The review will take months and then will be open to public comment which will take further time, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told reporters in a teleconference.
This policy, if one can dignify it with such an appellation, is a sop to the ecoloonies upon whom the administration depends for support:
The growth [in LNG exports] has set off protests from environmentalists, part of Biden’s base. Activists say new LNG projects can harm local communities with pollution, lock in global reliance on fossil fuels for decades, and lead to emissions from burning gas and from leaks of the powerful greenhouse gas methane.
In brief, the administration (regime, really) wants to kneecap the remarkable energy revolution of the past 20 years, which has seen technological innovations that have turned the US from a nation worried about where its next MMBTU would come from to a natural gas production powerhouse, and which have allowed others to share in its bounty with the world.
But you see, to the ecoloonies that’s the bad news. Really bad. Climate change, dontcha know.
But even evaluated on those (dubious) terms, the policy is demented. Because the ecoloonies don’t understand basic economics. They are myopic, linear thinkers who are incapable of analyzing the ultimate impact of their policy.
In their thinking, less LNG exports from the US equals less fossil fuel consumption equals lowers carbon emissions equals saving the polar bears. Even overlooking the (again dubious) last step in the logical chain (hey, I’m a a generous guy) the analysis is flawed. Where it definitely breaks down is the third, and arguably the second, steps.
Yes, reducing US natural gas output (by choking one source of demand) will reduce world natural gas production. But the resulting higher world price will induce higher output by competing producers (e.g., Qatar, Australia, PNG, Africa, etc.), resulting in a net decline in world gas production smaller than the decline in US production–and it is world production that matters when considering “well mixed” GHGs. Further, some production that would have otherwise been exported will be consumed domestically instead, meaning that a given decline in exports does not result in an equal decline in production.
But more importantly, the rise in the price of gas relative to other fuels–notably coal–will induce substitution towards those fuels. Since those fuels are more carbon intensive than natural gas, it is possible, and indeed likely, that the net effect of the policy would be to increase the output of GHGs.
So at the very least, the amount of reduction in GHGs resulting from this policy will be far smaller than the reduction in US LNG exports that it will cause, and plausibly will result in an increase of GHGs.
Well played! All pain, no gain!
But the economic idiocy of ecoloonies is an old story by now. Perhaps you’ve read of the recent finding that the ban on “single use” plastic bags in New Jersey led to a tripling of consumer plastics consumption because of the substitution effects that the ban induced. Again, myopic, linear, one-step ahead thinking led to a policy that produced perverse results.
The foregoing analysis focuses on only one dimension–GHG output. But one also has to consider the cost incurred to achieve any GHG gains (if there are any, that is). But trade-offs (costs vs. benefits) is not something that ecoloonies do. They are monomaniacs, and monomaniacs don’t evaluate trade-offs.
This policy will also shtup European allies, whom in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine Biden promised would receive bountiful supplies of US gas.
To paraphrase Animal House: “You fucked up, Europe! You trusted Biden!”
The administration pinky swears that
the pause would not hurt allies, saying the plan will come with exemptions for national security should they need more LNG.
Yeah, because it’s just like turning the faucet on and off, right?
If you believe what they say, you are truly an idiot and probably believe they’ll respect you in the morning.
But none of this should be a surprise. After all, this is an administration that is infested with members of the “elite,” and which counts on the “elite” for its support. According to a recent Rasmussen poll:
An astonishing 77% of the Elites – including nearly 90% of the Elites who graduated from the top universities – favor rationing energy, gas, and meat to combat climate change. Among all Americans, 63% oppose rationing.
Face it. They hate your guts and want you to suffer. This “pause” on LNG exports is just another manifestation of their hatred.
Javier Milei gave a remarkable speech at Davos last week. I won’t say it was a stemwinder, because unlike in his media and campaign appearances, here Milei’s mien was that of an academic delivering a paper at a conference, rather than that of a chainsaw wielding revolutionary. On substance, however, it was extremely provocative–and indeed an anathema to the assembled “elites” in Davos.
