by | BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
The news coming out of the science world regarding the breakthrough in fusion is exciting. The ability to have a sustaining clean energy source has been a part of science research for at least the last 60 years. But missed in the discussion is its true importance – that the movements towards wind and solar energy (“wse”) are just a waste.
The drawbacks and costs of using wse to produce low carbon energy are well known. They are expensive, unreliable, and environmentally damaging (using toxic metals, huge amounts of space, etc). Use of wse will diminish global economies by trillions of dollars hurting poor people and countries most of all. And in the end, even under the most austere de-carbonization policies, the effects on actual temperature reduction will only be a fraction of a degree.
But we have been told that in order to have any chance of saving the planet by reducing CO2, , we must go in this direction. In other words, if climate change is an existential threat, there’s nothing else we can do — we have to do it or else the world will be destroyed. Right?
Wrong. How stupid are we all going to feel if we spend the next decades destroying economies worldwide through unsound green policies only to discover that cold fusion (or some other non carbon energy source) made those policies just useless!
At the start of the twentieth century. New York City thought it was going to be destroyed by horse manure. Indeed, in 1898, the first international urban-planning conference took place in the city. It only lasted three days instead of ten, because no one in attendance could come up with a viable solution to the massive, growing amount of horse manure that was produced in the city. At the time, roughly 100,000 horses created 2.5 million pounds per day of manure. NYC was not the only city facing such a problem. Just a few years earlier, the Time of London carried an article in which its author forecasted that in “50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.”
But the manure problem was solved not by efficient waste removal policies – it was solved by the automobile. No one anticipated that the cure for the manure was not horse-related; it was a new invention. All the time and energy spent fixing the manure problem was all for naught.
Perhaps it’s not worth going through all this green policy, expending trillions of dollars and upending economies, if in 10-15 years we have cold fusion or another non-carbon energy source. Human ingenuity has always been the source of the solutions. Fossil fuels itself was the solution to inefficient energy sources of its day. Wouldn’t it be that much more rational to spend money on new energy sources instead of wse? Bjorn Lomborg, among many others, have been advocating this for years.
Nuclear fusion, the combining of hydrogen atoms to produce tremendous amounts of clean energy, is the real solution for the green movement.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY
A recent article in the WSJ, “Is the U.S. Moving On From Free Trade? Industrial Policy Comes Full Circle” should have ultimately been an Op-Ed because it was a baseless attack on the concept of free-trade. It starts out okay, pointing out that free markets, free trade and globalization have been the bedrock of a healthy US economy, especially since WWII. But then the author ignorantly blathers on and ultimately concludes that globalization based on neoclassical free-trade doctrine is wrong.
After World War II, government spending (military, etc.) dried up overnight. But it was a free-market, non-coercive environment at the time that allowed private investment to flourish and more than make up for the decline in government spending. What we currently have is a problem caused by runaway government spending. Government spending wholeheartedly crowds out private spending, substituting inefficient political and crony-based spending for free-market, give-the-public-what-they-want spending.
Likewise, economically stupid policies like tariffs against China were instituted and have yet to be repealed. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess of any benefits given to those crony beneficiary companies. They don’t strengthen American manufacturers; it is cronyism of the highest order.
One of the most important takeaways from the COVID affair is the clear evidence of how critically important free markets are. While the free market developed workarounds for providing necessities and developing relevant new products, the government couldn’t get out of its own way in terms of what it was trying to do, while an overabundance of regulations hampered its responsiveness.
Trying to suggest that more government intervention in the economy is the solution and not the problem clearly is economically ignorant.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, LAW, POTUS, SOCIAL SECURITY
In a now-deleted Tweet written a week before midterms, President Biden tried to take credit for the Social Security increases that recipients will receive in 2023. The White House twitter account gleefully announced that “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”
The problem is that Social Security increases are based on a formula known as COLA, or cost-of-living adjustment, which measures inflation and the Consumer Price Index. The CPI was up 8.7% in the year-over-year comparison and therefore, seniors will receive an 8.7% adjustment.
It’s worth it to note that this increase is actually the largest since 1981, not just 10 years, because inflation is the worst it has been in four decades. One could argue that indeed it is his leadership (via his atrocious economic policies, mind you) that is the basis for the escalation in prices. But COLA increases and decreases have been tied to the CPI since the 1970s. That’s the law, not the President.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY
Biden told one of the biggest whoppers of his presidency during a speech today when he went after oil and gas companies and accused them of “war profiteering” after companies posted record profits. But what he purposefully left out was the fact that his own war on energy has directly contributed to the situation. Don’t forget that Biden once vowed to “end fossil fuels”.
