The notion of introducing a per-mile taxation system, as modeled by Oklahoma’s Fair Miles pilot project[1], has been touted as an alternative to traditional fuel taxes to generate revenue for road maintenance and infrastructure projects. While the aim to diversify and stabilize the revenue base is understandable, it is vital to examine the implications this system would have for motorcyclists, a significant clientele in Arizona. This analysis elucidates multiple concerns that demonstrate why Arizona should not follow Oklahoma’s model.
Adverse Impact on Motorcyclists
Motorcycles generally consume less fuel than passenger cars and trucks, and therefore, motorcyclists already pay less in fuel taxes. A per-mile taxation system would disproportionately impact motorcyclists, as they would end up paying significantly more than under the current gas tax system for the same road usage.[2] Unlike heavier vehicles, motorcycles inflict less wear and tear on road surfaces, making the proposed tax system inherently unfair to this group.
Privacy Concerns
Any per-mile taxation system will necessitate data collection to measure the distance traveled by each vehicle. While technology can facilitate this, data privacy concerns are paramount. Motorcyclists, who often value the sense of freedom and privacy that comes with riding, may be particularly wary of governmental tracking systems.[3]
Financial Burdens
The cost of implementing and administering a per-mile tax system could be substantial. The Fair Miles project in Oklahoma alone is estimated to cost $3.9 million.[4] These expenses would likely be passed on to taxpayers, including motorcyclists, exacerbating the financial burden on them.
Counterproductive to Environmental Goals
Many individuals opt for motorcycles as they are more fuel-efficient and less damaging to the environment compared to larger vehicles. Imposing a per-mile tax would discourage this eco-friendly mode of transportation, thereby contravening broader societal goals of reducing carbon emissions.
Recommendations for Arizona Policymakers
Exclusion for Motorcycles: If Arizona considers adopting a per-mile taxation system, motorcycles should be excluded or subject to a substantially reduced rate due to their lesser impact on infrastructure.
Consultation: Policymakers should consult with motorcyclist groups and other stakeholders to gauge opinions and impact before considering such a sweeping change.
Data Privacy Legislation: If any system involving tracking is considered, robust data privacy protections should be a precondition.
Environmental Considerations: Policies should encourage, not discourage, the use of environmentally friendly transportation options.
Conclusion
While the quest for alternative funding methods for infrastructure is valid, the proposed per-mile taxation system poses significant challenges and is particularly unfair to motorcyclists. In light of these considerations, Arizona should refrain from adopting such a system without substantial modifications to protect the interests of motorcyclists.
2. Federal Highway Administration, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” accessed on September 19, 2023, [Federal Highway Administration](https://highways.dot.gov/).
Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.
Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.
Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-10-02 02:26:002023-10-02 02:26:00Policy Analysis: Opposition to Per-Mile Taxation Systems Considering the Implications for Motorcyclists in Arizona
California’s push to electrify the heavy-duty trucking fleet in the state is likely to hurt independent trucking operators and drive up costs for goods across the entire American economy, experts on California policy and the trucking industry told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
California will ban the sale of new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks starting in 2036, and trucking companies that move products between state’s ports and distribution hubs will not be allowed to register new diesel trucks with the state starting in 2024, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
The state’s policies will require more trucks “to haul the same amount of freight” and “have a real impact on the supply chain and the cost and reliability of transportation for the goods that consumers depend on every day,” Jeremy Kirkpatrick, a spokesperson for the American Trucking Association, told the DCNF.
California’s push to transition diesel trucks to electric models in the coming years is likely to damage the state’s trucking industry as well as the larger American economy, experts on California policy and the trucking industry told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
California law will ban the sale of new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks in the state starting in 2036, and trucking companies that move products between the state’s ports and distribution hubs will not be allowed to register new diesel trucks starting in 2024,according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The policies could drive up costs for operators and consumers, an outcome that would hurt the overall U.S. economy, given that California’s 12 ports handle approximately 40% of all imported containers to the U.S. and 30% of all of its shipping container exports, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
“There are serious issues with range and charge times, operability in cold weather environments and reduced payloads because of the battery weight,” Jeremy Kirkpatrick, a spokesperson for the American Trucking Association, told the DCNF. “That means more trucks will be needed to haul the same amount of freight. All of this will have a real impact on the supply chain and the cost and reliability of transportation for the goods that consumers depend on every day.”
The state’s policies effectively mandate that nearly all of the state’s freight hauling, package delivery and box trucks would be zero-emission vehicles by no later than 2045, according to the office of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Without incentives, electric trucks are nearly three times more expensive up front than a diesel powered rig, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
VP HARRIS: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water.” pic.twitter.com/yhZzDmkeAM
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, provides incentives that can cover about $40,000 of the overall cost of electric trucks, which have an average cost of about $400,000, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.
“Electric trucks in particular have limited range based on numerous factors (weight, outside air temperature, etc.), and many cannot operate much over 250 miles before needing to be recharged (diesels can operate well over 1,000 miles depending on fuel tank size),” Joe Rajkovacz, director of governmental affairs and communications for the Western States Trucking Association, told the DCNF. “The recharging times (supposing there are sufficient charging points), can take hours, not minutes as with diesel. This takes away significantly from the hours of service drivers are allowed daily under both state and federal regulations.”
“As trucks time out, many will not be replaced, reducing the required number of available trucks to California ports and rail yards,” Rajkovacz continued. “It is simple Econ 101; when a shortage hits, prices go up.”
California’s policies on truck emissions are the strictest in the nation and are oriented around the state’s goal to achieve an overall emissions reduction of 85% by 2045, according to Newsom’s office.
“These vehicles are far more expensive and cost-prohibitive for most truckers,” Kirkpatrick told the DCNF. He added that “96% of trucking companies in this country are small businesses operating ten trucks or fewer. The charging infrastructure is nowhere near in place, and even if it was, there’s not electricity on the grid to power the fleet.”
There were less than 700 electric truck chargers across the entire state as of July, and the state estimates that more than 150,000 new chargers will be required in order to power the fleet of the future, according to The Wall Street Journal. California’s grid already struggles to comfortably meet periods of peak demand, as the state’s grid operator issued “Flex Alerts” over a 10-day period in September 2022 urging residents to turn up their thermostats during the late afternoon and evening hours to conserve energy amid a heatwave.
The potential problems of an electrified trucking fleet will not be exclusive to California, as eight other states have opted into at least some of California’s rules for truck emissions. Those states are Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont, according to CARB.
“There are new technologies coming fast and mandating pure electric vehicles closes off innovation and creates obsolete trucks within a few years,” Edward Ring, senior fellow for the California Policy Center. told the DCNF. “Meanwhile, our entire fleet gets sidelined and countless independent truckers are wiped out.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-10-02 00:53:382023-10-02 00:53:38‘Simple Econ 101’: Here’s How California’s E-Truck Push Could Hamstring The American Economy
It has become a running joke: the “strong” Bidenomics economy comes with an expiration date, as it is only “strong” for about a month, at which point the initial “strength” is downgraded, and the data is revised sharply lower.
That has certainly been the case with US labor data, as we first reported last month, every single monthly payroll print in 2023 has been revised lower (see chart below), a 12-sigma probability and virtually impossible unless there was political pressure to massage the data higher initially and then revise it lower when nobody is looking.
But the BLS is not done: as we reported last week, besides the now traditional one-month lookback revisions the ridiculously high monthly payrolls prints accumulated over the past year will also be slowly but surely revised gradually lower at annual benchmark revisions for years to come. As Morgan Stanley chief US economist Ellen Zentner explained (full note available to pro subscribers)…
Payrolls get revised too, and we expect a downward revision. Payrolls have an annual benchmark revision that is published in February each year. The revision adjusts the level of payrolls through March of the prior year. For example, a new revision will be published in Feb-24, adjusting payroll levels from April-22 to Mar-23. And a preliminary estimation of the upcoming revision points to a decrease in payroll YoY% growth rates of -0.2pp.
But while downward payroll revisions under Bidenomics are as certain as death and taxes, what we wanted to discuss here are the just as striking downward revisions to US consumption which hit this morning alongside the comprehensive once every-five-years historical revisions to GDP. As a reminder:
Today’s release presents results from the comprehensive update of the National Economic Accounts (NEAs), which include the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPAs) and the Industry Economic Accounts (IEAs). The update includes revised statistics for GDP, GDP by industry, GDI, and their major components. Current-dollar measures of GDP and related components are revised from the first quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2023. GDI and selected income components are revised from the first quarter of 1979 through the first quarter of 2023.
Earlier today we already noted the disaster that was Q2 Personal Consumption: instead of the 1.7% unchanged print from the second estimate of Q2 GDP, the final number was a dire 0.8%, a 9-sigma miss to estimates…
But what about other historical data? After all today’s revision impacted all data from Q1 2013? Therein, as the bard says, lies the rub.
Let’s start with personal consumption, and compare the latest post-revision current data (link) with the most comprehensive pre-revision data as of last month (link). It should come as no surprise to anyone that with the (slight) exception of just Q4 2022, personal consumption in every single quarter since the start of 2022 – when the Fed aggressively started tightening and hiked rates by the most since Volcker – has been revised lower, and in some cases dramatically so.
Bloomberg also picks up on the GDP revision and looking at revisions to the historical data, writes that “the pandemic contraction is seen as being a bit less severe than previously thought: GDP is now reckoned to have dropped at a 28% annual clip in the second quarter of 2020, instead by 29.9%, as the government shut down swathes of the economy to fight the spread of the virus. But the recovery since then has been somewhat slower, according to the update. Growth last year was revised to 1.9% from 2.1%.” And of all GDP components, consumption was the weakest.
So not only was the Fed hiking at a time when personal consumption would grow much less period to period than previously expected, but the US economy was generally weaker than previously expected (as discussed here).