Milei's 2024 Davos talk, directly translated to English by AI (by heygen), in his own accent. Better than the dubbed version imo. pic.twitter.com/8OAGELuqxl
Milei robustly advocated the primacy of freedom, and made the moral as well as the utilitarian case for capitalism, and presented a trenchant criticism of socialism, collectivism, and statism. Apostasy–hell, heresy–at Davos. So three cheers!
A good part of Milei’s speech channeled Deirdre McCloskey: he recapitulated McCloskey’s account of the economic miracle of market capitalism that caused a manyfold increase in living standards in a few centuries after millennia of stagnation.
Indeed, Milei presented a maximalist case for the market. Milei is a trained economist, and many who are not trained economists may have missed the import of some of his more arcane and academic arguments. I’ll try to summarize them, and offer some commentary.
As his foil, Milei chose neoclassical economics–the economics of Alfred Marshall, and indeed of two economists (Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas) whom Milei obviously admires given he named three of his beloved dogs after them. Specifically, he took aim at the concept of “market failure” in the vein of Pigou and innumerable economic textbooks since.
Milei is a market Panglossian: he says flat out that there is no such thing as “market failure.” Full stop. Economic failures are solely the responsibility of the state and destructive public policies. Another full stop.
This strongly echoes the Coasean critique of the Pigouvian concept of “market failure.” Neoclassical economics largely ignores transactions costs. What is sometimes referred to as the New Institutional Economics, of which Transaction Cost Economics is a subset, introduces transactions costs as a fundamental concept. When transactions costs are considered, no wealth improving transactions remain unexploited. In this sense it can be said that the market never fails.
Where this argument becomes tenuous is when one considers what determines transactions costs, and whether government regulation can reduce transactions costs and therefore increase the gains from trade and exchange available to be realized through market processes. For example, diffuse harms from air pollution make negotiated deals to maximize welfare challenging. There are free rider problems and large number bargaining problems and asymmetric information problems that make pure “market” arrangements challenging. Perhaps government regulation is a welfare-improving way of overcoming these challenges.
That is, it is possible that sometimes governments can reduce transactions costs, or can be viewed as a transactions cost economizing way of allocating scarce resources. In a transaction cost free world, the allocation of property rights doesn’t matter. With transactions costs, this allocation can affect welfare. By defining property rights, governments might allow the market to reach a better allocation of resources.
But of course, as Milei correctly notes, governments can hardly expected to be altruistic and omniscient, so they are also quite capable of implementing destructive measures rather than constructive ones.
Milei’s market Panglossianism may be exaggerated, but it has the great virtue of pointing out the fundamental analytical problems with textbook “neoclassical” invocations of and treatments of “market failure,” and like Coase did, directing attention at the vitally important consideration these analyses ignore–transactions costs.
Milei also gave a stirring defense of monopoly. In some respects this can be viewed as a specific example of transactions costs in action: as the answer to an old Chicago econ prelim question (maybe it is still used–dunno) demonstrates, in the absence of transactions costs, the “deadweight loss” from monopoly power in the textbook analysis would not exist. Instead, “monopoly power” or “market power” would have only distributive rather than efficiency effects.
But Milei’s defense was somewhat different. The textbook analysis of monopoly is a static one. Following Schumpeter, and certain strands of modern growth theory, monopoly is the engine (or the effect) of the innovation that has driven the massive expansion of wealth and the widespread elimination of poverty that Milei rightly focused on in the beginning of his speech.
This is another maximalist position, but yet again it identifies and amplifies an important consideration that is far too often ignored in public and policy debates.
I would note, however, that it sits somewhat uncomfortably with his view that all failures are government failures. One of the primary dangers of large business enterprises generally, including those that could be characterized as “monopolies,” is that they exercise undue power over governments, and cause them to implement wealth-destroying policies that help these enterprises. How does one reap the benefits of innovation that results from (or may cause) large enterprises without incurring the costs from rent seeking by these enterprises?