It is laughable that Biden chastised Exxon, Shell, and other companies, saying “They have a responsibility to act in the interest of their consumers, their community and their country, to invest in America by increasing production and refining capacity” when one of his very first acts of his presidency was to cancel the permit on the Keystone pipeline so that it came to a screeching halt.
One week after taking office, he delivered on his campaign promises to ban “new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters” by signing an Executive Order doing just that.
Emboldened by Biden’s alternative energy push, three Democrats submitted the “Fossil Free Finance Act” to Congress in September 2021, which would have ordered “the Fed to take unprecedented steps meant to steer financial support away from oil, gas, coal and companies by unraveling banks who refuse to comply.”
Likewise, Biden pushed for Sarah Bloom Raskin to be named to the Federal Reserve Board until she withdrew her nomination in March 2022. Raskin’s vision was that financial regulators move toward policies that will “allocate capital and align portfolios toward sustainable investments that do not depend on carbon and fossil fuels.”
If there is any actual “war profiteering,” it’s the war on fossil fuels Biden and the Democrats have been waging, causing oil and gas companies to change their investment strategies since they have been stymied by this administration since day one.
Even worse, Biden continued his war by threatening to impose a new tax on excess earnings if companies don’t start investing and lowering prices, saying, “if they don’t, they’re going to pay a higher tax on their excess profits and face other restrictions.” But such a tax, should it come to fruition, would actually discourage investment in new production, thereby exacerbating the very problem that Biden himself has manufactured!
After two years of demonizing the oil and gas industry and choking off new growth, Biden now wants to blame them for higher energy prices. But who in their right mind would invest in such an odious (and now economically risky) environment? This is exactly what Biden wanted, except now it is threatening the Democrats’ standings in the upcoming midterm elections.
by | BLOG
From October 2021 – September 2022 (FY2022), the federal government collected more than $4 trillion this year. The $4,896,119,000,000 of revenue was a record, as shown by the Monthly Treasury Statement. The prior record was FY2021, in which the government collected $4,377,816,830,000. This constitutes a nearly 12% year-over-year increase. These are both in “constant September 2022 dollars.” The only other time the government collected more than $4 trillion was during the Obama administration in FY2015, raking in $4,052,366,920,000 in constant September 2022 dollars. (All September 2022 dollar adjustments were made using the CPI calculator published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
The record revenue, however, meant nothing to the government, as it still overspent, its outlays totaling $6,271,508,000,000. This resulted in an annual deficit of $1,375,389,000,000. Last year the deficit exceeded $1 trillion as well, as it did in FY2020 and FY2019.
Where did all the money come from this year? From greatest to least, the government collected $2,632,145,000,000 in individual income taxes, $1,483,526,000,000 in social insurance and retirement taxes, $99,908,000,000 in customs duties, $87,726,000,000 in excise taxes, $32,550,000,000 in estate and gift taxes, and $135,397,000,000 in “miscellaneous receipts.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
Though the head of JP Morgan Chase feels that the economy is still doing okay, he foresees a recession in 6-9 months. This is due in part to “the impact of runaway inflation, interest rates going up more than expected, the unknown effects of quantitative tightening and Russia’s war in Ukraine.” He further implored that the Fed “waited too long and did too little” as inflation increased to its highest rate in 40 years. Though they are aggressively raising rates now to curb inflation, raising them too much too fast can also cause problems. The Fed is widely expected to raise the rate another 3/4 point at its next meeting in a few weeks.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, GOVERNMENT
The Jones Act, as you know, requires that all cargo shipped between U.S. ports be carried by U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-owned ships. It makes any business involving shipping between Puerto Rico and the mainland impossible, thereby currently impeding the recovery effort from Hurricane Ian. Ships with supplies and fuel are ready to aid the people of Puerto Rico — if only they could dock there.
The Jones Act puts an unnecessary burden on our U.S territories; exempting Puerto Rico from this provision would provide disaster relief. Repealing the Jones Act permanently would actually give Puerto Rico a much-needed burst of commerce and lower the cost of living. As it is now, the Jones Act limits international competition for imports and creates higher taxes on basic necessities such as energy and food.
At the very least, President Biden should provide a temporary waiver of the Jones Act but the right thing to do in the long run would be to retire it completely.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, COVID, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
How can Biden get away with saying the pandemic is over, at the very same time his attorney wrote the legal opinion that debt forgiveness was constitutional because of the COVID State of Emergency? He is trying to play both sides.
