• Tag Archives news
  • Will Armageddon Be Joe Biden’s Final Legacy Regarding Russia?

    When the Soviet Union dissolved in late 1991, the world seemed poised for a new, more peaceful era no longer haunted by the fear of a nuclear Armageddon. The principal successor state from the wreckage of the USSR was a noncommunist Russia that was intent on becoming part of the democratic, capitalist West. President George H. W. Bush and his top advisers exercised considerable diplomatic skill managing the twilight years and ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. Their core achievement was to gain Moscow’s assent to Germany’s reunification and membership in NATO. The implicit tradeoff (unfortunately never put in writing) was that NATO would not expand beyond the eastern border of a newly united Germany.

    The contrast between the benign end to the original Cold War and the current status of relations between the West (especially the United States) and Russia could not be greater or more alarming. NATO’s meddling in the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia has become an outright proxy war for the Alliance. As NATO’s leader, the United States has pushed a series of extremely dangerous escalatory steps. The latest provocation is the decision by Joe Biden’s administration authorizing Ukraine to use long-range U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that are capable of striking at least 190 miles inside Russia. Moscow has responded by adopting a new nuclear doctrine warning that the use of such missiles by NATO’s Ukrainian proxy would mean that Moscow is officially at war with the U.S.-led alliance. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin is bluffing, but the risk of a nuclear collision between NATO and Moscow now appears to be very high.

    It is bitterly ironic that the decision to let Ukraine use U.S. missiles that might trigger World War III has been made by the lamest of lame duck U.S. presidents. At the 59th minute of the 11th hour, the leaders of the Democratic Party pressured Biden to withdraw from the presidential race. They did so because the evidence of his cognitive decline had become undeniable. However, his hand-picked successor, Kamala Harris, then proceeded to lose the presidential election to Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    To say that the Biden administration has no mandate to make such a crucial decision involving war and peace would be a monumental understatement. In fairness, though, the current foreign policy crew is not solely responsible for fouling-up relations with Russia and provoking a new cold war with nuclear implications. That “achievement” has been a bipartisan effort taking place over more than 3 decades.

    Toward the end of George H. W. Bush’s administration, public opinion polls in Russia showed that nearly 80 percent of Russians held positive views of the United States. In the late stages of the Bill Clinton administration, nearly the same percentage held negative opinions.

    It was hardly a surprising development. During his years in office, Clinton and his Russian-hating advisers (especially UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) antagonized Moscow on multiple occasions. Washington went out of its way to attack Russia’s long-standing religious and political clients, the Serbs, as the Yugoslav federation disintegrated. However, the Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, struck the biggest blow to East-West relations.

    Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, continued and intensified the policy of provoking and antagonizing Russia. Subsequent rounds of NATO expansion brought U.S. military power to Russia’s immediate neighborhood by adding such new members as the three Baltic republics, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Most provocative of all, Bush pushed to add Ukraine to the Alliance. Although Germany and France temporarily blocked immediate moves to make Ukraine a member, Washington’s ultimate goal was quite clear.

    A rising number and volume of warnings against making Ukraine a NATO asset also came from Putin and other officials. Washington and its key European allies ignored those warnings, but it became clear in 2014 that the Kremlin was not bluffing. When President Barack Obama and key European leaders helped overthrow Ukraine’s generally pro-Russia president and install a regime subservient to NATO, Moscow struck back emphatically, seizing Ukraine’s strategic, but majority Russian populated, Crimean Peninsula.

    Relations between the West and Russia continued to deteriorate thereafter. In the autumn of 2021, the Kremlin proposed a new relationship with the West that amounted to Russia’s minimum demands. Those demands included a guaranteed neutral status for Ukraine – thus foreclosing the prospect of Kyiv’s eventual membership in NATO. The Kremlin also sought the withdrawal of advanced U.S. weaponry from the easternmost members of NATO. It amounted to an ultimatum, and when the Biden administration treated Moscow’s demands with contempt, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. That offensive, combined with the decision by the United States and its allies to impose severe economic sanctions against Russia, ignited an ever-escalating military crisis.

