Tag Archives: politics

Tradeoffs

Posted on by
Reply

We, as a nation, have three questions that we must answer in order to proceed optimally into the future, according to Matthew Slaughter, of Dartmouth‘s Tuck School of Business, and David Wessel, of Brookings‘ Hutchins Center on Fiscal & Monetary Policy. They’re largely correct, but they miss one Critical Item without which our path into a prosperous and growing future would be severely constrained, if not blocked altogether.

In their question regarding “walls or bridges,” the two argue against walls—tariffs—and for trade globalization as the path to prosperity via competition and its heavily encouraged innovation rates that such free trade creates.

[R]esearch has long shown that globally engaged companies tend to create the good jobs at good wages for which so many Americans are yearning. In 2023, the US parent companies of US-based multinational companies paid their 29.9 million workers in America an average total compensation of $97,078—about 20% above the average in the rest of the private sector.

They didn’t address, though, the downside of their largely unfettered free trade regime. That downside was amply illustrated by the recent Wuhan Virus situation, during which our dependence on the People’s Republic of China’s medicines—and not just for Virus medical supplies, but also for over the counter pain killers and anti-inflammatories, even a variety of flu medicines—was exposed, along with the world’s dependence on the PRC even for simple things like face masks.

The downside was graphically demonstrated much more recently by the PRC’s control over rare earths, from ore through processed rare earths to finished products, and its use of that control to throttle their export and thereby threaten our economy and that of Japan’s.

The Critical Item is this tradeoff. Carry out free trade globalization; it is valuable, but do it within this framework. There are a few items that are critical to our national security and to our economy (there is a lot of overlap between them): those rare earths, the raw materials for medicines. For these, we need to have our own supply paths, wholly contained within our borders, that stretch from dirt in the ground through final product deliverable to the domestic end user. These nationally-contained supply lines need not be the only sources for these materials; it’d be sufficient for them to be in place, actively used, and able to be rapidly expanded during periods when overseas sources become constrained.

That tradeoff will be expensive, but that cost is simply—and necessarily—a cost of maintaining our national security, our ability to defend ourselves, whether militarily or economically. The cost of being unable to will be far greater, and not only fiscally.

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

Former Vice President Mike Pence (R) is the one misapprehending this time, and he laid it out early in his Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Where conservatives have historically viewed politics as the art of the possible, progressives see politics as a path to alter society beyond recognition in a quest for material equity, environmental nirvana, or other alleged perfections. Progressives invariably try to destroy whatever stands in their way.

That last sentence lays bare his misunderstanding. Perfecting our society has nothing to do with today’s progressives’ goals, goals hard-sought after by today’s Progressive-Democratic Party and epitomized by that sentence. Were Party interested in perfection, it would adopt a more patient approach and seek to bring along those presently disagreeing with them. Instead, Party politicians try to destroy whatever stands in their way.

For further proof, see Party’s plans, annunciated by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ (D, NY) remarks and his chief minion for this, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D, MD):

The Supreme Court is a disgrace. In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court, and let me be very clear: everything is on the table—everything to deal with this corrupt MAGA majority.

And, as paraphrased by the WSJ‘s editors:

[Raskin] recently introduced a bill that would deny the Justices the power to choose which cases they hear. Under the SCCOTUS Act, petitions would be reviewed by a rotating committee of 13 random appellate judges. This is such a radical change that it’s hard to imagine all the implications.

Jeffries sees the Court, especially the conservative Justices, as corrupt because the majority seeks to adhere to what our Constitution and any statute before them actually say, rather than what the other Justices too often insist: that, in the manner of former Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court should rule on what they want and expect the law to catch up, with the added fillip that if the law isn’t catching up quickly enough, these Justices will rewrite them from the bench.

Raskin would actually corrupt our Court by packing it to thirteen Justices because thirteen appellate circuits. He ignores in his revisionism the history that the number of appellate circuits had been growing beyond nine long before Congress set the number of Justices at nine. In fact, though, that’s just his covering excuse for adding four activist, progressive men and women to the Court, men and women who view our Constitution and statutes as suggestions to be ignored or modified as they see fit.

Pence’s piece loses its import with his lack of understanding of the underlying problem, even as he’s entirely correct in his conclusion: it’s time for Republicans, and especially the dismayingly meek Republicans, to get up off their backs and address these problems loudly and firmly. In particular, this includes Vice President JD Vance (R), who’s busily toadying up to Big Labor in his desperation to become our next President.

Else we lose our Republic.

Yet Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union is moving toward passing legislation that would allow it to curb imports of heavily subsidized foreign products. The legislation doesn’t single out any particular nation; although, the Peoples’s Republic of China is infamous for such subsidies.