As an economist I can quibble with the extent to which Milei pushed some of his economic arguments. But this is mainly a matter of identifying exceptions to the rules he lays down: I definitely see the rhetorical and persuasive benefits of stating the maximalist case, especially to an echo chamber of anti market and anti freedom “elites” who themselves routinely make maximalist claims. It is a challenge to a “smelly orthodoxy,” and such a challenge must be vigorously and provocatively issued in over to stand out against the droning Davos hive.
Once the debate shifts to where Milei went too far, the fundamental truths of his arguments are at least implicitly accepted. And the fundamental truths are these: emergent market orders, including “failures” such as monopoly power, are and have been for centuries the main engine of human progress, and that governments have been the main obstacle to human flourishing .
And this, in turn, will shine a bright light on the dark truth of Davos and the Davosians. Namely, that they are fundamentally anti-humanists who believe that there are too many humans, and humans are too rich. That is, Milei embraces a view of progress that is antithetical to modern misanthropic progressives.
Too many normal people don’t understand that about the Davosians. Attempting to counter Milei’s arguments forces them to reveal that fact. When the only answer to “capitalism made us rich” is “being rich is a bad thing” the battle is all but won.
Martin Luther King was assassinated when I was in third grade. I remember the time well–in particular my parents listening in horror to radio reports of the riots that broke out after the assassination.
My elementary school had been fully integrated–through busing–when I was in second grade. The superintendent of schools–a guy named Gregory Coffin if memory serves (Coffin being a name that sticks)–had said that “integration is the goal of education.” In the years after King’s death, my elementary school held school-wide assemblies to honor King on his birthday.
Thus, in the 50 years after King’s death Evanston, Illinois transformed from a town that attempted to implement and honor King’s anti-segregationist vision to one that explicitly rejected it and embraced segregation.
In sum, King’s call to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character has been rejected by progressives in the United States. Not just rejected, but inverted.
Two recent examples illustrate this perfectly. When called out for failings of character, Claudine Gay and Fani Willis (the Atlanta prosecutor in the Trump election case) immediately claimed that their race was the reason for the criticisms directed against them. They have sought refuge in their skin color from judgments about their character. And the progressive left has largely lined up behind them.
Any progressive who celebrates King’s birthday today is the worst kind of hypocrite. His ideals are an anathema to their racialist and identitarian ideology, so in word and deed they daily reject and denigrate these ideals. They are the children of King’s foils, Malcom X and his ilk, and if they had a shred of intellectual honesty they would like Malcom X and others (e.g., Stokely Carmichael) heap scorn on King and his legacy on this day.
Intellectual honesty. Yeah, I crack myself up sometimes.
So beware the myriad hypocrites who today will express reverence for MLK on his day. Their deeds every other day of the year belie their true beliefs, which reject King’s vision root and branch.
This is probably the most deadly poison in the toxic brew of contemporary American politics. And if anything, it is getting worse not better. So use this day to fight back by honoring what King actually stood for, rather than genuflecting to his memory merely because of his race.
For at least the second time Joe Biden used an iconic Revolutionary War monument–this time Valley Forge–to attack his political foes as threats to the American government.
Apparently the irony of saying that insurrection is a really really really bad thing at the sites of crucial moments in America’s founding insurrection is lost on Joe. But of course, a lot of things are lost on Joe in his diminished mental state (which was never that acute to begin) with.
The most telling thing about this demagoguery is that it means that Biden is starting his campaign by going negative. The typical campaign trajectory is to start out positive and tout the candidate’s shining vision for the future, and then ramp up the negativity as election day nears. Biden obviously realizes he has nothing positive to offer. He has tried to hype his economic program, but “Bidenomics” is about as popular as antibiotic resistant venereal disease. Further, the country is extremely negative about pretty much everything his administration is doing–the border most notably.
