Tag Archives: politics

Biden isn’t the Only One

Posted on by
Reply

On the matter of the Republic of China’s ability to defeat a People’s Republic of China invasion, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden isn’t the only US President who’s been terrified of offending the PRC too badly. The RoC has long sought to buy offensive, and long-range weapons from the US, even concluding some deals that a variety of US administrations have failed to deliver on. Instead, in the main,

[f]or more than a decade, US officials have encouraged Taiwan to invest in small, relatively cheap weapons such as shoulder-fired missiles, drones, and sea mines. The goal would be to bring a Chinese amphibious invasion force to a halt at close range with thousands of small strikes.
Such asymmetrical warfare is a favorite tactic of guerrillas and weaker nations facing big rivals.

I-Chung Lai, an ex-government foreign-affairs official, has the right of it:

The asymmetrical approach advocated by some people would put the whole of Taiwan into a meat grinder[.]

Defensive weaponry optimized for asymmetrical warfare are, indeed, critical items for a small nation’s ability to defend against a large nation’s invasion.

But. But, but, but. Defense only permanently surrenders the tactical and strategic initiative and is ultimate defeat. A much better defense is a strong offense. The RoC needs those far reaching and offensive weapons in order to have a serious chance of defeating—not merely resisting—a PRC invasion, and to do so without turning the fight into a bloody morass that bleeds the Republic dry while only injuring the invader.

The RoC desperately needs those offensive weapons as well as the defensive ones, and the Biden administration has an excellent opportunity to learn the lessons of Ukraine and kowtowing to Putin’s threats by slow-walking and outright withholding the long-range and offensive weapons Ukraine has needed for the last 2+ years. The Biden administration needs to put an end to the pattern of multiple administrations kowtowing to the PRC’s threats and send to the RoC the long-range and offensive weapons, along with the defensive weapons. it needs actually to defeat a PRC invasion attempt.

There is legitimate concern that the RoC can’t afford both the offensive and defensive weapons, or the offensive weapons in useful numbers. That’s what lend-lease programs and outright loans are for.

A Thought on Interest Rates

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal is speculating on when the Fed might start lowering its benchmark interest rates, speculating further that the Fed might be worrying about whether it’s time and whether leaving its rates where they are might spark a recession. (I was one of those worrying about a recession starting up over the last year or year-and-a-half, and still, but maybe the Fed’s worry is as overblown as mine.)

Early in the article, the WSJ has this:

The central bank will keep its benchmark interest-rate target at a range of 5.25% to 5.5%, a 23-year high….

I’m not sure that’s a useful baseline. The first 20, or so, years of that period are when the Fed was artificially suppressing interest rates.

5.25%-5.5% benchmark rates actually are, long-term, reasonably consistent with a 2% inflation rate.

Maybe it’s time for the Fed to cry “Enough” and go back to the sidelines. Nothing more is needed; let the market fluctuate as it will. Rates already are within the historical fluctuation range that didn’t need Fed interference intervention.

The Disingenuousness of Government Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court is hearing a case centered on, among other speech-related matters, whether the Federal government illegally—unconstitutionally—pressured social media companies to suppress or delete altogether posts of which the government disapproves regarding Wuhan Virus vaccines.

The government’s arguments in the case are telling.

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar…likened the government’s interactions with social-media companies to Ronald Reagan’s urging the media to help combat drug abuse, George W Bush’s inveighing against pornography, and Theodore Roosevelt’s denunciation of muckraking journalists.

This is one of the government’s disingenuousnesses. All of Reagan’s, Bush the Younger’s, and Roosevelt’s inveighing were publicly done. Us ordinary Americans knew what those Presidents were telling “the media” what they wanted them to do, and we knew it as soon as they spoke. The Biden administration, on the other hand, pressured today’s social media outlets behind the scenes, in secret. For instance,

When Hank Aaron died in 2021, Robert F Kennedy, Jr, suggested in a tweet that the baseball legend’s death was caused by a Covid vaccine.
The next day, a White House employee asked Twitter, now known as X, to take down Kennedy’s post. “Wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP,” the White House’s Covid-19 digital director wrote to two Twitter employees.
The social-media platform did so.

Here’s another of the Biden administration’s disingenuousnesses, if not an example of its outright cynicism, this one regarding the 5th Circuit’s ruling forbidding officials including the president’s counsel, press secretary, director of digital strategy, and other White House staffers from coercing, “significantly encouraging,” or supervising content moderation.

The Biden administration appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. It warned that the restrictions would prevent the government from talking to tech companies about matters of national security and public safety, as well as urging them to protect teens from the harmful effects of social media.

Nonsense. The appellate court’s bar in no way prevented or prevents anyone in the Biden administration from talking to tech companies or anyone else about anything at all. Those officials just have to do it publicly—like those prior Presidents had done, and in the same vein those prior Presidents had—and they aren’t allowed to attempt to apply pressure to comply.

Prelogar does have an argument, of sorts.