There’s more.
When looking at the composition of the US household’s income statement – the summary of economic accounts – we find just what we had expected: US savings were in fact far lower than previously expected.
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-10-01 02:28:002023-10-01 02:28:00You Will Never Guess What Happened to the “Strong US Consumer” After Today’s Huge GDP Revisions
Total encounters reported at both the northern and southwest land borders in August was 304,162, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. It is the greatest total number of illegal entries of any month in recorded U.S. history, according to CBP data.
Total encounter dataexcludesnearly 30,000 gotaways at the southwest border reported by Border Patrol agents last month. It excludes gotaways reported by Office of Field Operations agents at the southwest border and all gotaway data from the northern border.
Gotaways is the official CBP term for foreign nationals who illegally enter between ports of entry and don’t return to Mexico or Canada. CBP doesn’t publicly release this data. The Center Square receives preliminary gotaway data from a Border Patrol agent on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
More than 1.6 million gotaways have beenreportedillegally entering the southern border alone since January 2021. Many news outlets reported more than 230,000 encounters were reported by CBP at the southwest border in August. However, when preliminary gotaway data is included, the number increased to over 261,000 illegal border crossers, The Center Square previously reported.
By comparison, more than 251,521 illegal total border crossers were reported in August 2022, up from 231,243 in August 2021 and 65,707 in August 2020, excluding gotaways.
The next highest monthly total of illegal border crossers after August 2023 was 284,665 in November 2022.
Fiscal year to date, nearly 2.9 million total illegal border crossers have been encountered, according to CBP data, the highest number in U.S. history. The data was last updated on Sept. 6. and excludes gotaways.
In fiscal 2022, the number was over 2.76 million; in fiscal 2021, over 1.95 million; and in fiscal 2020, 646,822.
The majority of illegal border crossers are single adults, according to CBP data. The greatest number apprehended was in fiscal 2022 of 1,993,694. The next highest number was 1,876,266 apprehended this fiscal year to date, which ends Sept. 30.
In fiscal 2021, 1,321,674 single adults were encountered compared to 536,792 in fiscal 2020.
The next greatest number of illegal border crossers by demographic are individuals claiming to be in a family unit. This fiscal year to date they total 853,687. They totaled 614,023 in fiscal 2022; 483,846 in fiscal 2021; and 74,960 in fiscal 2020.
Among the third greatest demographic, unaccompanied children/single minors, 152,880 were encountered in fiscal 2022. In fiscal 2021, 147,975 were encountered; in fiscal year to date, 124,221 were encountered. In fiscal 2020, 34,126 unaccompanied minors were encountered.
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-30 02:29:002023-09-30 02:29:00August Border Encounters Of More Than 322,000 Highest Monthly Total In U.S. History
The first UK ‘womb transplant’, carried out by Richard Smith’s team in Oxford and announced at the end of August, understandably gained a lot of press coverage and was heralded by some as the ‘dawn of a new era’. In fact, the first uterus transplant was carried out in 2000 in Saudi Arabia in a 26-year-old woman who had to have the cadaveric transplant removed due to thrombosis 99 days later. Others have questioned how that particular procedure ever got through an ethics committee.
One of my lawyer colleagues remarked how little comment there has been, if any, about the ethical aspects of this first UK womb transplant and so wrote a helpful article on the topic herself.
There are several issues not raised in that article, however, that appear to have gone entirely without comment. The first relates to informed consent and the importance of receiving accurate information rather than skewed statistics.
In the case of wombs, a successful transplant is not saving a life, but ultimately about successfully gestating a healthy new life to the point of viability, despite the considerable risk to the recipient. In order to give valid consent, the chances of success of delivering a so-called ‘take home baby’ – of necessity via a Caesarean section followed by hysterectomy to avoid continuation of immunosuppressive medications – needs to be communicated accurately.
Uterus Transplant Team Has a Current Success Rate Close to 80%
As the publication shares, out of the 14 (out of 20) technically successful uterus transplants, there have been 12 successful live births, which gives us a success rate of 79%.
However, only 12 out of 20 transplants actually resulted in a baby. Sixty-two percent, though not really close to 80 percent at all, gives a far more accurate picture to those considering the procedure.
The second point not mentioned by the media concerns the fact that most of the world’s 100 or so uterine transplants have been from deceased donors. Consent for the deceased donation of organs considered routine for transplantation (such as heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, corneas, pancreas, and small bowel) is assumed in the UK unless the person concerned actively opts out.
Trans-plants
Although we are many years away from uterine transplants becoming routine, should they become so, they will be unique in that only biological females will be possible donors. Potential donors may regard a non-life (or non-sight) saving transplant in a different light from already well-established, routine transplants. Indeed, research will need to be carried out to ensure women are not deterred from donating other organs because of reservations they may have about uterine donation after death.
Usually, the recipient of a deceased donation cannot be specified by the donor. Still, if it does eventually become technically possible to transplant a uterus successfully into a biological male, many women may not wish to donate their wombs in such circumstances. This is a long way off, of course.
In response to questions, co-lead surgeon of the first UK transplant, Professor Richard Smith, said he thought this was decades away because it was technically more difficult due to ‘anatomical differences’ and other issues such as differing microbiomes in men and women. Nevertheless, if not given a choice to express a view on such a divisive issue, some women who might otherwise have elected to donate after death might opt out.
Finally, there is the high financial cost of uterus transplants and the question of who pays for them. The UK’s first womb transplant cost £25,000, even with the surgeons working pro bono, and was paid for by a charity. Is the NHS going to be able to afford the costs of such transplants into biological women with uterine factor infertility, let alone into biological men in whom the likelihood of a successful transplant (let alone the delivery of a healthy infant) is far more remote? Is this a justifiable use of public funding?
Truthfulness (Psalm 51:6) and justice (Micah 6:8) are important biblical ethical principles, and both are often absent in debates about fertility treatment more generally. Sadly, discussions – or lack of them – about uterine transplantation don’t look set to herald much change in that tendency.
Trevor Stammers was a GP and a clinical teacher for over twenty years. He has worked in academia for the last fifteen years and was the editor of The New Bioethics from 2011 to 2022. He currently volunteers as a Public Policy Associate with CMF.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-29 23:52:022023-09-29 23:52:02The UK’s first womb transplant – what the media missed out
AS economic freedom in the world has plunged in recent years, due mainly to the interventions and fiscal-monetary profligacy associated with COVID shutdowns, mandates, and subsidies. The global measure is given in Figure One. This is a significant reversal of freedom’s increase between 2010 and 2019. But the downtrend is much worse and more prolonged in the US.
Figure Two makes clear that economic freedom in the US also has declined significantly, but it’s done so since the financial crisis and “Great Recession” of 2007-09, not only amid COVID lockdowns. The overall score for the US was 82 in 2007 (out of a maximum of 100) but is only 71 today. In this time the US has moved from the category of “Free” (80-100) to “Mostly Free” (70-80) to the precipice of becoming merely “Moderately Free” (60-70). In 2007 only three countries were economically freer than the US, but by 2015 eleven nations were. Today, 24 are freer (including Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, South Korea, and Sweden).
In 2007 the three countries economically freer than the US were Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia. Hong Kong was ranked #1 every year from 1995 to 2019 (and #2 in 2020), but was then summarily omitted from the rankings by the Heritage Foundation under the mistaken claim that its economic policies were suddenly “controlled from Beijing.” Heritage did this in response to Hong Kong’s government precluding violent insurrectionists (who posed as “champions of democracy”) from taking over the local legislature. For the Heritage perspective, see Edwin J. Feulner’s, “Hong Kong Is No Longer What It Was,” wherein he admits that the editors of the Index recognize that Hong Kong “offers its citizens more economic freedom than is available to the average citizen of China.” For Hong Kong’s view, see “Hong Kong Minister Blasts City’s Disappearance from ‘World’s Freest Economies’ Rankings.”
Figures Three, Four, and Five depict the trend of scores since 1995 for the US, the World average, and China, along three measures: overall economic freedom (Figure Three), business freedom (Figure Four), and trade freedom (Figure Five).
Overall (Figure Three), US economic freedom has declined since 2007 while the world average has held steady (at around 60). On business freedom (Figure Four), China has become much freer and the US less so since 2006. According to Heritage, the “Business Freedom” metric measures “an individual’s ability to establish and run an enterprise without undue interference from the state” and without “burdensome and redundant regulations.”
On trade (Figure Five), China became substantially freer during the decade of 1995-2005 and has maintained that level since then, while US economic freedom, after being steady through 2005, has eroded since then (especially since 2019, due to Trump’s trade wars).
Figure Six depicts relative scores (ratios) for the US versus the world average and China, again using the overall measure, the business freedom metric, and the trade freedom metric. The US-World Ratio for the overall index has declined 13 percent, from 1.37X in 2007 to 1.19X in 2023. The US-China Ratio for trade freedom fell 16 percent in the year before Trump became president (1.21X in 2015) to today (1.02X, as Biden hasn’t rescinded or reduced the Trump tariffs). The US-China Ratio for business freedom plummeted 37 percent, from 1.95X in 2007 to 1.23X in 2023 – due to China’s absolute measure increasing by 46 percent while the US absolute measure declined by 8 percent.
Why does this matter? Most people, including many professional economists and data analysts (who should know better) seem to cling to the impression that US economic freedom is high and stable, while China has become less free economically. The facts say otherwise, and the facts should shape our perceptions and theories. Human liberty also should matter; much of our lives are spent engaged in market activity, pursuing our livelihoods, not in political activity. Finally, as a rule (which is empirically supported) less economic freedom results in less prosperity.