So Biden has nothing to do but grab and wave the bloody shirt–because he has nothing else to run on.
And what a pathetic bloody shirt it is. As I noted at the time, the January 6 whatever was not a crime so much as it was a blunder–and plausibly a trap set by the Deep State into which some (unarmed) fools obligingly jumped. And the only blood that was spilled was that of a few of the alleged insurrectionists. The Civil War it wasn’t, despite the desperate attempts of the left to make it even worse than a conflict that resulted in the deaths of about 2 percent of the population.
The whole Trump-will-be-a-dictator-who-will-destroy-“our democracy” (vomit) narrative is palpably ridiculous.
I have serious problems with Trump. He caved to Fauci and the rest of that crowd on Covid–an example of the yawning gap between his pugilistic rhetoric and his pusillanimous actions. He pushed experimental vaccines. He was horrible–horrible–on spending and the size of government. He was a soft money guy pushing for lower interest rates like an American Erdogan. Although I could see the logic of a trade war with China, his anti-trade agenda was broader than that, and not defensible. His appointments were almost uniformly horrible, with the possible exception of some Supreme Court picks.
Against that, I would say that he was right on the border (and that disaster alone may win him re-election). His general aversion to military intervention overseas was also a relief. He was pretty good on regulatory matters. He was not a fanatic looking to transform radically the consumption and production of energy in the United States while chasing climate chimeras. And he was good on DEI.
And even on issues like spending and Covid he was far superior to Biden.
But regardless of how you evaluate Trump on these substantive issues, to paint him as a dictator who will abuse the powers of the state to destroy representative government (which we are supposed to have, as opposed to democracy, which we categorically don’t) is demagogic and delusional. Indeed, it is an inversion of reality.
What do dictators do? Peruvian dictator Oscar Benvenides’ quote provides a pithy description: “For my friends, everything. For my enemies–the law!”
No man in American history has been targeted by the state and in particular its law enforcement structures more viciously than Donald Trump. Even before he took office–hell, even before he was elected–the law was unleashed on him, foully. And the foulness has only metastasized. And the myriad instruments of the security state–the things that dictators wield to destroy their enemies–have also been employed relentlessly against Trump for around 8 years.
Now the Defenders of Democracy are striving mightily to deny Americans the right to vote for him–another move right out of the Dictator’s Playbook.
And the law has been employed against far more enemies of the regime than Trump.
“Projection” is therefore beyond inadequate to describe the left’s demonization of Trump as a would-be dictator. This demonization most likely reflects the desperation of a party that has nothing positive to offer combined with a haunting fear of karma–that Trump will do to them what they did to him.
That would be, well, karma. And karma is a bitch, no?
Gay admits to “mistakes” and “errors” which she claims she addressed by “promptly [requesting] corrections from the journals in which the flagged articles were published.”
Oh, really? Was she previously unaware of her copying, and only requested corrections when found out?: such ignorance would only raise a huge host of other issues. And more substantively. She only requested corrections on the articles initially identified: subsequently many further instances have been flagged. Why didn’t she proactively (a) reveal these instances when the earlier ones were identified, and (b) request corrections on those as well.
No. Claudine Gay attempted a “modified, limited hangout.” Worked out about as well for her as it did for Nixon.
Subsequently other serious allegations have surfaced, notably regarding various data abuses in her published research. When queried about these some time back, she refused to supply her data to those questioning her–a clear ref flag. And you wonder about why there is a replication crisis?
I strongly suspect that Harvard realized that there was fire producing this smoke, and that such infractions couldn’t be semantically obfuscated with argle bargle like using “some material duplicated other scholars’ language, without proper attribution” rather than the direct and accurate single word “plagiarism.” So . . . adios! Claudine.