On 60 Minutes this past Sunday, President Biden declared that “The pandemic is over. We still have a problem with Covid.” He furthered this assertion by reiterating “the pandemic is over. If you notice, no one’s wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing.”
Since Biden says it’s over, then it’s time for the enduring COVID State of Emergency to be over. But that poses a problem for him. With that, any additional COVID funding should also cease. He needs to declare the pandemic over right before midterms to show that he and the Democrats have been successful in something since he took office. But he is simultaneously hanging on to the enduring COVID State of Emergency and using that to justify his unconstitutional student loan forgiveness scheme.
Biden is a criminal liar and simply cannot have it both ways.
by | ARTICLES, BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY
What is happening, as demonstrated by the Census, is that the government largess is taking some people out of poverty, but it is having an even greater and more dangerously perverse effect. It’s making people overall worse economically and preventing them from moving up to the middle class while expanding the lower levels and destroying a generation of minorities. Biden is the poster child for the very people he’s supposed to be helping and he’s made it worse for them. This article in the WSJ, “How Welfare Left Americans Poorer” explains the terrible and true cost of transfer payments. I have reproduced it below.
The Census Bureau released its 2021 income report Tuesday, and the political spin is that unprecedented pandemic transfer payments lifted millions out of poverty. It’s more accurate to say that most Americans are worse off than before the pandemic owing in part to . . . unprecedented transfer payments.
Lifting government lockdowns last year should have caused millions of Americans to return to work and raised average incomes. That didn’t happen. Real median pre-tax household income fell $402 last year to $70,784 and was $2,024 lower than in 2019. The total number of workers didn’t budge between 2020 and 2021.
Millions of Americans whose hours were cut during lockdowns did return to full-time work, but many laid-off Americans stayed home. The number of full-time, year-round workers increased by 11.1 million last year, but their real median earnings declined 4.1%.
Rising prices (see nearby) may have reduced the incentive to work as the purchasing power of paychecks declined. But the Census report also underscores the outsize effects of the March 2021 $1.9 trillion spending bill, which helped drive the “supplemental” poverty measure (which accounts for transfer payments) to a record low even though the official poverty rate didn’t improve.
The $300 a week unemployment benefit boost finally lapsed last September, but transfer payments on the whole grew last year. These included the $3,600 child tax credit; $1,400 payments for each adult and child; food stamps averaging about $230 a person a month; expanded Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies, and more.
The ACA subsidy enhancement, in particular, has enabled pre-Medicare age Americans to retire early. Adding up all of last year’s government largesse, a lower-income family with two young children would have received nearly $24,000 in “free” cash, which doesn’t even include the cost of government health coverage.
We’ve written about how a March 2020 law restricts states from ending Medicaid for people no longer financially eligible as long as the national pandemic emergency is in effect. The same law suspended food stamp work requirements and raised benefits. When leisure pays as much as work, fewer work.
Democrats highlight the Census Bureau’s finding that 1.1 million fewer Americans were without health insurance last year than in 2020. But the bigger story was the shift from private to government health coverage. The number of people with private plans fell by 1.5 million while enrollment in Medicaid increased by 3.2 million and Medicare by 1.7 million.
This underscores warnings that Medicaid and ACA subsidy expansions might induce small employers to drop coverage, especially as they have to pay more to attract workers. Medicaid spending has increased by about a third during the pandemic and amounted to $33,000 last year for each new Medicaid enrollee.
Government had to support struggling Americans when government shut down the economy in 2020. But Democrats used Covid to expand the welfare state long after the crisis has passed. Americans are paying for it via inflation that has eroded their incomes.
Real median post-tax income including transfer payments declined last year by 1% for all households, 2.9% for those without children and 4.2% for seniors. Most Americans are worse off than they would have been had that $1.9 trillion bill never passed.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
Phill Gramm and John Early do a nice job laying out the misnomer that income inequality is the problem. This concept of inequality really became a selling point during the Obama administration when the Democrats consistently implored that “millionaires and billionaires” should “pay their fair share.” But the simple fact remains that income inequality isn’t the actual problem with the economy. The problem lies in the fact that, due to the massive amount of government transfer payments, the bottom 60% of income earners have seen their income equalized to the point of nearly attaining the same amount of income of Americans who receive none. The result of this phenomenon is that the labor participation rate among the bottom quintile has fallen sharply to 36% (through 2017, the latest year for statistics), which is what is truly disastrous for the economy. (What’s more, this article doesn’t even begin to touch the ever-worsening labor participation/economic situation due to COVID policies and extra government transfers.) The article from the Wall Street Journal is reprinted below. It is a strong read about the concepts of income inequality and equality.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the most dramatic and consequential change in the distribution of income in America in the past half-century isn’t rising income inequality but the extraordinary growth in income equality among the bottom 60% of household earners.