Neither major US political party today seems much bothered by the loss of economic freedom. They don’t talk about it. It’s not that a model of the proper policy mix isn’t available, for it was adopted in 1980s and 1990s as “Reaganomics” in the forms of supply-side economics and neo-liberalism. Each has been out of fashion for most of this century – and it sure shows, especially in the freedom indexes. So-called “Bidenomics” now pledges the precise opposite set of policies, both supply-crushing and illiberal, and likely to move the economy from slow growth to no growth to “de-growth.” Without a reversal in the trend of declining economic freedom in the US, we’ll likely be suffering more from less liberty, less supply growth, and less prosperity.
*****
This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.
Image credit: Wikimedia commons
TAKE ACTION
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-29 02:26:002023-09-29 02:26:00The Multiyear Decline in US Economic Freedom
Readers might recall on August 3, and subsequent to that, we suggested that the stock market had gotten “overbought” and was vulnerable to the weakness that typically is found (called seasonality) in the late summer.
Whether we are just lucky or smart, the market has cooperated by declining about 7% since our word of caution, about the same as the February-March correction. It is doing some damage. Recently the S&P dropped below a triple bottom in the range of 430 and the daily price has fallen below both the 50-day moving average and the 100-day moving average. A bull trend line formed from the lows of last October has been broken. The overall formation takes the familiar head and shoulders top with the “neckline” being snapped. For those who think charts can inform us about markets, none of this is good right now.
September is usually the worst month but October takes the prize for the month with the most crashes. Then the market will tend to bottom out and usually has a strong finish to the year and that bleeds usually into January.
These seasonal factors and chart factors aside, we also mentioned a number of other negatives the market must work with right now.
Breadth has been unusually narrow, with only a handful of stocks (the magnificent seven) providing the upside for the S&P, which is supposed to be a broadly diversified portfolio of 500 stocks. Instead, it has become an extremely undiversified tech-dominated index. Historically, that is not good. Narrow breadth indicates strength is just with a small group of stocks, not the market as a whole. Secondly, as we pointed out, this destroys much of the justification for indexing, which in the past has been a good strategy for the average investor.
Interest rates continue to rise. The most recent FED meeting indicated they are looking for interest rates to go higher, for a longer period of time than many participants anticipated. Adding additional pain, since the most recent “debt ceiling agreement”, the government has been adding debt at a ferocious pace. This means more bonds must be sold. With traditional buyers like Social Security (cash flow has turned negative), China, Saudi Arabia, and others reducing their purchases of US debt, and the FED itself selling; more supply with less demand means lower bond prices. Not surprisingly, this year is likely to be the third year in a row for negative returns on bonds.
Two rating services have downgraded the sovereign debt of the US. Unfortunately, another debt ceiling fight looms. Understand, this fight may well be worth having. Nothing in the traditional political toolbox seems able to stop the two political parties from spending this nation into penury. As the chart below suggests, we are growing national debt more than twice the rate of GDP growth. How about some sustainability talk about this relationship? However, attempts to stop spending by shutting down the government are a crude tool, likely to upset the bond and stock markets even further.
Higher interest rates are squeezing the marginal debtor as we suggested it would. Corporate bankruptcy rates are rising sharply. Commercial real estate is being hurt, as is the market for homes generally and the combination of high home prices and much higher rates have driven affordability to new lows. The turnover in homes has slowed to a crawl and homebuyers who were fortunate enough to get 3% mortgage rates seemed disinclined to move, create a capital gain, and then get saddled with rates now above 7.5%. It makes sense to stay put, but that freezes the supply of secondary homes and reduces liquidity in the whole sector.
The rise in interest rates has been international as well, creating major credit problems elsewhere. Germany is in a bona fide recession (the largest economy in Europe) and China is slowing and seems in another phase of its rolling real estate crisis.
Rising rates have caused a sharp rise in the dollar, depressing commodity prices (except for oil and uranium) and making the US exports uncompetitive in many areas.
The Administration has vowed to destroy fossil fuels without supplying the alternatives at the same or lesser price. While that plays well with environmental hysterics, the reality is after more than $4 trillion in often forced investment into “renewables”, the portion of the energy pie supplied by fossil fuels has only fallen only about 3%. We need more traditional energy while the Biden Administration has caused investment to dry up. Who wants to invest say in an offshore drilling ship, that has maybe a 30-year life, only to know the government wants you out of business in five years? It is an investment equation that can’t and won’t attract capital.
The result is much higher energy prices in the present and much more to come in the future. Just since May of this year, West Texas Intermediate oil has moved from around $64 per barrel to above $92. That is a move of about 43% in just six months! Physical stores of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are down drastically due to Biden policies and private storage at Cushing Oklahoma, and in the OECD, are down sharply as well. Biden has abandoned US energy independence and opted for yielding control of the market to Putin and the ever-treacherous Saudis.
The Leading Economic Indicators have been down a record 17 months, the money supply is contracting, and the yield curve is still inverted. The FED says now that recession is unlikely, which given their track record (remember transitory inflation?), is actually a bad thing. We wish they were worried more about the recession than they appear to be.
This set of politically mandated circumstances puts a severe squeeze on the consumer. Rising interest rates cause mortgage rates to rise and the cost of using credit cards. Rising oil prices take more money out of the family budget for fuel for both home heating and cooling, and personal transportation, transportation costs for everything else in the economy, and finally the higher costs on about 6,000 items made out of petroleum.
Don’t blame this on the bossa nova, but blame it on Bidenonomics.
So far the correction since the first of August is about 6% or so, depending on the index you are following. We would note, however, that the equal weight S&P (the RSP), is now negative on the year. With bonds down hard, we have another year where the traditional 60% equity and 40% bond diversification simply can’t work as it has in the past.
As the market has absorbed the reality of this bad news, bullish attitudes are shifting more negatively, which ironically, is a good thing.
Back in early August when we were warning about the vulnerability of the market, sentiment was very high, excessively high. Although there are many measures of sentiment, one of the better indices is the CNN Fear and Greed gauge. It hit a reading of 84 (usually anything over 80 is a caution light). As we go to press, the index has now fallen into the fear range with a reading of just 27%. It may well go lower in the next few weeks. Generally, anything below 25% is “extreme fear”.
So here is the rub. The news is getting bad out there. However, it is getting worked into market prices and taking some of the excess valuation and sentiment out of the market. But experience suggests that news must be bad for weeks, for prices to fully align with reality, and then there is customarily an overshoot into extreme pessimism, which will be just as irrational as the extreme optimism was back around the first of August.
We are not at that stage, which suggests several more weeks are likely necessary to get the market into an oversold condition. And we have to deal with October, a month that has played host to a large number of stock crashes.
Timing events such as these are almost impossible. However, the condition of the market can be known, even if the timing cannot. The current condition suggests more weakness in both stocks and bonds in the weeks ahead, likely followed by a decent buying opportunity to play the normal strength displayed at the end of the year.
So far this continues to look like a correction within the context of an ongoing bull market. The risk will be that this too will shift. If we decline enough to break the bull trend, then we enter bear territory. Bears are dangerous, and markets tend to act differently in bear markets than in bull markets. Oversold readings in bull markets provide buying opportunities (buy the dip). But bear markets are harder to handle because one low is followed by a set of new lows.
We still suggest caution, with higher cash reserves than normal and lower allocation to risk assets than you normally might have, given your age and risk profile. If we can avoid breaking the back of the market during this corrective phase, a decent buy opportunity may emerge in a few weeks.
We will do our best to keep you up to date.
****
Stock graphics courtesy of stockcharts.com and drawn by the author.
TAKE ACTION
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-28 02:30:002023-09-28 02:30:00Stocks Suffer For The Last Two Months And More Likely Ahead
Six Atlantic shore Governors are begging the Feds to bail them out of a huge looming offshore wind cost overrun. They sent Biden a joint letter asking for a list of relief measures ranging from tax breaks to revenue sharing.
The outcome is far from clear but my guess is the largess is unlikely to appear, especially given the ongoing federal budget battles. Maybe later. However most of the requests also likely require major regulatory changes, which could take years. They might even take legislation which could be never.
But the need is urgent as the offshore developers are demanding immediate power price increases of around 50% lest they leave for better opportunities elsewhere. They can do this because offshore wind is a global boom. Even mid-income developing countries like Indonesia are talking big offshore numbers.
Ironically, it is this boom that is driving some of the sticker-shocking price increases. There is even a shortage of highly specialized crane ships to erect these huge towers. The supply chain is a seller’s market, at least on paper. Rising interest rates are another big driver.
The letter is pretty vague, but there are basically three kinds of federal relief requested. These are tax credits, revenue sharing, and streamlined permitting. I am sure there is lots of lobbying going on by the developers, as well as the Governors. Unfortunately, it is all secret so the specific issues are well hidden, making the following brief analysis somewhat speculative.
There look to be two tax credit issues. The first, which the IRS might actually be able to do something about, involves the definition of the renewable energy project that gets the investment tax credits. At present, probably only the generating assembly counts. This likely includes the tower and monopile foundation as well as the turbine generator and enormous blades.
But it may not include the extensive undersea connector cabling, the massive offshore substations, the huge export cabling, and the costly onshore transmission upgrades. These system components make up a sizable fraction of the project cost.
The second issue is the bonus tax credits awarded under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This is a 10% credit bump that developers get if they meet certain domestic content specs. Offshore wind already gets a big break under IRA because their content requirement is just half that of all other renewable projects.
As far as I can tell, they want the presently measly requirement to be even less. This is likely because most of the components come from overseas. America has very little specialized offshore component production capability since we have never built any here. Building this kind of industrial capacity will take a long time.
However, since the specific domestic component requirements are in the law, the IRS may have very little leeway, and what they have should require rulemaking. How this works out will be very interesting to watch. It might take legislation, which is uncertain, to say the least.
On revenue sharing, the States want a piece of the billions of dollars developers are paying the Feds in offshore site lease payments. Single sites have paid over a billion. Some sites are at least partially within State waters, but most are not.