As many have noted, this won’t actually change anything. Gay’s rise to the pinnacle of academia is but a symptom of the deeper rot in these institutions, and her departure will not affect that rot one iota. Indeed, DEI is a hill academia will die on: Gay was merely a casualty in the battle.
The frenzied response not just in academia but among media sycophants reveals a complete lack of remorse, or even serious retrospection. Operating on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, myriad academics (especially at “elite” schools) and journalistic lackeys have directed their furious fire at those (like Christopher Rufo) who had the temerity to open Gay’s closet and rattle the skeletons it contains.
This is an example of the classic leftist/Marxist tactic of turning every question of fact into an issue of motive.
In reality, the truth of a statement or claim is independent of who makes it. But we know that the postmodern, progressive, crit theory types who infest academia don’t believe in truth. To them, it’s all about power.
And that is the core of the rot. The defense of Gay shows that that rot survives her defenestration.
On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote “SCALPED,” as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans.
In its never-ending campaign to racialize everything, and specifically to blame whitey for every ill in the world, the left digs, hits the bottom, and keeps digging.
They could have made their point by putting a period after “as if Gay was a trophy of violence.” As tendentious as that would have been, the AP felt obliged to inject yet another–and despicable–gratuitous racial attack.
And it reveals yet again the utter dishonesty and contempt for truth that infests almost all leftist rhetorical.
The statement’s dishonesty is revealed by its slipperiness. “Taken up by white colonists.” Taken up from whom? Native Americans (“Indians”) perhaps? Well, of course.
But the AP then insinuates that the practice was taken up as a part of a campaign of genocide. Whether or not such a deliberate campaign of eradication existed at all, and among “white colonists” generally, linking it to scalping suggests that it was an integral component of that campaign. As if that matters fuck all in the issue of Claudine Gay. It is just another wave of the racialist bloody shirt as an attempt to demonize her critics as inveterate racists and white supremacists whose criticisms are therefore beyond the pale.
After getting ratioed out the wazoo, the AP stealthily added that scalping “was used by some tribes against their enemies.” 1. Who knew? 2. Were those enemies “white colonists”? Would that make it OK?
Of course scalping was overwhelmingly a “gruesome” (hey–the AP agrees) practice engaged in first and foremost by Native Americans of virtually all tribes against all their enemies of all races.
Now, it was not exclusively an Indian practice. Some whites (and blacks) employed it as well. Crow Killer Johnson (lionized in a very different time in a movie starring Robert Redford) was notorious for taking and keeping the scalps of Crows and Blackfeet. Though that might have been the least objectionable of his desecrations: he was also known as Liver Eater Johnson, and not because he found elk and bison livers to be a delicacy.
Confederate guerrillas in Missouri, such as “Bloody Bill” Anderson and George Todd also took scalps of their Yankee enemies, both white and black.
But these were the exceptions. The rule was that scalping (and other forms of trophy taking and desecration of the dead) was a nigh universal practice among American tribes.
The hand of the savage! Where are the smelling salts?
Abel’s 18th century tombstone is preserved in the Cmapus Martius Museum in Marietta, Ohio. (At least, I think he hasn’t been canceled yet):
The details of his death and scalping, and the identity of the perp, are very well documented. His scalped body was found in the woods near what is now called Dead Man’s Creek. His long hunting shirt contained mayapples that he was apparently collecting when ambushed. His musket was found concealed in a hollow log.
As for the perp, some months later Silverheels wandered into a logging camp, and sitting around the fire after a few tugs from the jug, related his exploits during the late war. Among them, coming across an old white man picking mayapples, whom he slew and scalped, and then deposited the man’s musket in a hollow log.
Unbeknownst to Silverheels, one of the loggers in his audience was Abel Sherman’s son, who of course knew all these details. Silverheels was found shot dead shortly afterwards. Connect those dots.