The government is entitled to speak for itself by sharing information, urging action, and participating in debate over issues of great concern to the public[.]

Absolutely, the government is so allowed. However, government—in the present case, the Biden administration—is not speaking for itself when it moves to suppress the speech of others who disagree with the administration position.

Nor is the Biden administration “urging action” regarding the subject of a debate when it is urging suppression of views that run counter to the administration’s position.

Nor is the Biden administration participating in debate over issues of great concern to the public when it acts to suppress the speech of others, which also is of concern to the public, thereby barring the public from participating in what the Biden administration wants to be a one-sided debate.

The Biden administration should exercise its “entitlement” to speak for itself by answering disagreeing comments in the commentary with its own—public—comments saying why those disagreeing comments seem erroneous; asserting what the administration believes to be accurate information; and explaining in concrete, measurable terms why it believes its own claims to be the more accurate.

There are no alternatives in a nation that believes free speech to be a fundamental right intrinsic in each of us citizens.

Imagine That

Posted on by
Reply

Don’t take government money to do something good, thereby avoiding the government’s strings necessarily attached (as well as government’s strings that are attached unnecessarily), and be able to do the good thing at much less cost, including for the taxpayers providing the government’s fettered money.

By forgoing government assistance and the many regulations and requirements that come with it, SDS Capital Group said the [affordable housing] 49-unit apartment building it is financing in South Los Angeles will cost about $291,000 a unit to build.
The roughly 4,500 apartments for low-income people that have been built with funding from a $1.2 billion bond measure LA voters approved in 2016 have cost an average of $600,000 each.

It’s even worse in San Jose:

A recent report commissioned by the city of San Jose found affordable-housing projects that received tax credits cost an average of around $939,000 a unit to build there last year.

There are some naysayers:

Some affordable-housing veterans worry whether privately funded construction can scale quickly enough to match the scope of the homelessness problem and whether its backers will maintain their commitments to serve the needy.

That’s a problem for government to solve, not the private funders of affordable housing. It’s government regulations, both well-intended and done solely for political gain, and government strings dictating how government-provided funds must be spent that impact the scope of the “homeless problem.” Government regulations and strings create, in large part, the homeless numbers, including especially the duration of individual and individual family homelessness.

Another case of the advantage of letting a free market operate freely. Imagine that.

Inflation is Coming Down—So What?

Posted on by
Reply

So what, indeed.

Shelter cost inflation slowed, to 0.4% in February from the previous month compared with a 0.6% pace in January. This reinforced suspicions that January’s high reading in that category was an anomaly. But apparel prices, a category that had been in deflation, jumped 0.6%.

There’s concern that inflation isn’t “slowing” enough to encourage the Federal Reserve to start cutting its benchmark interest rates, and that’s a two-edged sword.

It’s nice that inflation may finally be abating, but that’s for the future. Most of us live in the here and now; we have to deal with the present reality of the much higher prices for our necessities, much less for our wants, that Progressive-Democrat Joe Biden’s hugely inflationary policies have created. Those prices won’t come down in nominal terms, and they can’t come down in real terms until wages catch up with, and surpass, prices—which means that wage increases must surpass those price increases over a period of time.

That isn’t occurring at a rate that would ease the loss us Americans are experiencing in the grocery stores and in the homes we want to buy. That last, driven in large part by high interest rates, also is inhibiting our heretofore geographical mobility, and that in turn hurts our ability to earn more by changing jobs. We’re functionally denied that avenue for wage increases that surpass price increases.

As things over the last three years or so, wage increases were much less than those inflation-driven price increases for a couple of years, until last summer. At that point, wages increased slightly—and only slightly—faster than price increases over each of the next several months. Over the last couple of months, though, that trend appears to have reversed, with wage increases again being smaller than price increases as inflation has begun, slowly so far, to rise again. Indeed, over the longer term into the past,

[a]ccording to ECI [the Bureau of Labor Statists’ Employment Cost Index], inflation-adjusted wages have shrunk by 3.7% since the end of 2020. While real wages rose in response to falling energy prices late last year, they have been roughly flat since. Worse, the drop in real wages erased all gains made in the late 2010s. Real wages today stand at 2015 levels, meaning Americans’ paychecks don’t go any further now than they did eight years ago.

That two-edged sword shows up in this way. Higher interest rates help the stereotypical widows and orphans—and today’s retirees—who are living with fixed income sources facilitating their Social Security payments. Those fixed income sources benefit from higher interest rates, since that interest is the source of income for the debt- and dividend-paying instruments they hold.

Higher interest rates, though, hurt the overall economy in a couple of ways. One is the higher cost of the Federal government’s borrowing, including its rolling over of its existing debt. That higher cost means less money to spend on things the Federal government should be spending on (setting aside, for this post, the definition of what the government should spend on). Those higher rates also increase the cost of money to businesses, which leads to lower investment rates, less R&D, slower pay raises, and reduced hiring.