Here the question is why taxpayers in, say, Wyoming should, in effect, pay to lower electricity bills in New Jersey? The agency in charge of offshore leasing is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in the Interior Dept. They are gung ho for offshore wind, so might not mind sharing revenue if it keeps the project coming.
I have no idea what the legalities are here except they are likely to be complex. BOEM has been doing offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf for a long time, so there should be a big body of law to deal with.
Who gets how much is an interesting question, especially for projects set to sell juice to several States. Plus, the States expect to sell some to other States. Given that many of the power purchase contracts at issue are with utilities, not States, maybe they should get the money.
For that matter, if this revenue sharing happened, the Gulf states might want a piece of the oil and gas action. None of this is simple, for sure. (Aside: maybe the Feds should collect royalties on the harvested wind power, like the 18.75% they get on offshore oil production.)
As for speeding up permitting, that is already a hot topic in Congress, but there is no consensus on what it even means, much less how to do it. I think BOEM is already going as fast as it can, ignoring many issues in the process, such as whale deaths. And, of course, the Biden Executive Branch cannot speed up the Judiciary, where a lot of the project delay lies in litigation.
In short, this seemingly simple letter is pointed at some really hairy issues. The talks are going on in secret, and I have yet to see any detailed analysis of the potential policies and ramifications thereof. If the fate of Atlantic offshore wind really depends on taking these hairy steps, then we are in “Nobody knows land” for sure. This cannot be good from the investment point of view so more stocks may drop.
Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this wacky offshore drama plays out. It might be a while.
*****
This article was published by CFACT, The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
TAKE ACTION
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-28 02:26:002023-09-28 02:26:00Desperate Governors Beg For Offshore Wind Cost Relief
Recently I encountered a study by an organization called Oxfam Research. That study: Where Hard Work Doesn’t Pay Off. As defined in Wikipedia, Oxfam was founded in 1942 as a confederation of 21 independent charitable organizations, centered in Oxford England focusing on alleviating global poverty and led by Oxfam International. There is an American affiliate. I thought the study would be worthy of a deep dive.
As the proverbial “big dog,” we can expect operations to take off after us. It did not take long to discern the orientation of this 39-page study – attacking America. After lauding the American economy by size, the authors made this statement, “Despite a powerful economy, one that largely drives the global economy forward, the United States does little to share revenue with workers and does even less to ensure workers are safe and protected while on the job. These are political choices, not inevitabilities.”
The introduction then launches into a tirade against the United States seemingly written by the lawless members of Black Lives Matter. Out of left field they made this statement, “The long legacy of slavery and subsequent immigration policies in the US underscore the ways in which the government of this country has written laws and policies meant to create hierarchies of workers in which workers of color, especially women of color, were excluded from protections, stable wages, and the ability to organize.”
I looked at the history of slavery and when the other 37 countries abandoned slavery. Some of the countries (like Iceland) did not exist or were barren of population during the 19th century. Some of the countries may not have had slaves, but they were involved in the slave trade. They also welcomed very few immigrants. An example, go to Sweden in the 19th century and try to find someone who wasn’t a native-born Swede.
The bottom line is the Western world abandoned slavery as a policy in varying stages during the first half of the 19th century, which timing was about concurrent with America. On the other hand, many of these countries had slavery within their borders but did not acknowledge it. Germany had slavery in the 20th century and two countries not in the study, China, and Russia, still have slavery up to today.
The United States ranks 36th out of thirty-eight countries in their survey of how employees thrive by the Oxfam standards. Mexico is ranked last, but it is a lawless mess. Interestingly, that “socialist heaven”, Denmark, ranks 37th. Notwithstanding that Bernie Sanders touted Socialism in Denmark as a model for the United States, their Prime Minister offered “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he said. “Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
And where are people banging down the door to enter? America. Angela Merkel engineered a mass migration from Northern Africa during the first part of this century. This has caused unrest in most countries where mass migration happened. Look at the war on the streets of France. In Sweden, the immigrants have not exactly blended into their society as crime has soared and jobs have not.
Concurrent with the Oxfam study coming out stating how badly America treats its employees, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released information that income in the United States for employees had grown over the past fifteen years while all those ‘generous’ benefits have shrunk incomes for employees in Greece, Italy, France, etc.
Here are some fun facts about the economies that are lauded by the report: The eurozone economy grew about 6% over the past 15 years, measured in dollars, compared with 82% for the U.S. Maybe all those “benefits” employees receive in the other countries come with a cost – like no jobs.
The United States has had a steady flow of over ten million job openings for a couple of years since the pandemic subsided. There are few job openings in the EU which is part of the strife caused by immigrants. There are no jobs.
Oxfam is another elitist organization attempting to establish criteria for employees who do not work in the real world. And then they insult the intelligence of people who decide to go where the jobs are – America — by telling them the jobs in America are tainted by racism. If the economy is so racist, why do Indian Americans and Asian Americans have higher average incomes than Caucasians? Why do immigrants have a higher homeownership rate than native-born Americans?
Here is another finding from diving into Oxfam’s anti-success attack on America. They have a separate study incorporated in the report showing the best places in America to work. The best places are in varying shades of green and the worst are in varying shades of red. The green states are places like California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York where people are moving from in the hundreds of thousands and the red ones are where the economies are booming.
Conclusion: Oxfam thinks the people relocating are just stupid and do not understand what they are giving up. On the other hand, the simpletons leaving for red states realized the only ones getting the benefits defined by Oxfam are the public employees. The transplants have given up paying the unsupportable cost of outsized benefits.
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-27 02:28:002023-09-27 02:28:00Is America A Bad Place To Work?
If you own a trucking company that picks up shipments from California ports, you now have to deal with the consequences of a new law designed to reduce your carbon footprint.
Trucking is one of the vital ingredients in our infrastructure that virtually all parts of the economy rely on. About two-fifths of all containerized imports to the US come through one of California’s twelve commercial ports. According to a recent report in National Review, beginning January 1, any trucker doing “drayage” (the technical term for transporting stuff to or from a seaport) in California can only buy zero-emission vehicles, although they can hang on to their existing diesel fleet for a while.
Trucks don’t last forever, however, and evidently the court of wisdom otherwise known as the California legislature decided this was the best way to get truckers used to the additional coming mandate that in 2035, all trucks entering California seaports and intermodal rail yards (where the containers are loaded onto trains) must be zero-emission types.
The ostensible motivation for these laws is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, of course. And careful analyses do show that over the lifetime of an electric vehicle, even if you include the fossil fuels used in the different types of manufacturing (electric versus internal-combustion) and in producing the electricity for the vehicle, less carbon dioxide results from using electric vehicles. That’s the intended consequence, and unless the law is later modified, it will be achieved.
But the devil is in the details, and some truckers interviewed about the mandate pointed out several unintended consequences that may follow from these laws. For one thing, the number of electric trucks in California will have to go from about 300, where it is today, to around 500,000, and some way will have to be found to charge all those trucks, and to keep them running farther than the alleged 60 miles that the California regulators said was the typical drayage daily mileage. A lot of truckers drive a lot farther than that every day, and if you add several hours a day to charge the trucks, it turns a normal workday into a 20-hour day.
And then there’s the cost. Even if you can find a zero-emission truck that will do the job, it will cost three or four times what a diesel vehicle costs. And one trucker asked what bank will finance such a purchase if you can’t show where you’re going to charge it and how you will work out a schedule that will let you stay in business.
So, if California doubles down on enforcement, we can anticipate something like a gradual strangling of commerce flowing through its ports as the few truckers who manage to jump through the hoops of regulation are all that’s left. And maybe that was what the lawmakers really wanted anyway. If the idealist dream of a zero-emission society were to come to pass in the next couple of years, millions would die of starvation and cold, and those few who are left would be reduced to living a life that would be familiar to a denizen of 1880.
At the very least, essentially shutting down 40% of containerized imports to the US would cause massive supply-chain disruptions that would make what happened during COVID look like a hiccup. If you say no one would let things get that bad, well, we did let things get that bad during COVID, and it can happen again.
I recently came across a true story that should become the paradigm cautionary tale for those who close their eyes to the unintended consequences of legislation.
In England in the mid-1800s, dogs were quite commonly used for transportation. Poor people who couldn’t afford a horse and wagon to carry their goods to market could nevertheless use a dog and a “dog-cart” (not to be confused with the horse-drawn carriage referred to in Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes tales). But in 1841, the recently founded Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) successfully lobbied to pass a law prohibiting the use of dogs for transportation. In urging this measure, the SPCA cited a few highly publicized instances of cruelty to transport dogs, although it appears that many if not most of the dogs were well-treated. For good measure, a dog tax was also passed around the same time, further discouraging the use of dogs for business purposes.
I can’t be positive, but I suspect that the SPCA members were largely upper-class types who, if they thought ahead at all, imagined all the dogs formerly used for transport would revert to being beloved pets. Think again. According to Stanley Coren, a dog psychologist and historian, when the law took effect it led to something close to a dog holocaust:
“Dreadful massacres of dogs took place all over England when they could no longer legally be used for cartage but were now taxable. In Birmingham, more than a thousand were slaughtered, and similar carnage took place in Liverpool. In Cambridge, the streets were littered with dead dogs. Because these bodies were becoming a health hazard, the high constable of Cambridge arranged a mass burial of four hundred dogs.”
So much for good intentions. The SPCA survived this debacle somehow, and so did the use of dogs for transportation in other parts of the world, but no longer in England.
No one can be certain of exactly what will happen if California enforces their zero-emission truck mandate. But they are meddling with a piece of infrastructure that is crucial to the entire US economy, and if the law has the unintended consequence of disrupting commerce in ways that harm millions of US citizens, those harms should be weighed against whatever essentially unmeasurable good that may eventually come a century or so after California’s greenhouse-gas emissions go down by a few percent as a result of this law. In my view, the law will do a lot more harm than good, and most of the California truckers think so too.