There is a way to implicate white colonists here though. Silverheels bragged that the British in Detroit–who paid for scalps of American settlers–paid double the normal price for Abel’s because the old man had a double crown: Silverheels cut the scalp in half, each half with a crown, and sold the pieces to the British. So I guess the AP is right. Scalping was a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists–at least by proxy!
The point of this long digression–and it does have a point!–is to illustrate the fundamental dishonesty of the left, and in particular their utter disregard for the truth, and their willingness to distort realities in order to construct racist narratives that they use to club those who dare to challenge their racialist–and racist–policies. At a time when such inflammatory tactics need to be toned down, and indeed eliminated, the left turns them up to 11.
And that’s why Claudine Gray’s fate is all but irrelevant to the fate of American academia, or political discourse in America. She is merely an illustration of the rejection of merit and truth in favor of “critical” racialist narratives and politics, and the reaction to her demise demonstrates beyond cavil how viciously her ilk will fight to defend them.
In the coming year the Supreme Court will rule in two cases that could result in the imposition of substantial constraints on the administrative state. Since federal administrative agencies are progressive pets, the prospect has the left freaking out. And I do mean freaking out.
The first case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. Here Jarkesy is challenging the legitimacy of the SEC (and by implication other agencies) relying on internal administrative law judges (“ALJs”) to decide enforcement actions brought by the agency. Jarkesy argues that such cases should be tried in Article III courts (i.e., in federal court).
The Constitutional basis for his argument is compelling. Agencies flout the separation of powers: they combine legislative, executive, and judicial functions. In the case of enforcement actions like that against Jarkesy, the SEC brings the charges against the defendant/respondent, prosecutes the case, and if the agency uses an ALJ, tries the case and renders the judgment and assesses the penalty. The case is brought under regulations adopted by the agency in a quasi-legislative role (supposedly under powers delegated by Congress–an issue that is relevant in the other case I will discuss).
Jarkesy argues that being subordinate to, and accountable to, the agency, ALJs are not independent are subjecting him to their judgment violates his Constitutional rights, and in particular his right to due process.
As an empirical matter, Jarkesy has a compelling case. I recall that in an antitrust case, Justice Potter Stewart opined that the “only consistency” in such cases is “that the government always wins.” (That was in the 60s.). And that was before Article III courts. That is even more true in cases before ALJs in agencies like the SEC and FERC. (When is the last time a FERC ALJ decided against the agency in a big matter?)
Jarkesy therefore wants the trier of fact to be an ostensibly independent Article III federal court. He doesn’t want to have his fate decided by an ALJ who is effectively beholden to the commissioners who run the agency who are bringing the charges and prosecuting them.
Reasonable, no? But not to the progs. They are losing their sh!t over the prospect. Case in point, this article in the Atlantic–which is always a reliable barometer of prog opinion.
According to author Noah Rosenblum, this would represent The End of the World as We Know It.
It would “destroy the government”!!!!!!!! (He says this like it’s a bad thing!–JK).
Rosenblum’s argument veers between the hysterical and the dishonest.
This part in particular cracks me up:
Jarkesy’s second claim—that the internal adjudicator who first heard his case held too much independence—is especially galling. These adjudicators should be independent; the alternative would be to put their regulatory powers at the political whim of whichever administration might be in charge.
The relevant question is “independent from whom?” The very essence of Jarkesy’s argument is exactly that ALJs are creatures of “whichever administration may be in charge.” “The political whim of whichever administration might be in charge” is precisely the problem, not the “alternative.”
Article III courts are about as independent of the current administration (whether it be the presidential administration, or the commissioners of an agency) as is possible–and that’s by the Founders’ design. ALJs are definitely not.
Rosenblum loses control over his bowels at the thought that allowing those accused by federal agencies be judged by, you know, federal judges will gut the ability of agencies like the SEC to prosecute financial crimes:
The SEC was created as an independent agency in 1934, after the financial crash of 1929, to thwart the sort of market manipulation that preceded the Great Depression; Congress has granted it additional powers over the years to continue protecting financial markets. Responding to catastrophes and guarding against market manipulation is exactly the kind of work that Congress should empower the executive branch to do. Requiring Congress to legislate in response to every new fraud some crook might dream up would not be a good use of its time. And there’s no reason to think that delegating authority to police markets runs afoul of the Constitution.