Real government transfer payments to the bottom 20% of household earners surged by 269% between 1967 and 2017, while middle-income households saw their real earnings after taxes rise by only 154% during the same period. That has largely equalized the income of the bottom 60% of Americans. This government-created equality has caused the labor-force participation rate to collapse among working-age people in low-income households and unleashed a populist realignment that is unraveling the coalition that has dominated American politics since the 1930s.
On these pages, we have debunked the myth that income inequality is extreme and growing on a secular basis by showing that the Census Bureau measure of income fails to include two-thirds of all federal, state and local transfer payments as income to the recipients and fails to treat taxes paid as income lost to the taxpayer. The Census Bureau measure overstates current income inequality between the highest and lowest 20% of earners by more than 300% and claims that income inequality has risen by 21% since 1967, when in fact it has fallen by 3%.
Our most significant finding from correcting the census income calculations wasn’t the overstated inequality between top and bottom earners. It was the extraordinary equality of income among the bottom 60% of American households, regardless of employment status. In 2017, among working-age households, the bottom 20% earned only $6,941 on average, and only 36% were employed. But after transfer payments and taxes, those households had an average income of $48,806. The average working-age household in the second quintile earned $31,811 and 85% of them were employed. But after transfers and taxes, they had income of $50,492, a mere 3.5% more than the bottom quintile. The middle quintile earned $66,453 and 92% were employed. But after taxes and transfers, they kept only $61,350—just 26% more than the bottom quintile.
Even these figures don’t tell the whole story. In the bottom quintile, there are on average only 1.92 people living in a household. The second and middle quintiles have 2.41 and 2.62 people respectively. After adjusting income for the number of people living in the household, the bottom-quintile household received $33,653 per capita. The second and middle quintile households had on average $29,497 and $32,574 per capita, respectively. The blockbuster finding is that on a per capita basis the average bottom quintile household received 14% more income than the average second-quintile household and 3.3% more than the average middle-income household.
It should be noted that while per capita comparisons are widely used, they tend to overstate the effects of household size. Two people living together can achieve the same material well-being for less than they could living separately. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has developed a measure widely used internationally to adjust for household size, and the Census Bureau has a similar adjustment it uses in its supplemental poverty measure. Since the results produced by the OECD and the Census Bureau adjustments are so similar, we simply use the average of the two below.
The nearby chart compares the after-tax, after-transfer incomes of the bottom three quintiles of American households with no adjustment for household size, on a per capita basis, and using the average of the OECD and census adjustments for household size. We found that the average bottom-quintile household has $2,401 (or 6.6%) more income than the second quintile and only $3,306 (or 7.8%) less than the middle-income quintile.
The average second-quintile household earned almost five times as much as the average household in the bottom quintile, because it had 2.4 times as many working-age members working and on average each worker worked 80% more hours. The average middle-quintile household earned almost 10 times as much and had 2.6 times the percentage of its working-age people working, each working twice as many hours. Yet the bottom 60% of American households received essentially the same income after accounting for taxes, transfer payments and household size.
Given the surge in transfer payments since the war on poverty, it isn’t surprising that the percentage of working-age people in the bottom quintile who actually worked plummeted from 68% in 1967 to 36% in 2017. With transfer payments giving recipients about as much for not working as they could earn working, only a mandatory work requirement as a condition for receiving means-tested benefits will bring them back into the labor market. While official statistics don’t count two-thirds of those transfer payments and don’t show the income equality they produce, Americans who work hard to make ends meet are aware of it. Despite Democratic politicians’ efforts to provoke resentment against the rich, when was the last time you heard working people complain that some people in America are rich? The hostility of working people is increasingly focused on a system where those who don’t break a sweat are about as well off as they are.
This justifiable resentment is the economic source of today’s American populism. It is ravaging the increasingly unstable Democratic political alliance between welfare recipients and blue-collar workers. It was already building in the 1980s, with what were then called Reagan Democrats, and it was fully manifested in the Trump blue-collar political base. It is now driving political realignment among Hispanic voters, who are disproportionately middle-income earners.
By eroding self-reliance, worker pride and labor-force participation, government-generated income equality undermines the very foundations of American prosperity. A democratic society won’t knowingly tolerate it.