AUTHOR
KARL D. STEPHAN
Karl D. Stephan is a professor of electrical engineering at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. This article has been republished, with permission, from his blog Engineering Ethics, which is a Mercator partner site. His ebook Ethical and Otherwise: Engineering In the Headlines is available in Kindle format and also in the iTunes store.
RELATED TWEET:
Like Gulliver, tied down by thousands of of little strings, we lose our freedom one regulation at a time
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-26 07:51:432023-09-26 07:51:43Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate
Since early 2021 we have witnessed somewhere between 7 million and 8 million illegal entries across the now-nonexistent southern border of the U.S.
The more the border vanished, the more federal immigration law was rendered inert, and the more Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas spun fantasies that the “border is secure.” He is now written off as a veritable “Baghdad Bob” propagandist.
But how and why did the Biden administration destroy immigration law as we knew it?
The Trump administration’s initial efforts to close the border had been continually obstructed in Congress, sabotaged by the administrative state, and stymied in the courts. Nonetheless, it finally had secured the border by early 2020.
Yet almost all of the Trump administration’s successful initiatives were immediately overturned in 2021.
Construction of the wall was abruptly stopped, and its projected trajectory was canceled. The disastrous Obama-era “catch and release” policy of immigration nonenforcement was resurrected.
Prior successful pressure on Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to stop the deliberate export of his own citizens northward ceased.
Federal Border Patrol officers were forced to stand down.
New federal subsidies were granted to entice and then support illegal arrivals.
No one in the Democratic Party objected to the destruction of the border or the subversion ofimmigration law.
However, things changed somewhat once swamped southern border states began to bus or fly a few thousand of their illegal immigrants northward to sanctuary city jurisdictions—especially to New York and Chicago, and even Martha’s Vineyard.
The sanctuary-city “humanists” there who had greenlighted illegal immigration into the southern states suddenly shrieked. They were irate after experiencing the concrete consequences of their own prior abstract border agendas. After all, their nihilism was always supposed to fall upon distant and ridiculed others.
New York Mayor Eric Adams went from celebrating a few dozen illegal immigrants bused into Manhattan to blasting his own party for allowing tens of thousands to swamp his now bankrupt city.
But why did the Biden administration deliberately unleash the largest influx across the southern border in U.S. history?
The ethnic chauvinists and Democratic Party elites needed new constituents, given their increasingly unpopular agendas.
They feared that the more legal Latino immigrants assimilated and integrated into American society, the less happy they became with left-wing radical abortion, racial, transgender, crime, and green fixations.
Democratic grandees always had bragged that illegal immigration would create what they called “The New Democratic Majority” in “Demography Is Destiny” fashion. Now they slander critics as “racists” who object to left-wing efforts to use illegal immigration to turn southwestern red states blue.
Mexico now cannot survive as a modern state without some $60 billion in annual remittances sent by its expatriates in America. However many illegal immigrants rely on American state and federal entitlements to free up cash to send home.
Mexico also encourages its own abject poor and often indigenous people from southern Mexico to head north as a safety valve of sorts. The Mexican government sees these mass exodus northward as preferable to the oppressed marching on Mexico City to address grievances of poverty and racism.
The criminalcartelsnow de facto run Mexico. An open border allows them to ship fentanyl northward, earn billions in profits—and kill nearly 100,000 Americans a year. Illegal immigrants pay cartels additional billions to facilitate their border crossings.
Don’t forget American corporate employers. Record labor nonparticipation followed the COVID-19 lockdown. In reaction to the dearth of American workers, the hospitality, meat packing, social service, health care, and farming industries were desperate to hire new—and far cheaper—labor.
Human rights activists insist that the borders themselves are 19th-century relics. And the global poor and oppressed thus have a human right to enter the affluent West by any means necessary.
Many in the tony suburbs and in universities do not live anywhere near the southern border. So they pontificate on the assurance that thousands of unaudited illegal immigrants will never enter their own enclaves or campuses.
The result is elite-bottled piety—but not firsthand experience with the natural consequences of millions chaotically fleeing one of the poorest countries in the world to pour into the wealthiest. Without background checks, vaccinations, and health audits, legality, high school diplomas, English facility skill sets, or capital, the result is an abject catastrophe.
Polls continue to show that the American people support measured, diverse, legal, and meritocratic immigration as much as they oppose mass illegal immigration into their country and the subsequent loss of American sovereignty on the border.
They understand what the Biden administration does not: No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.
Ending illegal immigration now depends solely on the American people overriding the corrupt special interests and leaders who profit from the current chaos and human misery.
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-26 02:30:002023-09-26 02:30:00Here’s How Biden Admin Destroyed Our Immigration Law
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul called out his fellow Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham over Ukraine aid Thursday while on Fox Business.
Graham told reporters Wednesday those opposed to giving Ukraine more aid should stay out of it until they’ve visited Ukraine and seen the war firsthand.
“Somebody needs to remind the Senator that we don’t have any money. We are about $1.5 trillion dollars in debt for this year. Over the last three months we’ve accumulated almost a trillion dollars in three months. The total is $33 trillion, so we don’t have like an extra rainy day fund or a surplus we can send them,” Paul said in response.
“We have to borrow the money from China to send to Ukraine, so no matter what your sympathies are in the war, and I am sympathetic to Ukraine fighting off the Russian aggressors, but at the same time I think it’s irresponsible to think about their country before I think about my country.”
Paul claimed U.S. funding is also helping Ukrainian government worker pensions, and he believes most Americans agree with him that aid needs to be cut.
Paul then went on to criticize Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy for saying he’s not holding elections next year, claiming it would be inconvenient during a war and expensive. Paul then argued Europe has a greater incentive to help Ukraine fight off Russia, and Ukraine should rely on its neighbors.
Other Republicans have expressed opposition to additional funding.
“There’s no money in the House right now for Ukraine,” Florida Rep. Byron Donalds told The Recount. “It’s not a good time for [Zelenskyy] to be here, quite frankly. That’s just the reality.”
Republican Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar told the Daily Caller News Foundation he would never support additional funding for Ukraine, since there are more dire issues domestically.
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-26 02:26:002023-09-26 02:26:00Rand Paul Comes Out Swinging Against Lindsey Graham Over Ukraine Aid
I’ve been a truck driver for over 20 years. I suppose I always knew I would be, ever since that career day in the third grade when among all the kids dressed like doctors and baseball players, there I stood dressed like Jerry Reed from Smokey and the Bandit. Pop culture in the 80s painted the picture of truckers as rugged men, wild and free, burdened by nothing except their own wanderlust. That romanticized version of the American truck driver still lingers in the back of my mind, but in recent years the burden of government regulation has proven to be greater than my desire to see what’s over the next hill.
Oppressive regulation in the trucking industry has been around almost as long as the iconic chrome bulldog on the hood of Mack trucks. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Federal Motor Carrier Act (FMCA) of 1935 during his first term. This gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), an agency originally formed to regulate railroads, the authority to regulate the burgeoning business of moving goods by tractor-trailer. The ICC ultimately decided which companies could haul certain goods, for whom, where, and what they could charge. The ICC even decided if new transportation companies could enter the market by requiring eager upstarts to prove their services were “needed.”
The only exemptions to these laws were in the agricultural sector. FDR and his horde of central planners did not want to cause an increase in food prices during a time when many Americans were already struggling to put food on the table. Never mind the tacit admission that the FMCA would raise prices on all other goods. This exemption had its own unintended consequences. While independent drivers, commonly referred to as wildcatters in driver slang, were not subject to the price floors previously mentioned, they were limited to hauling only agricultural goods. This limitation caused a significant logistical dilemma for wildcatters delivering in industrialized parts of the country and is largely responsible for the mythos of the outlaw truckers we all know today from music and film. Whether in an old country song from Red Sovine or Kurt Russell’s character in Big Trouble in Little China, such renegades are almost always hauling agricultural goods.
Thankfully, a trend towards deregulation began in the 1970s, and the cesspool of cronyism and perverse incentives created by FDR was substantially reined in with the FMCA of 1980. This is why we now see hundreds, if not thousands of company names sprawled along the sides of 53-foot trailers. Granted, we still have the ICC, though today it is known as the Department of Transportation, and any truck driver that has had to spend 10 hours at a scale house without a shower or a hot meal over a minor infraction of hours of service rules (another specter of the FMCA of 1935) will tell you it remains quite burdensome. But things are still better than they used to be.
Unfortunately, the federal government continues its misguided attempts to control an industry regulators know little to nothing about. But today’s attempts tend to focus more on something they understand even less than trucking: technology.
The electronic logging device (ELD) has been around since the late 1980s. The devices were first adopted by large nationwide fleets to simplify managing their plethora of drivers and eventually became a way to lower insurance costs. Manufacturers and employers claimed the devices prevented drivers from driving longer than legally allowed, therefore reducing the number of tractor-trailer-related crashes. It was under the latter premise that the DOT mandated that all trucks be equipped with ELDs no later than the end of 2017. Unfortunately, fatal accidents involving tractor-trailers have seen a recent increase following a sharp decline. This correlation suggests that mandating ELDs has not had the promised or intended safety improvements.
More recently, environmental regulations requiring manufacturers to reduce emissions gave us the diesel particulate filter (DPF), an exhaust treatment system that replaces a standard muffler. While there is no current federal mandate requiring a DPF, the filters are required by the 2008 California Statewide Truck and Bus Rule, which has incentivized many nationwidwie fleets to adopt them. The problem with DPFs is the filter system clogs. A lot.