    It is uncertain whether President-elect Trump intends to end the dangerous impasse with Moscow. Contrary to the partisan myth that Trump has been Putin’s puppet, his actual policies during his first term were consistently hardline. One can hope, though, that he has fully understood what a disaster Washington’s love affair with Ukraine has become for both countries. Restoring cooperative bilateral relations with Russia is essential for global peace.

    Alarmingly, however, Trump might not get that opportunity, even if he wishes to back away from the beckoning abyss. The lame-duck Biden administration still holds power for nearly another two months, and, if administration leaders are so inclined, that is more than enough time to plunge the country into nuclear war. Biden’s conduct in recent weeks, especially authorizing Ukraine to attack Russia with U.S.-supplied, long-range missiles, is beyond reckless. Biden’s legacy is already bad, but it could become even worse.

    https://ronpaulinstitute.org/will-armageddon-be-joe-bidens-final-legacy-regarding-russia/


  • Comrade Kamala? Assessing Three of Harris’s New Economic Proposals

    The Kamala Harris campaign is still relatively young. The current Vice President and previous US Senator from California has barely been in the race for a month. Her first concrete economic plans are being announced and, for the most part, panned by economists. Let’s examine some of these proposals, their effects, and why economists oppose them.

    1. Price Caps on Groceries

    Let’s begin with the most shocking Harris proposal—a federal ban on “price gouging” for groceries. Let’s start with the rhetoric and then get down to brass tacks. What is price gouging? It’s a term without any clear tie to economic facts.

    Historically, “price gouging” referred to price increases caused by disasters (e.g., bottled water being more expensive during hurricanes). But of course, when demand increases or supply decreases, prices do naturally rise to prevent shortages. Labeling this as “gouging” in certain circumstances is arbitrary at best.

    Furthermore, what sort of crisis are we appealing to in order to say there is price gouging? Covid still? Since the Covid pandemic ended over two years ago (even according to Fauci), that really doesn’t make sense. Is the crisis that inflation is making things unaffordable? Well, if the disaster behind this gouging is price increases, then all price increases are defined as gouging. That doesn’t make any sense either.

    To be blunt, gouging is just a word used for emotional effect. We can always pick some arbitrary benchmark of “fair” or “unfair” price increases, but that benchmark will remain arbitrary.

    Now let’s move to the brass tacks. What would this mean? The way the language is couched, this policy would amount to nothing more than a form of price control. Regardless of the particular form this ban takes, any law which penalizes a store for having prices above some point is a price control. Insofar as this policy affects prices at all, it is a price control. Insofar as it doesn’t affect prices, the policy is spurious.

    What’s the problem here? Well, when either demand increases or supply decreases (or both), the competition to buy a good increases relative to the available supply. This means that more people will be bidding for the same number of products. If prices do not rise, the products will run out, and some people who are willing to pay the current price cannot purchase the good in question because it has run out. Economists call this a shortage.

    If, instead, prices are allowed to rise, two things happen. First, higher prices cause buyers to decrease their consumption relative to lower prices. Second, higher prices incentivize producers to supply more of a product, since a higher price commands a higher revenue. These two forces work together to make sure that all potential buyers can purchase the number of goods they are willing to pay for.

    Harris’s team claims that the pandemic was used by businesses as a pretext to trick people, to increase prices more than rising costs called for, and that this is a corrective measure. So are grocery stores pulling one over on people? Not so.

    Grocery stores have tiny margins compared to other industries. Look at the data.

    If you’re unfamiliar with the term, a 1.2 percent profit margin means that for every 1 dollar of sales a grocery store makes, it keeps 1.2 cents in profit. The rest goes to pay costs. If costs were just a couple of cents per dollar higher in the grocery industry, grocery stores would take losses and start to go out of business.

