Tag Archives: political economy

Progressive-Democrats Destroy Again

Posted on by
Reply

This time they’re Illinois’ Progressive-Democrat governor, the inestimable JB Pritzker, and the State’s Party-dominated legislature. (The Wall Street Journal misattributed the fiasco to Pritzker, but even within Party, Governors need the complicity of Party’s legislative syndicate.) Following is from the Chicago Tribune, from which the WSJ quoted.

The owner of two-thirds of a massive natural-gas-fired power plant in Will County is moving their part of the facility to Texas.
Literally.
As in, putting huge turbines on flatbed trucks and driving them south to friendlier climes.
We’ve learned that two-thirds of the capacity at the 1,350-megawatt Elwood Energy facility—the largest natural-gas-fired peaker power plant in Commonwealth Edison’s territory and one of the biggest in the nation—now is being shut down thanks to Illinois’ landmark clean-energy law [Climate & Equitable Jobs Act] enacted in 2021. The sudden removal of that whopping 900 megawatts of capacity could well drive up local electric bills that already have been rising.

And this:

The remaining three units at Elwood will continue to operate at the site and now will be permitted to do so under the law until 2045. Why? Because the previous owner, J-POWER, sold those three units to Dairyland Power Cooperative, of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, which by virtue of being a nonprofit is allowed by CEJA to operate gas-fired power plants over the next few decades that otherwise would have to shutter in a few years.
So those emissions also will continue well into the future, but only because ownership changed from a private company to a nonprofit.
Yes, that’s how CEJA works. If you’re not a privately held gas-plant operator, you can continue to pollute.

This is far more than the empty virtue signal that the WSJ article suggested. This is the wanton foolishness resulting in destruction that Party is so enthusiastically pursuing for reasons only Party members can have a glimmer of understanding.

A Problem of their own Making

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the People’s Republic of China’s setting up trade-centric “retaliatory tools,” there’s this bit in the middle of the piece:

The rules could put US and other Western companies in a bind: they need to comply with US restrictions on trade with China and often want to reduce their reliance on Chinese production, yet such actions expose them to punishment by Beijing and even possible expulsion from the world’s most important manufacturing hub.

Of course, if those companies weren’t in the PRC in the first place, the PRC couldn’t “punish” them. They’ve had plenty of time to move their supply chains and businesses out of that nation and plenty of warning regarding the necessity of doing so.

Still, there remains no time like the present to take serious heed and get moving on those adjustments.

A Conundrum

Posted on by
Reply

A town in Massachusetts has laid it out. South Hadley had a referendum put in front of them that proposed a 50% property tax hike. Voting it down, said its pushers, would be the end of the town as residents knew it.

Override backers argued that the measures were vital to preserve schools and town services. Without a revenue infusion, officials had warned, major cuts loomed: no school sports or extracurriculars, slashed Advanced Placement classes, reduced police and public-works staffing, and more.

That “more” included slashed Advanced Placement offerings, along with hits to police and public-works staffing.

The town’s residents, though, made it clear they’ve had enough of tax increases with little to show for them but empty promises by the taxers. The referendum was voted down in no uncertain terms, 65% to 34%. The message of this defeat was clearly articulated by Rudy Ternbach, semiretired and leader of the anti-override group Alliance for Fair Taxes:

I think the results of the election show voters do not want to try and fix the government by increasing taxes on those least able to pay. They want more efficiencies in government and less taxes.

Sadly, but entirely predictably, the message was not received by Leftist tax-and-spenders. Lisa Wong, South Hadley’s Progressive-Democrat Town Manager:

“We will regroup and continue to communicate with the public on the changes ahead,” she said by text, adding that the town would also push for policy changes and greater support at the state and federal levels.

Politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party cannot conceive of cutting spending or leaving taxes alone, much less reducing them. Efficiencies in government? Pfft. Progressive-Democrats only want to increase people’s dependency on government, if not at their own level, then further up the government’s food chain.

This is a message to the rest of us and a lesson to be heeded come November.

That’s One Spin

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit Court has denied Anthropic’s appeal of a DoD decision to cut the company out of Defense contracts as a security risk to Defense supply chains. Meanwhile a Northern District of California Federal court judge has upheld Anthropic’s appeal on free speech grounds. This, of course, creates a split of sorts that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to resolve, unless the 9th Circuit overrules the District judge wih a ruling that substantially aligns with the DC Circuit.

What’s interesting, though, is Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Matt Schruers’ characterization of the split.

The DC Circuit’s denial will prolong ambiguities regarding whether political considerations can drive federal procurement[.]

This is Schruers’ conclusory characterization centered on his preferred outcome. It couldn’t possibly be the California district judge’s ruling that is prolonging ambiguities.

Not Sure This Is Correct

Posted on by
Reply

James MacIntosh, writing for The Wall Street Journal, is worried about the Fed worrying too much about its last mistake regarding inflation, when it was too slow to respond to rising prices. For instance,

But there’s a fundamental difference between the new oil shock and the postpandemic boom. Inflation today, already visible in rising prices at the pumps, is driven by restricted supply as Iran cuts off oil and other shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The 2021-22 inflation was driven by soaring demand as stimulus-rich consumers emerged from enforced hibernation during Covid lockdowns.
Central banks know how to deal with too much demand. They should have raised rates much earlier than their eventual 2022 rises to hold back borrowing and spending. Today, they can’t do anything about the hit to supply, because, as the saying goes, you can’t print oil.

The problem with this, though, is in the relationship between inflation—rising prices—and rising—”too much”—demand. Rising prices occurs because demand is rising faster than supply can rise to satisfy it; it does not occur simply from rising demand. If we want more stuff—here oil—and the production of oil exists to satisfy that rising demand, prices don’t rise; there is no inflation.

Inflation is always and only in the relationship between demand and supply; it is never in demand alone or in supply alone. The only way there can be too much demand if there’s too little supply (the other side of this is true, too: the only way there can be too little demand is if there’s too much supply, which results in falling prices—deflation). More demand than supply can satisfy and less supply than can satisfy demand are the same thing.

So, what can/should the Fed do about today’s too little supply of oil relative to the demand for it and the consequent rise in prices? Its mandate, aside from full employment, is price stability: no change in price level, or via its goal, keeping price increases to 2% inflation. The Fed’s tool for this interest rates, which is to say here, reducing demand by raising the cost of the money that is that demand. Thus: raise interest rates when that inflation gets out of hand/rises too far above that 2% in a sustained upward trend. This is wholly independent of both supply and demand individually and responsive only to the relationship between the two.

The problem here is that “out of hand,” “too far above,” and “sustained” are each individually only hazily defined criteria. My own opinion is that with employment, which is a consequence of stable prices as well as its own economic condition, close to full and stable and currently rising prices not yet out of hand or too far above 2% or on a sustained upward trend, the Fed should do nothing more than keep a watchful eye. Trying to time the market with enough precision to preempt inflation without cutting off growth is as much a fool’s errand as an individual investor’s timing with a view to precise top or bottom picking.

This also is consistent with my view that current interest rates are consistent with (if a bit lower than) interest rates that historically are associated with 2%± inflation, so there’s nothing generally that the Fed needs to do.