When DPFs go down, trucks roll to a stop. Truckers report having to have a DPF serviced as often as every 5,000 miles, which means lots of lost productivity and stranded cargo. I’ve had four breakdowns over the past two years, and three were due to my DPF. A tow truck driver I spoke to on one of those occasions told me half of his business comes from malfunctioning DPFs. Repairs are a specialized affair, and replacements can cost up to $2,000. When my truck isn’t moving, I’m not earning. And these regulators have required that my truck stand still far too often.
Next up on the government’s list of ways to make truckers’ lives miserable are proposed speed limiters. Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, wants to limit all tractor-trailers to the same speed. Imagine being stuck behind a pair of tractor-trailers side by side, who can’t speed up to pass each other. It’s relatively rare right now, but it will become the norm. Every single interstate nationwide will be populated by moving roadblocks, inspiring road rage and blocking critical services. What happens when the fire truck or ambulance is stuck behind these unbreakable pairs?
However well-intentioned these rules and regulations might be, it’s clear that no one is consulting with the long-haul truckers about the totally foreseeable bad outcomes. The great problem with all central planning is that regulators lack local knowledge, and are not inclined to speak to the people living with the consequences of their decrees. Probably because we would tell them what idiots they are.
The last two decades I’ve spent traversing this beautiful nation have, by and large, been a wonderful experience. I have countless stories to share with other drivers over a cup of coffee at my favorite fuel stops or with my more stationary friends over a cold beer. I wouldn’t trade the things I’ve seen, the binds I’ve been in, or the successes I enjoyed, for anything. But the burden that has been laid on these old tired shoulders by bureaucrats and central planners has become more than I’m willing to bear. I’ll always yearn for the open road, but now I’ll have to satisfy that wanderlust in my pick-up truck. I’m pulling the parking brake on this Peterbilt for the last time.
*****
This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.
TAKE ACTION
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-25 02:26:002023-09-25 02:26:00Truck This: Why I’m Leaving the Long-Haul Industry
But China still remains the second-largest foreign holder of US Treasury bills, having been surpassed by Japan in mid-2019
By: Frank Chen, South China · Post 19 Sep, 2023
Amid persistent concerns over the safety of its overseas assets – most of which are US dollar-denominated – China has slashed its holdings of United States Treasury bills for the fourth straight month.
[..]
The world’s second-largest economy offloaded US$13.6 billion worth of US debt in July, bringing China’s holdings to US$821.8 billion, according to the latest data from the US Department of the Treasury. China’s overall holding of US debt remains at a 14-year low, after reaching that level in June.
Beijing has been continuously cutting China’s US debt holdings since early 2022, with two exceptions – in March of this year and July 2022, when it increased holdings by US$20.3 billion and US$320 million, respectively.
Beijing remains the second-largest foreign holder of US Treasury bills after being surpassed by Japan in June 2019.
The reduction in US Treasury bills holdings between March 2022 and this past July – China dumped US$191.4 billion, Japan slashed US$116.5 billion, Ireland cut US$44.4 billion, Brazil shed US$8.6 billion and Singapore got rid of US$4.8 billion – was partly because of the slew of aggressive US interest rate hikes that have dampened bond prices.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-24 19:51:342023-09-24 19:51:34BIDENOMICS: China Dumps Nearly $500 Billion in U.S. Bonds
“The future of this republic is in the hands of the American Voter” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.
“Get involved in politics, or you will be governed by your inferiors.” — From Plato’s Republic to our American Republic.
“In order to save the planet, we must destroy capitalism.” – Maurice Strong.
So giving TAXPAYER dollars to the same people who created the problem coupled with those great economists, Cloward and Piven, the RINOS and DEMS under bipartisan measures will destroy the middle class and the American economy in an effort to redistribute your wealth and “level the playing field with a New World Order,” Joe Biden.
RINO Republicans are the gift to the Globalists that keep on giving. Today, because Affirmative Action Graduates are running the government, they will never stop until America is destroyed, and
40 million+ illegals
Poverty is up while wages are down (except for illegals)
48 Million on Food stamps, including illegals
$32 Trillion in debt (approx)
Minimal Economic Growth with massive inflation
Obamacare skyrocketing costs
Common Core – robot education
Fed Reserve prints more money
Elimination of private property and 2Amendment rights
Destruction of the energy and food sector
Corrupt elections, corrupt leaders ignoring the Law and the Constitution
Endless wars
Constant lies from the people we trusted to do the right thing
Covid lie
Climate lie.
J6 lie
Due to corrupt elections and getting the wrong people in office, we now face the probability of America imploding in the biggest economic disaster ever as the middle class is taxed into oblivion. Question: Federal Law says you must know English to become a citizen. So why are our ballots printed in foreign languages?
And the winner is total destruction of America, with the Dems who will never get voted out of office.
The Republicans are truly the useful idiots of the left. The entire Biden Regime is corrupt, and instead of impeachment, they still can’t determine if there is enough evidence. We still have a few brave Congressmen who get the picture and are willing to demand NO Border, No Funding, No CR. Thank you, Matt Gaetz, and the group voting with you. Call our legislature and demand NO Border, No Funding, No CR.
The UN Elite want the dollar gone. Very little is seen on the MSM, but for those of us who still can think, we know the economy is tanking as the BRICS Bank will now compete against the dollar. Socialist Brazil, Communist Russia, Socialist India, Communist China, and Socialist South Africa have determined the best way to destroy America by working together and trading for oil in a new currency. In the last few months, these countries bought Billions of gold in preparation to destroy the dollar. We can never allow digital currency (CBDC). That is the last nail and will result in total control.
Economic collapse is coming to every town and city in America. Prices will skyrocket, ATMs will close, there will be no food or fuel, and the loss of the dollar will destroy every American. Sadly, that is their goal.
The Republicans are following the path laid out to them by the Democrats using Cloward and Piven. They must have missed that class. They intend to give our money to corrupt Ukraine to donate back to the Dems and then blame the middle class. They intend to attack Social Security, which IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. It is a benefit. We pay into SS, and if they would stop robbing it blind, there would be plenty of money. They intend to destroy the lifeless middle class.
This week, I have talked to seniors who are scared and upset as their programs (you know, the ones they pay into) are being cut so illegals can get welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. I met a woman who can barely make it since she has cancer and can not work. She was told her only income SS is $6, which is too high for food stamps. But the illegals get $750 food stamps + housing + medical.
Look at the statistics. The last time amnesty was presented, 40% became citizens. The rest raped Americans as they sent their untaxed dollars back to their home country. Does anyone think that someone getting $ 3,000 a month doing nothing will now want to become a citizen so they can pay a fine and taxes? What drugs are they on?
The Republicans are truly the useful idiots of the left.
Is America worth saving? If not you, who? If not now, when?
Join us and learn the truth about America’s communist past and present featured in the new book by Cuban Refugee – The Revolution of Promises: Reflections of a Cuban Exile.
Ed Vidal, born in Cuba, is a grassroots liberty activist working on election integrity and other issues in Florida.Executive Producer and General Counsel of WSQF 94.5 FM Radio – Miami, Florida. Ed writes a regular column for www.miamiindependent.com
Important Messages
In 2021, Florida Statute 101.5604 was signed into law. Look at the last sentence: A county must use an electronic or electromechanical precinct-count tabulation voting system. Florida is mandated to use corrupt machines. Call your legislator and tell them to change “must” to “may.” Does your state have a similar statute?
Important Video, Lara Logan, The Rest of the Story:
Matthew Perna was a Bernie Sanders fan until Trump came along. Then he was treated as a terrorist.
Find out how a man who’d never been in trouble in his life ended up on the FBI wanted list after January 6th. pic.twitter.com/e05pfKoUOJ
Argentina’s New Hope Javier Milei. Will he become President of Argentina, or will his election be stolen like Bolsanaro? The Biden Regime hates him. Will they use our tax dollars to interfere?
Ep. 24 Argentina’s next president could be Javier Milei. Who is he? We traveled to Buenos Aires to speak with him and find out. pic.twitter.com/4WwTZYoWHs
Get your kids out of the indoctrination clinics masquerading as Public Schools. Check out goflca.org MicroSchools.
Remember: Everything is connected. Nothing is random. Everyone follows the same plan. ALL PLANS ARE BASED ON LIES. Globalists must control opposition. Globalists must take away our voices.
Globalists only care about MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL. Don’t give them yours. Boycotts work. Stop using their services and products. Vote the RINOS out. Vote with your fingers and with your wallet. There is a lot you can do.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-24 18:52:062023-09-24 18:52:06Is the Middle Class Vanishing? The Slow Death of America
In addition to the burden of inflation, rising interest rates are making home mortgages unaffordable, pushing the American dream out of reach for millions.
While month-to-month economic numbers tell part of the story, a new report from The Heritage Foundation explains how Washington’s reckless spending pushed the economy to this tipping point. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
The special report, “The Road to Inflation: How an Unprecedented Federal Spending Spree Created Economic Turmoil,” reveals that Congress passed an astonishing $7.5 trillion in new spending between 2020 and 2022—or more than $57,000 per household.
Pushing such an unprecedented amount of deficit spending had predictable consequences.
At a time when supply chains were strained by the COVID-19 pandemic and harmful government-imposed lockdowns, throwing more money at a lower volume of goods and services could only drive prices up.
It would be one thing if the spending spree had been made up of good investments. Unfortunately, most of the initiatives were poorly designed, based on faulty economic reasoning and/or motivated by political opportunism.
The following are just four of the areas where the federal government misused trillions of dollars in taxpayer resources during the spending spree:
Welfare Expansion Causes World Record Fraud
At the start of the pandemic, Congress expanded eligibility and increased payments for the unemployment insurance program.
At the time, it was easy to predict that this would have negative consequences, incentivizing workers to actively seek joblessness or otherwise game the system to maximize their handouts.
Incredibly, even the most cynical analysis underestimated just how big a problem would result from this welfare expansion.
