Tag Archives: political economy

Too Bad, So Sad

Posted on by
Reply

Ford is having trouble peddling all the battery cars and trucks it has committed itself to manufacturing in response to Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s functional battery car mandate, a mandate centered on ruinous tailpipe emission limits he’s put together via his EPA. So far this year alone, Ford has lost $1.3 billion, or roughly $132,000 on each battery car or truck it has sold.

Ford’s competitors aren’t in such dire straits, having eschewed such a foolish commitment. Ford’s answer, though, isn’t to wise up and walk away from that commitment. Instead, it’s intervening in a 25-State law suit in the DC Circuit that’s trying to eliminate the rule forcing those tailpipe limits. Ford is defending the limit in its effort to force its competitors into the Ford boat. In its filing, Ford claims that

Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards. Ford is investing billions in electrification efforts [and it] has a critical interest in ensuring that a level regulatory playing field applies to the entire industry.

Never mind that the regulatory playing field would apply levelly across the entire industry if the tailpipe emission limits were rescinded.

No. Too bad. Ford’s bad choices in no way obligates its competitors to follow along, nor does it obligate us average Americans to pay for Ford’s folly.

The IRS Is Going Broke?

Posted on by
Reply

The IRS is in front of Congress, saying the $60 billion with which Congress plussed up its money pot last year—an addition that was supposed to last for 10 years—already is used up, and Commissioner Danny Werfel is in, pleading for an additional $104 billion. The Wall Street Journal editors are correct to wave a big, red BS flag on that, saying Congress should demand (and conduct, I say) an audit of the IRS and its spending instead.

I agree. But I also say there’s an alternative path to controlling the IRS, and its spendthrift ways, and that alternative would benefit all of us average Americans and our businesses. It’s a proposal I’ve offered before.

Congress should pass, and the President should sign, legislation that would vastly simplify our tax code. The new tax code should have no income tax levied on our businesses—which don’t pay much in the way of income tax, anyway; business customers pay most of it—and the new personal income tax should be a single flat rate on all income, regardless of source, and with no credits, deductions, subsidies, or other frou-frou gerrymanders on income.

A rate in the range of 10% to 15% would raise all the revenues for the Federal government it needs to provide for the only three Constitutionally mandated spending types: providing for our national defense, paying our Federal government debts, and providing for the Article I, Section 8-enumerated items of the general Welfare of the United States.

A vastly reduced IRS, consisting primarily of receiving clerks, would be all that’s necessary to manage the resulting tax code. It’d be hard for such a reduced agency, even a Federal government one, to waste $60 billion.

US EVs and Critical Supply Chain Inputs

Posted on by
Reply

Stephen Wilmot’s lede in his Wall Street Journal piece lays out a major outcome of the tariffs proposed by Progressive-Democratic President Joe Biden on a variety of EV inputs sourced from the People’s Republic of China.

Making cheap electric vehicles in America is getting even tougher.

And

Based on a crude calculation, the tariff increase could theoretically add roughly $1,000 to costs per standard-range Model 3—not unaffordable, but inconvenient when Tesla is desperate to remove costs wherever possible.

There are moves afoot that seek to alter that sourcing.

A response more in the spirit of US government policy would be to bring LFP [Lithium-Iron-Phosphate] battery production onshore.

And

One of the strings attached to the $7,500 tax credit available for EV purchases as part of the Inflation Reduction Act is now that no battery materials can come from a “foreign entity of concern,” a designation that includes China.

The problem with those kinds of moves, though, is that they’re woefully incomplete. The original input to those products is lithium, and the vast majority of that is mined in the PRC, and the vast majority of the lithium that is mined is refined in the PRC—including being shipped from non-PRC mines to the PRC for refining. It’s functionally the same for nickel, another major component of EV batteries (LFP batteries aren’t yet ready for prime time), the only difference is that most of the nickel is mined in PRC-owned mines in Africa.

Leave aside the idea of whether battery cars are anything other than another form of personal transportation, like the various external combustion engine-powered cars we’ve tried out over the years, or the original battery cars of a bit over 100 years ago.

The situation extends far beyond some battery inputs. Leaving ourselves dependent on an enemy nation for any of the Critical Item inputs to our economy is far more than an inconvenience, and far more expensive than just dollars spent on alternative sources. Our national security, our national freedom, depend on eliminating that dependence.

Trading with the Enemy

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday Letters section put it succinctly regarding free global trade:

I support free global trade except with countries that cheat and steal and use slave labor.

He wrote that in the context of his decrial of the People’s Republic of China as attempting to rule all of Asia and the global economy.

The PRC’s goal is broader than that; PRC President Xi Jinping has said in so many words that his goal for the PRC is to supplant the US as the world’s sole superpower, which would give the PRC the political, economic, and military power to control our own national actions.

From that, I would add to the letter-writer’s criteria for free global trade: no trade, free or otherwise (beyond, perhaps, non-critical commodity goods), with enemy nations. That would include Russia, Iran, and northern Korea, as well as the PRC.

An aside (but not too far over): it’s common to decry northern Korea’s use of slave labor, but I submit that that is something of a misnomer. Using slave labor implies that other laborers aren’t slaves, holding their jobs—or not—voluntarily. In northern Korea, though, all of the unfortunates resident there—every single one of them—are slaves of the thugs that rule over that gang territory.

A Legislative Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, WA) and Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr (D, NJ) described a bill they’re proposing that would purport to reform Internet controls and Big Tech’s control over those controls.

Our measure…would require Big Tech and others to work with Congress over 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Our bill gives Big Tech a choice: work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely.

18 months is far too long, with far too much time and opportunity for Big Tech to weasel-word saccharine pseudo-reform.

Better would be to give them 6 months, with a hard deadline written into this legislation: satisfactory reform of 230, or 230 is rescinded. A Critical Item that must be included in this proposed legislation is a concrete, publicly measurable definition of “satisfactory reform.”

Another, Highly Useful Item, that could be beneficially included in the bill’s Purpose paragraph, would be a clear and blunt statement that the bill is intended to supplement parental responsibility for their children’s time and activity on the Internet; it does not replace that responsibility.