    The Harris team may try to walk this back and propose a policy to help grocery stores with their costs so that they can “pass on” the savings (though that’s not exactly how it works), but as of now the wording threatens at least de facto punishment for increasing prices. Low grocery prices sound nice, but food shortages don’t.

    The bottom line is that grocery stores aren’t responsible for increasing the money supply by 40 percent over two years during the Covid policy era, which is the real driver of the price inflation we’ve experienced.

    2. A Subsidy for New Homebuyers

    Next, Harris is considering offering a $25,000 subsidy for new homebuyers. The policy has a similar ring to it. Housing is a significant part of the average American’s budget, and Harris will play well with getting young voters to turn out if she promises them $25,000 off their housing bill.

    So what’s wrong with this? Do myself and other economists hate affordable housing? Quite the contrary. Harris’s policy will hurt housing affordability for many. If someone is considering whether to rent or buy for housing, promising him $25,000 to buy is going to convince many people on the fence to buy. This wave of new buyers will increase the demand for housing, and, as a result, prices will rise.

    Not only this, but as prices rise, many landlords may decide that the new higher price tags on their rental units are worth selling for. The supply of houses for rent would tend to decrease, resulting in higher rental prices.

    So while new homebuyers might experience a slightly lower cost (net of the new price increases), everyone trying to move and buy a new home is going to face higher prices.

    The problem doesn’t end there. The government isn’t sitting on any piles of cash to hand out $25,000 subsidies. The policy will ultimately be financed by debt, and debt must be repaid (plus interest!) with future taxes. So even the first-time homebuyer may be worse off in dollar terms over the course of his life, as he pays higher future taxes for others.

    Put simply, subsidizing demand means higher prices and higher taxes. This is no gateway to affordability.

    3. Increasing the Child Tax Credit

    The last of Harris’s policies on the docket is the only one that I can think of in a positive light: increasing the child tax credit for newborns.

    I think there are good reasons to support a kind of policy like this because the current Social Security welfare system is subsidized heavily by parents. Under current US law, parents pay the bulk of the expenses of raising their children, but when those children grow up and work, their wages are used to support the retirement of everyone—so parents are indirectly supporting retirements.

    Historically, support for retired parents was directly assumed by their children. Now, the benefit of children in this facet is socialized, while the cost is privatized to parents.

    As such, I’m generally supportive of more tax credits. In theory, it tackles the twin problems of an anti-natal system combined with the looming baby bust.

    My praise for Harris for this policy proposal is qualified, however, because the numbers just don’t amount to much. The policy proposal calls for a one-time increase in the child tax credit for newborns, to $6,000. Right now, the child tax credit varies, but it hovers around $3,000 per child.

    So, as I read the proposal, this is a one-time increase of $3,000 spread out over 18 years of a child’s life. It isn’t nothing, but a couple hundred bucks a year isn’t exactly consequential either.

    Will this policy fix a looming baby bust? Probably not. While money incentives can work to increase birth rates, they tend to come with high price tags before they work. Besides, there are better ways to increase birth rates that cost a lot less money and would have a far greater impact.

    In sum, Kamala Harris’s first round of economic policies range from underwhelming to downright bad. We can only hope that, if she wins, cooler heads prevail at the policy table.

    Source: https://fee.org/articles/comrade-kamala-assessing-three-of-harriss-new-economic-proposals/


  • The Real Problem with Biden’s Age

    I was only a little surprised by Biden’s debate performance, and on first glance thought it just mediocre, certainly not cause for a crisis. But that’s because I consume too much alternate media, and had seen the endless string of viral clips of Biden falling down the main stairs of Air Force One (and being reassigned to the shorter crew stairs in response.) I’ve seen the memes and loops of his many gaffes, and the awkwardly long pauses where Joe just drifted off when he is no longer next to puppet master Jill to cue him. So the debate was little surprise to me. But for those whose media diet is slim, and whose images of Biden were relegated to highly edited MSM clips, many saw Biden in-the-real for the first time and it shocked the hell out of them. It was clear what many had said before to little belief: the Emperor had no clothes.