A combination of individual scammers and organized crime rings using identity fraud bilked the federal government for at least$100 billion, with upper-end estimates of$350 billionto$400 billion.
To put that in perspective, the Bernie Madoff scheme that generated extensive media coverage and numerous documentaries was worth $65 billion. (Naturally, the press is less interested in publicizing fraud enabled by a welfare program.)
Slush Funds for State, and Local Governments
In addition to increased federal payments for mass transit, education, and Medicaid, the spending spree included a whopping $500 billion in few-strings-attached handouts to state and local governments.
The first batch of this money, $150 billion, was approved as protection against potential tax revenue declines at the start of the pandemic. However, it soon became clear that most areas were not experiencing a tax decline, and the total amount of revenue loss was much smaller than expected.
Despite that reality, Democrats passed an additional $350 billion in slushy funds.
As with the unemployment insurance fraud, we will never know the total amount of money wasted on “relief” payments to state and local governments.
Teachers Unions Held Schools Hostage
Perhaps the most infuriating part of the spending spree took place in early 2021.
Amid a raging debate about reopening schools, with children receiving substandard educations, teachers unions were pressing to keep schools closed. That was part of a pressure campaign to give government-run K-12 schools a massive federal handout.
The Biden administration kowtowed to teachers unions, and it was later revealed that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention colluded with union officials on school-reopening guidance to help stack the deck.
In the end, Democrats approved $123 billion for public K-12 schools, rewarding the unions for holding schools hostage.
Since there was no pandemic-related need for such a huge amount of money, much of it went towardhiring sprees and raisesfor school employees.
Regrettably, the obscure nature of how funds were distributed means that we will likely never know what public schools did with that windfall.
Business Support Program Defrauded
The Paycheck Protection Program passed early in the pandemic, was designed to help businesses keep employees on the payroll during the lockdown-driven economic downturn.
However, the $835 billion program—with Congress intending to get money out the door quickly—suffered from a lack of guardrails. Hundreds of billions of dollars in spending were flagged for review. There were hundreds of billions of dollars inimproper payments, and the volume of fraudoverwhelmed the system.
While some violators (such as a man who used the program to buy a $57,000 Pokémon card) were caught, countless others got away scot-free.
Conclusion
In the wake of the spending spree, the national debt is now more than$33 trillion, or an average of $253,000 per household.
Ignoring the dangers of such an incomprehensible amount of debt, and ignoring the ongoing damage that elevated inflation is having on family finances, many in Washington are still determined to keep the federal gravy train rolling.
The pending set of appropriations bills is loaded with pork, including goodies for left-wing activist groups and frivolous recreational projects.
Several other measures that would or could increase spending are also looming on the horizon, including the so-called farm bill (where most of the money goes to welfare programs), and supplemental appropriations that would throw tens of billions more at Ukraine and to leftist nonprofits that encourage illegal immigration.
It’s crucial for the American public to be on guard against politicians whose default response to most problems is to throw other people’s money around.
That has been a bad habit for many years, but now it has turned into a chronic addiction the country can’t afford.
The United Auto Workers (UAW) announced on Friday that more workers will go on strike as the union and automakers continue to be unable to reach a deal.
The union announced that 38 new plants across the U.S. will join the partial strike at noon against the Big Three automakers as negotiations continue to fail to produce a new contract for the 146,000 workers, with strikes expanding against GM and Stellantis but not Ford, as the company has cooperated more than the others, according to the UAW announcement. The UAW first announced its partial strike on Sept. 14, striking at three plants: GM’s plant in Wentzville, Missouri; Ford’s plant in Wayne, Michigan; and Stellantis’ Jeep plant in Toledo, Ohio.
“So, today at noon Eastern time, all of the parts distribution centers at General Motors and Stellantis will be called to stand up and strike,” Shawn Fain, president of the UAW, said in the announcement. “We will be striking 38 locations across 20 states, across all 9 regions of the UAW.”
In negotiations, Ford has offered to reinstate cost-living-of-allowance benefits, given the right to strike over plant closures, job security for up to two years in the event of an indefinite layoff, enhanced profit sharing and the conversion of temporary employees into full-time, according to the announcement. General Motors and Stellantis had reportedly not offered the same benefits, resulting in the expanded strike.
“We are focused on moving the companies at the bargaining table,” Fain said in the announcement. “That means managing our flexibility and our leverage as we need to. We can and will go all out if our national leadership decides the companies aren’t willing to move. Right now, we think we can get there. Stellantis and GM are going to need some serious pushing.”
“Ford is working diligently with the UAW to reach a deal that rewards our workforce and enables Ford to invest in a vibrant and growing future,” Ford said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Although we are making progress in some areas, we still have significant gaps to close on the key economic issues. In the end, the issues are interconnected and must work within an overall agreement that supports our mutual success.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-22 16:51:542023-09-22 16:51:54UAW Announces Massive Expansion Of Strike Against Major Automakers
Markets function within a complex framework of regulatory and central bank influence. This regulatory and monetary backdrop is not the benign rule of “experts” supposed by regulatory advocates in college textbooks, but rather often the product of raw entrenched political power. Success is getting in sync with the flow of money and political power. The “imperial city” in Washington is the lodestar, not open competition in the marketplace.
The influence of political power has several dimensions. It is both internal political changes and external political changes that can influence markets.
In terms of domestic politics, the old “spoils system” which existed prior to 19th-century civil service reform, was superior in the sense that when an administration came into power, it brought its friends and supporters, many of whom were not particularly talented. When a particular party was turned out of office, the old bureaucratic friends had to leave as well and the new administration was able to bring in their own team. And then, over time, they too would be removed and the cycle would begin again.
Getting a new team from time to time brought in new ideas and it allowed the administration to function without the hostility of entrenched interests held over from political opponents, who would use their administrative power to block new directions. In a sense, it was more democratic. When things changed at the polls, things changed in the bureaucracy.
The unintended consequence of professional bureaucrats is they can stay in place as political parties ebb and flow, giving birth to a permanent bureaucracy almost impervious to change. This is further complicated when opposing political parties basically agree to the same regulatory philosophy.
But the world changes whether bureaucrats do or don’t change, thus political change does still seep through and has the potential to change the way markets have operated.
One of the aspects of the way things have run over the past several decades has been a close economic alliance with China. US industry poured billions into Chinese development, based on the theory that as they grew rich, they would become more “liberal”. Authoritarianism would wane, and having too great of a stake in the world economy, China would not become belligerent.
As China took over more and more manufacturing jobs, the US commensurately lost key knowledge and skills and has become overly dependent on China. We agreed to give up our jobs and they agreed to buy our debt.
It has proven to be a very bad political and economic bet. The US has become dependent on China and reshoring efforts are proving difficult. China is massively building and modernizing its military and has moved into an alliance of sorts with US rival Russia.
Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, US business confidence in China has fallen to a 24-year low. Clearly, a major political shift is on with China, with MAGA Republicans initiating the change.
Meanwhile, Mexico has replaced China as the greatest exporter to the US, and China is steadily reducing its holdings of US Treasury debt. Additionally alarming, Mexico is descending deeper into the corruption of a narco-state. Bilateral trade seems to be taking over from globalist pretensions.
This shift from China will be disruptive to the US and to China itself. And when the two largest economies in the world are disrupted, the world economy will feel the change.
China has many problems, both political and demographic. One of the most immediate is the ongoing unwinding of their massive real estate bubble. After wobbling for two years, Ever Grande, a giant real estate development company has filed for bankruptcy. More companies, though, are in trouble. This is all part of the top-down, authoritarian model imposed by Chairman Xi as he moved his nation away from the market model back to the socialist model. Additionally, it was not just central planning of the worst sort, it was central planning juiced with a giant debt bubble.
So among the political changes likely to influence markets, the troubles in China are likely to be significant.
In terms of domestic politics, we have had our own flirtation with top-down central planning. Since Obama, elites have sought to change the healthcare system and fight “global warming”. The adoption of Modern Monetary Theory by the Biden Administration, and its record acceleration of Federal debt to pay for all these schemes, has caused a spike in interest rates, which itself runs the risk of destabilizing our own domestic and international debt bubble.
The supply of bonds is rising sharply, but the FED has become a seller rather than a buyer, Social Security is a seller, and China has become a net seller. Lower bond prices have meant higher rates, even as the FED attempts a “pause.”
Democrat policies of supply restriction and cost escalation, have all but destroyed the dream of owning a house for many young people. The ability to afford a new car also is fading. The destruction of the American middle class is already creating an enormous political backlash with significant risk for Democrats.
A strategic realignment has occurred with supporters of small businesses, farmers, and nongovernment labor-tending Republicans. while Big Business, wealthy elites, and Rainbow members now favor the Democrats.
We recently completed two trips to rural Pennsylvania and rural Montana. Trump signs are everywhere. It is fair to say, these people feel ignored. They rightly or wrongly do not feel the current system is working for them.
Big business and the regulatory state have cross-captured each other. Many business leaders would rather get a subsidy or loan guarantees than fight for profits against talented rivals. Those who benefit from the Green New Deal include car companies, power companies, and favored technologies. Democrats are busy building cartels in healthcare, pharma, technology, and power generation and have turned their backs on small businesses.
As the government increasingly picks winners and losers, those picked as “winners” by the government can get a nasty surprise when they discover customers don’t agree. We are seeing this play out among many of the EV companies. We don’t want a car that is expensive, has little range, and is prone to spontaneously catch fire.
Democrat political enemies include traditional farming, ranching, timber cutting, mining, coal, and petroleum industries. Tech companies are heavily favored by Democrats and often willingly become their political pawns. Democrats hate private medicine.
No wonder there is a huge divergence between small-town America and the Big Blue cities that reliably elect Democrats.
