant fraction of the success of the sanctions will depend on how well Europe does its part.  Their participation will go a long way toward identifying who truly believes in the sanctity—as opposed to the convenience—of national sovereignty and who just engages in empty rhetoric for personal gain.  Their participation will go a long way toward identifying who our friends are and who are just summertime soldiers.  Their participation will go a long way toward determining who stands with Ukraine and who are willing only to talk about standing with Ukraine.

We can’t let their timidity stand in the way of our acting, though.  Nor can we let the fact that the sanctions will bring Russian retaliatory sanctions on us deter us.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday sanctions imposed by the West “would inevitably hit the United States like a boomerang.”  Their foreign ministry added they “will not accept the language of sanctions and threats,” and will respond if sanctions are imposed.

What sanctions can Russia impose?  They can block further Western/American investment in Russian oil and gas field development.  They can block further Western/American investment in oil and gas delivery systems (read: pipelines).  They can cease existing Western/American investments throughout their economy, not only in their oil and gas industry.  They can begin dumping their holding of American Treasuries.  They even could deny us access via their territory and airspace to our bases in the ‘Stans from which we support our war effort in Afghanistan.

This will hurt us, to be sure.  But who else will it hurt?  Russia can’t develop its oil and gas industry without us—that’s why we’re there.  What they have developed has been being depleted for more than 10 years; those assets are declining in value.  Their economy is utterly dependent on oil and gas.  Recall the damage done Texas’ strictly oil and gas economy during the first Arab oil embargo and the Nixon price controls.

Dumping their US Treasury holding will devalue the rest of what they hold, decreasing their ability to convert the rest into cash with which to complete the now-demanded cash only transaction.

Our war in Afghanistan is winding down, and those bases already are becoming less and less critical to our efforts.

The oligarchs’ loss of their own overseas assets and their loss of access to non-Russian banking, even to their overseas villas and other assets will hurt Putin’s primary supporters where it hurts the most: in their own pocketbooks.

The sanctions that will boomerang on us will boomerang right back on them, and worse.

And our own actions will determine whether our own administration truly believes in the sanctity of national sovereignty, with whom we are friends, whether we stand with Ukraine.  I’ve no doubt where the American people stand.

Budget Lies

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama, aided and abetted by the mendacious NLMSM, is touting his latest “budget” proposal as cutting spending by $600 billion over the next 10 years.  But Scott Rasmussen, cited in The Wall Street Journal, has noted,

in the current year, the federal government is expected to spend $3,651 billion.  …the president’s budget calls for spending $3,901 billion in 2015.  That’s $250 billion more than this year.  It’s not a one-year aberration either.  Spending increases are projected every single year for the next decade and beyond.

Calling that a spending cut is an outright lie.  Even if the spending increases are smaller increases than originally planned, they’re still increases, not cuts.

As Rasmussen also pointed out, this isn’t unique to Obama, though; it’s been going on since at least the ’70s.  But it’s got to stop.  Full stop.

Obamacare Dissembling

Posted on by
2

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will let people keep health insurance plans that would otherwise be out of compliance with ObamaCare for another two years….

Yet, just a bit over a year ago, when President Barack Obama first “waived” the Business Mandate, he threatened to veto a House bill that would have codified that delay and that added a comparable delay of the Individual Mandate—what he’s now “waiving” for those two years.

Obama vastly prefers diktat to legitimacy.

Speaking of Out of Touch

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) demonstrated the depth of his condition of out of touchness in a Tuesday op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.  Although Sanders’ out of touchness is amply demonstrated by his full-throated defense of the dinosaur that is the United States Postal Service, I want to look at a couple of other things he said in his piece.

First, there’s this:

There are very powerful and wealthy special interests who want to privatize or dismember virtually every function that government now performs, whether it is Social Security, Medicare, public education or the Postal Service.  They see an opportunity for Wall Street and corporate America to make billions in profits out of these services….

He says this in all seriousness, as if shrinking government and returning the bulk of its functions to the private sector where they belong is somehow a bad thing.  And that there would be profit in that private sector (and not only for “Wall Street and corporate America,” but also for medium-sized and small businesses and the Americans these would employ) is something only an avowed Democratic Socialist like Sanders would decry.  Moreover, it’s not only the powerful and special interests who want this shrinking of government and a divestment of its present array of “functions.”  Apparently he’s missed the Tea Party revolution that’s been going on these last five years.

He also had this (with some overlap with the quote above):

They see an opportunity for Wall Street and corporate America to make billions in profits out of these services, and couldn’t care less how privatization or a degradation of services affects ordinary Americans.

This is a false dichotomy.  Privatization doesn’t at all degrade services—it improves those extant and leads to vast expansion of new services, and at lower prices than before.  This is the example of the breakup of Ma Bell, effective at the start of 1984.  Under Ma Bell, we had a very good land line telephone system.  After the breakup, we got an even better land line system of competing companies (until their effective remerger); a cell phone system of competing companies; a cable system of more-or-less competing companies, which also compete for telephone business; and all of them competing for Internet business—including telephony communications.

A further example is the USPS, which prior to the divestment of package delivery and mail service other than first class, did a very good job of delivery.  Now we have competing package and special delivery service companies that are cheaper, faster, and even more reliable, and they have a broader range of special delivery services that the USPS is scrambling to match.  Additionally, all those communications services above are functionally competing for first class mail delivery, too, even though only the USPS can handle formal first class.  That’s what email, texting, Skype, AIM Chat, Twitter, and on and on—even that other dinosaur, faxing—are doing.

Apparently, Rip van Sanders has been sleeping through the end of the 20th century and this beginning of the 21st.

The President’s Defeatist Budget

Posted on by
Reply

It’s illustrated by Table S-12 Economic Assumptions from the White House’s Summary Tables, repeated below.

The table is hard to read; the money line is the third one, labeled “Real GDP, percent change, year/year.”  Beginning in the year 2018—just four years from now—President Barack Obama and his “economic” advisors predict our nation’s economic output—our GDP—growth rate to shrink from 3.1% growth per year to an historic low rate, and abysmal rate, to 2.36% in 2-019, and then to less than 2.5% after that.  And to stay at that abysmal level as far as the prediction can see.

This is the defeatist attitude of the Progressive.  1979 Presidential Candidate Ronald Reagan had a different vision [emphasis added]:

Someone once said that the difference between an American and any other kind of person is that an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it will be a great place. Other people fear the future as just a repetition of past failures.  There’s a lot of truth in that.  If there is one thing we are sure of it is that history need not be relived; that nothing is impossible, and that man is capable of improving his circumstances beyond what we are told is fact.

There are those in our land today, however, who would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power; that we are weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other and no longer possessed of the will to cope with our problems.

Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle.  We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done.  They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where—because of our past excesses—it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true.

I don’t believe that.  And, I don’t believe you do either.  That is why I am seeking the presidency.  I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself.  Our leaders attempt to blame their failures on circumstances beyond their control, on false estimates by unknown, unidentifiable experts who rewrite modern history in an attempt to convince us our high standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce as we join in sharing scarcity.  I don’t agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands.  I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world.

The crisis we face is not the result of any failure of the American spirit; it is a failure of our leaders to establish rational goals and give our people something to order their lives by.

We can, indeed, do better than that Progressive budget implies.  We just need to get the Progressives out of the way.  Beginning this year, but necessarily continuing in 2016 and the election cycles beyond.