    Some 85 percent of voters thought Biden was too frail to be president. That massive number of Americans must include almost everyone who has cared for an aging relative and knows the signs: mixed up words, forgotten details, the long, empty stares where conversation used to be. His debate performance and other stumbles were symbols of a deteriorating man, not signs of a bad night. Biden’s boast he faced a cognitive test every day was belied by the results: endless war in the Ukraine with no path to victory, endless war in Gaza where the Israel mocks Biden’s red lines, and the economy, with intransient inflation eating away at paychecks. Biden failed at the real meat of the job, which is not being discussed, never mind just the bad optics. His own stubbornness and the games played around him weakened America at home and left it exposed and vulnerable to forces abroad.

    Which brings us to Biden Problem Two, actually a Kamala problem, the fact that the White House, Democratic Party and Joe himself have been, abetted by the MSM, lying to us for years about the condition of first Candidate Biden and then President Biden. We now can surmise the 2020 campaign from his basement by Biden, supposedly run that way because of Covid, was actually a subterfuge, a way to spoon feed good images and sound bites of Biden to the public and hide his ongoing condition. Clever propaganda, like Franklin Roosevelt appearing to “stand” at public events when in fact in private he was wheelchair-bound due to polio. The Wall Street Journal reports congressional leaders were worried about Biden’s mental state back in 2021. Democrats covered it up. That’s who Kamala is beholden to, leaving the Democratic base to consist of Pelosi, Schumer, and Jeffries.

    Kamala’s problem is not with the undecided voters, it is with Democratic voters. How can they believe her after such malarkey? Indeed, it was only a week before the debate the White House was claiming video of Biden wandering off and/or falling down was the result of nefarious editing and visual trickery (that line of argument dissipated quickly post-debate.) Then it became a dead solid accepted fact that Biden was senile, and Democrats were paralyzed. No one listened to anything except questions about Biden’s ability. No one seemed to ask but likely thought about why this was hidden from the public. Kamala begins her campaign shouting into the wind “Believe me!” Why should anyone? Did she not see Biden’s deterioration and keep silent about it? Meanwhile, the Democratic party, which has accused Trump of being anti-democracy, is running a candidate who never won a primary, removing the loser via some back room process as transparent as chocolate pudding. Remember all the moaning about the many political and Constitutional crisis Trump was to unleash? Here’s a real one.

    You’ll hear no mea culpa from the MSM about remaining quiet over what they knew from their own close contact with the President, as they remained silent after lying about Russiagate and Hunter’s not-Russian laptop. They saw the real Joe Biden and instead of informing the American people, acted as agents of the Democratic party to help cover things up. In an era where everything about Trump is fair game and then some (if there’s no lead story today make one up!) the media was silent about Joe. This is the same MSM which for four years of Trump bleated emptily about the 25th amendment and how Trump was unstable, unqualified, and mentally ill.

    To make things worse, the MSM pivoted twice in a two week span, jumping on Biden to quit the race like school cafeteria bullies (Bill Maher called them “Mean Girls who smelled blood in the water”) and then to spew out funereal-like dirges about Biden the statesman when he did drop out (Biden clung to the Resolute desk like a Titanic survivor and then left office with the same grace he showed in Afghanistan.) It was almost as if someone was directing the whole affairs from afar. Maybe it was this guy — MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner admonished the home team corporate media to ramp up its negative coverage of Trump while not “ginning up” reasons to criticize the Vice President. Kirschner, on YouTube, urged the media to prioritize critical coverage of Trump while treating Harris better than it treated Biden following the June debate.

    The so-called defenders of democracy abetted a cover-up and a coup in plain sight. Credibility? Why should anyone believe them about anything Kamala-related going forward?

    Source: The Real Problem with Biden’s Age – The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity