Tag Archives: politics

The Fed and Uncertainty

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox Business piece concerning the impact of future Federal Reserve Bank interest rate hikes on the stock market, this remark stands out for me.

[C]onventional wisdom holds that the more skillful Fed officials are at telegraphing their upcoming rate hikes, the less volatile markets will be once those hikes are announced.

That’s true enough as far as it goes, but the interesting bit is that the more skillful Fed officials are at telegraphing phrase.

Ordinarily, there’s no skill at all involved in making a simple, straightforward statement. One such could be we’ll raise interest rates by these increments, according to this schedule. Those milestones will be adjusted in this way by these factors that we will observe in real time.

That sort of clear, direct statement only takes skill when the speaker is a member of an organization which has institutionalized obfuscation.

The Bernie Sanders Economy

Posted on by
Reply

Lots of folks say Bernie Sanders, Democratic Presidential candidate and Socialist Senator from Vermont, wants the American economy to look like social democrat Europe.

Wrong. Look closer to home for the logical outcome of Sanders’ economic policies. Here’s Puerto Rico‘s “economy:”

Government debt has increased by two thirds since 2006…and exceeds 100% of gross national product. … The sales tax increased to 11.5% this year from 7% and next year will turn into a value-added tax. Since 2013 the tax on petroleum—the island’s primary fuel for generating electricity—has quintupled to $15.50 per barrel.

And

Employment laws, such as mandatory 15 days of paid vacation, and stringent job protections provide disincentives to hire. Generous welfare, housing, food stamp and health benefits discourage work. Nearly half of island residents are on Medicaid. A household can rake in 50% more in government assistance than the take-home monthly minimum wage.

The island’s 12.5% unemployment rate is misleading, coming as it does against a labor force participation rate of 40% [sic].

There’s more—lots more—but this is where President Bernie Sanders will take us, and it’s far enough.

“No Room for Negotiation”

Posted on by
Reply

A French journalist is being tossed out of the People’s Republic of China because she wrote factual articles about the PRC’s behavior in Xinjiang province. Her visa to be in the PRC expires at the end of the year, and the government has told her it will not be renewed.

The proximate cause of her expulsion is an article she wrote noting that the PRC’s expressions of solidarity with France over the terrorist attacks in Paris last month were not motivated by sympathy or shared condemnation of terrorism, but were rather motivated by the PRC’s reach for sympathy for its own behaviors in Xinjiang regarding the generally Muslim Uighur population’s demurral from government mistreatment of Uighurs.

Ms [Beijing-based Ursula] Gauthier said Chinese officials had met her three times to protest over the article and had demanded a public apology each time, without specifying exactly what form the apology should take. She said a Chinese official telephoned her on Friday to demand again that she apologize, publicly acknowledge that China was a victim of terrorism, and distance herself from any organization suggesting her case was a violation of press freedom.

“He said there is no room for negotiation,” she said.

Indeed, there is none. Either there is freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or there is not. There can be no middle ground to be reached through…negotiation.

Update: Corrected an idiotic typo in the first paragraph.  I need a keyboard that types what I mean rather than mindlessly repeating the keystrokes I give it.

Two Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty-five years ago (nearly two generations ago), the People’s Republic of China government decreed that families in the PRC could have only one child. Ostensibly, this was to reduce population pressures on the country’s ability to feed itself. It’s also had, though, other consequences. One of them is this:

China has the world’s largest population at 1.37 billion, but its working-age population—those aged 15 to 64—is shrinking. The United Nations projects the number of Chinese people over the age of 65 will jump 85% to 243 million by 2030, up from 131 million this year.

That’s a doubling of the old-age population in just the 15 years it’ll take this year’s newly born babies to reach working age. Is the raise in the number of permitted babies per family to two sufficient to alleviate the problems brought on by the shrinking work force, with its reduced ability to produce goods and services, and food; or the problems brought on by a shrinking work force’s ability to pay for, in any way, the growing (relative to the working population as well as in absolute terms) population of elderly?

Many Chinese couples say the cost of having children is prohibitive, and some will opt to have only one child. A previous relaxation of China’s one-child policy did not lead to a significant increase in baby numbers.

“Many” is more than it sounds; it’s a significant fraction of today’s couples.

On top of that, though, most demographers say it takes 2.1 babies per woman (not just to women in marriages) just to maintain a population at a given level for developed nations. That minimum rate rises in less developed nations, as infant mortality rates rise. The PRC’s new limit of 2 babies per family (not all women) doesn’t reach the replacement rate.

Probably the raise in the limit on the number of permitted babies is insufficient.

Another Thought on Encryption

Posted on by
1

Apple’s Tim Cook had one [emphasis added].

On your iPhone, there’s likely health information, there’s financial information. There are intimate conversations with your family or your co-workers. There’s probably business secrets, and you should have the ability to protect it. And the only way we know how to do that is to encrypt it. Why is that? It’s because, if there’s a way to get in, then somebody will find the way in. There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is, if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys.

The Democrat District Attorney for Manhattan Cyrus Vance thinks Government should be in our pockets; he thinks Apple, et al., are undermining Government power.

IPhones are now the first consumer products in American history that are beyond the reach of lawful warrants. The result is crimes go unsolved and victims are left beyond the protection of law. Because Apple is unwilling to help solve this problem, the time for a national, legislative solution is now.

Here’s what our Constitution’s 3rd Amendment says:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner….

Vance just wants to skirt this by quartering virtual policemen in our cell phones. No. Government just needs to go back to doing actual police work, and not rely on such quartering.

Undermining? If anyone is undermining anything, it’s the New York Democrat, who’s undermining individual liberty. This is a clear and present demonstration of why Government cannot be trusted with such a weapon.