The rise of multiple monopolies has birthed a new variant of “populism”, which does not look much like its 19th-century cousin, which had a socialistic slant to it. Today’s populism could be described as formerly business-supporting conservatives joining forces with blue-collar workers turning against the policies favoring China and the crony capitalism cabal of the Green New Deal.
Small business and labor traditionally frowned on monopolies. Traditional free market advocates suggested it is only with government favors that monopolies can be maintained. That is still likely true. However, now that industrial cartels have government favor, how do you change that?
Exactly how does one try to get market share from Google?
Oppressive regulation is increasing costs and very often, the government-sanctioned products are inferior and of poor quality. The government now wishes to tell you how to wash your clothes, your dishes, and even how to cook your meals. In the name of “global warming” the government creates dishwashers that run for a half day and don’t clean dishes. If you can buy one that lasts five years, you are lucky.
The business community itself has further alienated the public with its constant panderings to ESG and woke culture. In so doing, they have alienated natural free market allies and will soon discover that state-planning socialists are not the best partners for business prosperity. Conservatives remain in favor of free enterprise but they no longer feel much loyalty to the current American form of crony capitalism, especially large corporations.
As strikes spread throughout Hollywood and Detroit, conservatives yawn and suppose these “woke” corporations are getting what they deserve.
This change in politics likely means the end of an era for American business. For the past 25 years or so, it has been a profitable joyride in China, a profitable alignment with the government, generous benefits of ultra-cheap money and low-interest rates, bailouts, and a record rise in corporate profits. Great benefits have accrued to capital and less to labor.
The middle class feels it is getting screwed. Loud minorities demand state reparations, increased benefits, and exemption from criminal activities. It may have started with Brexit and Trump, but populist movements are ascendant in Italy and rising even in socialist Argentina.
Schools don’t work, public safety is collapsing, and the system seems to favor the racially aggrieved, and the sexually confused, while the whole thrust of government is one of constant interference in our difficult daily lives with institutional lying now the norm rather than the exception.
Populism reflects that the middle class does not feel the current system is working for them nor are the elites pushing such policies either concerned or aware of these problems. Utopians have seized the reigns of power and want to change the climate of the earth, the relations between men and women, between families and the government, all while keeping as many people as medicated as possible.
Populists don’t trust the legal system, the medical establishment, the school system, the press, and the universities. They think the popular culture is often hostile to raising families.
Even the reputation of the military is falling, which explains recruiting woes. What happens when a large swath of the population becomes alienated from basic institutions?
One wonders if all the marijuana shops are there primarily to keep young, aggressive men in a haze of self-induced contentment and oblivious ignorance.
Above all that, the frequent bailouts and interventions to save various industries have lost considerable political support. The next credit crisis will find much less support for bailouts and besides, given the current state of deficit spending, big huge new bailouts are financially out of the question.
All these megatrends are moving in different directions than they were previously and markets will have to go about adjusting to the new reality. Republicans are no longer reliably “pro-business” while Democrats remain reliably anti-free market. The Chamber of Commerce is out of touch.
Today’s “populism” is more than a revolt against the administrative state and the commercial cartels it generates. It is a combination of economic frustrations and cultural alienation. It flips the 1960s on its head. The middle class is now revolting against the “Establishment run by the elites.”
This revolt is likely to grow, and politicians, in the end, are more than anything opportunists. Markets will have to adapt.
TAKE ACTION
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-09-22 02:30:002023-09-22 02:30:00Weekend Read: Populism, Politics, and Markets
Of course. The Leftist Big Tech companies see no problem with the “Palestinian” jihad, which the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine aids and abets.
EXCLUSIVE — Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) are raising concerns over PayPal, the multinational technology company, processing payments for an anti-Israel charity with Palestinian terror group affiliations.
PayPal has begun handling donations for the Arizona charity Alliance for Global Justice, which has come under fire from Congress and watchdog groups for being linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group, following the two software companies Salsa Labs and Stripe jumping ship. Congressional Republicans are now vowing investigations into PayPal, which doesn’t allow entities to use its services for “the promotion of hate, violence, racial, or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime,” according to its policies.
“PayPal should obviously and immediately cut ties with any group linked to Palestinian terrorism,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner. “Big Tech companies are not exempt from American laws or reputational risk from boosting terrorism.”…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-21 15:51:182023-09-21 15:51:18PayPal handles donations for ‘charity’ linked to ‘Palestinian’ terror group
We’re living through one of the greatest housing crunches the U.S. has ever known. It’s resulted in record numbers of homelessness and entire generations certain they will never become homeowners, that critical milestone of the middle class. But there is a simple solution to the problem. The answer to our housing crisis is to legalize duplexes, triplexes, and other forms of light-touch density (LTD) housing, allowing the market to build more affordable housing options for more Americans.
The reason this is the solution to our housing crisis is simple: It increases the supply of housing for middle-income households, when what we have now is the opposite—long-standing exclusionary zoning laws that limit most areas of the nation to single-family detached homes, banning LTD homes.
LTD housing can take many forms: duplexes, triplexes, quads through eight-plexes, townhouses, cottage courts, accessory dwelling units, and other similar structure types. By allowing more units on a single parcel of land, LTD is both naturally affordable and naturally inclusionary, creating upward mobility naturally through a more accessible housing market. All it takes is repealing the laws that ban it.
This is already happening across the nation. California, Austin, and Vermont have each passed legislation entitled HOME. In California, it stands for Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency; in Austin, Home Options for Middle-Income Empowerment, and in Vermont, Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone. What these and other enactments have in common is a recognition that the solution to our nation’s worsening housing crunch is to repeal zoning laws that only allow the building of single family detached housing.
How did we end up with such laws? If you look back over the first 70 years of the 20th century, housing was generally abundant and affordable to people of all classes, though racial and ethnic segregation was of course rampant. As renowned planner John Nolan observed in 1917, building a range of housing types on varying lot sizes helps to ensure that new housing could be built that wage earners could afford. For example, in New England in 1940, duplexes, triple deckers, and four-plexes comprised one-third of the region’s housing stock and offered naturally affordable housing to the masses. Boarding homes were common as homeowners could help pay their mortgage by letting out rooms for a small fee (much like Airbnb today). For newcomers or those who had fallen on hard times, single-room occupancy buildings around bus and train stations provided a safety net in the form of cheap short-term housing. In 1970, even San Francisco was affordable.
But the economic inclusiveness and the threat of racial integration that came with these housing variations also posed a potential threat to the status quo—one that proved to be unbearable to certain segments of our government that were invested in segregation. They realized that zoning laws could be used to raise prices and rents, making homes unaffordable to Blacks, Jews, and Eastern and Southern Europeans. At the encouragement of the U.S. Commerce Department, states and municipalities started to adopt zoning laws in the 1920s, which restricted most of the nation’s residential land to more expensive single-family detached homes, while outlawing or excluding other, more affordable housing options.
These zoning policies ultimately replaced private property rights with vague and nebulous communal rights—think of the Not-In-My-Backyard or NIMBY movement—and the opinions of city planners. In so doing, they made homes and land scarce and expensive. In short, land use regulations prevented the market from building more housing, especially in high-demand places where people with well-paying jobs lived.
With the market constrained, demand eventually started to outstrip supply in high-demand cities. Home prices started to rise faster than incomes, leading to increased unaffordability. Across the country, once-affordable neighborhoods gradually priced out existing residents and potential newcomers; high prices make even older, smaller homes unaffordable to moderate-income buyers and renters.
Nowhere is this trend more visible than in California, which had home prices relative to incomes that was about on par with the national average in the 1970s. Since then, a booming economy coupled with restrictive land use regulations gave bureaucrats and NIMBYs the ability to delay for years or even stop the market from responding to any additional demand. Today, California’s home prices relative to incomes are about double the rest of the country.
To tackle today’s housing crunch, we need to build more housing to undo the damage done by misguided zoning policies. The key is to return to the light-touch density housing types of the early 20th Century.
By implementing by-right LTD across the country, an estimated 930,000 additional housing units could be created annually (depending on the maximum allowed density) over the next 30 to 40 years. This moderate density increase would expand the construction of more naturally affordable and inclusionary housing, thereby keeping home prices more aligned with incomes and keeping housing displacement pressures low.
Houston is an example of how a city can experience rapid population and wage growth and not sacrifice affordability. In 1998, as reported by Zillow, mid-tier home prices nationally and for the Houston metro were the same, while Los Angeles’ metro’s homes were 76 percent above the national level. Houston implemented a LTD law authorizing much smaller lots in 1998. By 2023, homes in the Houston metro area were 13 percent below the national level, while Los Angeles’ had risen to 160 percent above the national level. This goes a long way toward explaining why LA’s homeless rate in 2021 was 11 times that of Houston’s.
Rather than disciplined, knowledge-based policy solutions, others choose the path of scapegoating investment firms that buy up single-family homes for their unaffordability. But this reasoning fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. While it’s true that such investor purchases have recently increased, this narrative ignores the fact that the rise in home prices long pre-dates this trend. Moreover, 50 percent of the purchases of single-family homes were made by people who own less than 10 homes, in other words, mom and pop investors. Just 10 percent are owned by mega-investors with 1,000 properties or more, as CoreLogic pointed out.
This is all cause for optimism. Knowledge based solutions are prevailing. States such as California, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Montana and cities such as Austin, Minneapolis, and Charlotte have also already passed reforms scaling back single-family detached zoning laws and legalizing LTD zoning. Many more jurisdictions are considering similar reforms.
Legalizing light-touch density is the most effective and politically palatable way to solve our housing crisis. LTD zoning unleashes the private sector to close the housing supply gap and provide more housing opportunities and affordable homes for more Americans.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-09-21 15:51:162023-09-21 15:51:16There’s an Easy Fix That Would Solve Our Housing Crisis: Light Touch Density