Those subsidies allow PRC businesses to sell their products at less than their cost of production in order to sell at lower prices than European businesses can due to their own, unsubsidized, costs of production. That allows the PRC to put those businesses out of business and to seize nearly all of the market share. In the aggregate, this cascades into steadily increasing PRC influence over European economies.

Naturally, the PRC wants to continue this domination, so it’s threatening countermeasures if Europe continues with the impudence of defending itself.

Chinese authorities could initiate anti-discrimination and supply-chain security investigations into the EU’s “overcapacity instrument,” a social media account run by China’s state broadcaster said Friday, citing unnamed sources.
If the EU advances the tool, China will take immediate action and deploy comprehensive countermeasures, it added.

Of course, that retaliation wouldn’t matter if Europe’s nations were doing no business with the PRC or with businesses domiciled there.

The PRC keeps providing reasons for discontinuing business with or within it. It’s time for the EU and for Europe’s nations individually to act on at least some of those reasons, for their own economic survival.

Continuing Coverup

Posted on by
Reply

The House Judiciary Committee requested the sound files and transcripts that had been collected by a special prosecutor during his investigation of ex-Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified material. The Heritage Foundation had requested the same material via a FOIA request. The recordings and transcripts were scheduled to be released to the requestors in the middle of next month.

Then Joe Biden decided the material would be embarrassing to him, so now he’s suing to stop the delivery. He wants the DC district court to

declare the committee’s request pretextual and invalid, and permanently bar the release of the records.

The same would apply, presumably, to The Heritage Foundation‘s FOIA delivery.

Biden isn’t alone in this coverup. Progressive-Democratic Party will claim pretextual-ness regarding any Congressional summons of, or FOIA requests for, documentation and any other information that might embarrass any Party politicians or leadership personnel.

Experts Everywhere

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics want a body of Experts to supervise risks from emergent AI, saying that such a body would be better than an FDA-like regulatory body, or Congress through statutorily enabled product-safety laws.

They’re right that having a government body of experts like the FDA do this sort of thing is determinedly suboptimal. They’re right, also, regarding Congress, although Congress is considerably more malleable than a department or agency of bureaucrats.

But another body of Experts?

Bank supervision, which emerged in the Civil War and took its current form out of the Great Depression, offers the best framework for overseeing the most advanced AI labs.

After all,

Frontier AI labs such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind are different.

And there’s always an excuse for standing up yet another bureaucratic regulatory body. In the case of their bank supervision model, about which they’re so enthusiastic, they give their game away [emphasis added].

Banks are too complex to govern through legislated rules alone, too important to leave to market discipline, and too dynamic for one-time approval.
Bank examiners often sit inside the institutions they oversee.

That’s the problem with our economic system government overlords. With the Panic of 2008, the Federal government created out of whole cloth the myth of some (ultimately government favored) businesses are too big to fail and so must always be guaranteed a government bailout. That confidence in the Federal apparatchiks sitting inside the banks also is misplaced. It’s only necessary to see the failures of the Silvergate, Signature, and First Republic banks to see the intrinsic failure of this. Those banks didn’t only fail through their own mismanagement; they also failed because their regulators were incompetent enough or lazy enough or complacent enough to miss those bank managers’ basic economics error of borrowing short-term while lending long-term and letting those two get ‘way out of balance. That allowed their short-term debts to come due before they had the long-term debt income to cover.

But the good professors want a board of Expert Apparatchiks inside the OpenAIs, Anthropics, and DeepMinds to oversee how these handle risks of emergent AI.

And this:

Banks share information with supervisors that they could never safely disclose publicly.

AI software is too important, too critical to national security, to share with apparatchiks of government. Our Federal government is infamous for its inability to defend against PRC cyber espionage. It’s infamous, also, for its bureaucrat employees leaking confidential financial data about businesses and persons of which those bureaucrats personally disapprove.

And this:

An AI risk supervisor could be funded by industry fees. Its leaders should be Senate-confirmed and removable by the president, but its expert staff should be insulated from day-to-day political pressure.

No.

Experts have their uses, often very important uses. On the witness stand to explain this or that aspect of a crime, balanced by another expert on the witness stand with a differing explanation. In police department forensics sections. As teachers in environments where their expertise is more important to the teaching than their teaching style. In medical and mental health doctor offices.

But in government? Not so much. Experts are useful when they’re part of a range of experts advising, as employees, the government’s decision makers. But as government decision makers? Definitely not so much. For the lack of utility of that last role, it’s only necessary to look at the Fauci-Collins-led experts as bureaucrats, or at the experts of the John Brennan and James Clapper CIA and ODNI, respectively.

The Supreme Court was right when it greatly reduced Chevon Deference in its Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling, making clear that “experts” in government aren’t owed any particular deference on matters of government behaviors and decision-making.

So it is with emergent AI.