Requiring those who “police markets” to prove their cases beyond the relevant burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence in a civil case) to a truly independent trier of fact does not permit manipulators and fraudsters to run rampant, any more than requiring your local police and prosecutor to prove charges before a judge allows murderers and rapists to run rampant.
Given the stakes in federal securities cases, which can easily run into the tens or hundreds of millions, if not more, requiring prosecuting agencies to clear such a hurdle is eminently reasonable.
What is Rosenblum so afraid of? These people would be prosecuted before Article III courts under the same laws and regulations that they are currently prosecuted before ALJs. A decision adverse to the SEC in Jarkesy would not eliminate the Securities Act, or the Exchange Act, or the SEC regulations adopted pursuant thereto. It would just require the SEC to prove cases brought under those acts and regulations in an Article III court rather than on the agency’s home court.
Rosenblum’s ultimate argument is that Jarkesy is a scumbag:
George R. Jarkesy Jr., a right-wing activist and conservative-radio talk-show host.
Heaven forfend that such a MAGA man should have rights! Oh! The humanity!
The kind of ad hominem chickenshit to which the left routinely resorts to today, and uses to stamp “QED!!!!” on its argument. By doing so, Rosenblum betrays the substantive weakness of his arguments.
I note that many seminal Supreme Court cases involving fundamental Constitutional rights have involved scumbags. And the Supreme Court ruled–rightly–that scumbags have rights too.
It is interesting to note that the CFTC now brings most of its manipulation cases–you know, “exactly the kind of work that Congress should empower to the executive branch to do”–in Article III courts. Now, as it happens, there is a tangled and unrepresentative story behind this, namely that the CFTC ALJs proved to be particularly dysfunctional and inveterately opposed to the agency’s enforcement staff. (I have intimate knowledge and experience regarding this history.). But the why is no matter. The reality is that an agency can bring manipulation cases (and fraud cases, for that matter) in federal court. Requiring the SEC (and other agencies) to do so will not “destroy the government” or allow wrongdoers to run rampant.
Indeed, the CFTC’s experience in federal court–most notably, its loss in the DRW/Wilson case–demonstrates the virtue of forcing agencies to play in the big leagues. It reduces the probability of Type II errors, i.e., false convictions.
I also note that there are rights of private action for certain federal securities, antitrust, and commodities law violations. Here private plaintiffs can bring cases in federal court against alleged malfeasors. I believe that such private rights of action are more reliable deterrents of bad conduct than agency actions, for a variety of reasons. (Again, this observation is based on considerable experience and observation.)
The other case that has the progs’ undies in a bunch is FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. This case threatens to demolish so-called “Chevron deference,” a reference to the case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in which Justice Scalia (!) on behalf of the court opined that courts should defer to agency judgements in cases in which Congress did not unambiguously delegate authority. That is, when there are “gaps” in a statute pertaining to a regulatory agency, Article III courts should defer to agency decisions regarding on how to fill those gaps.
The gravamen of Blinder’s argument is that agencies are experts, and we should defer to their expertise: we are not worthy to challenge them, nor are federal judges!
This has been the mantra of progressives since, well, the Progressive Era. Blinder is channeling his inner Woodrow Wilson. (Scary thought, that.)
There are two major problems with this. The first–and arguably less important–is that their “expertise” is vastly exaggerated. I mean vastly. Again based on extensive personal experience, I conclude that this is definitely the case when it comes to complicated markets (e.g., electricity, commodity derivatives). And yes, I realize that these complexities challenge federal judges, but the relevant question is who is better to resolve these issues: on that, I come down firmly on the side of the judges.
The second is what economists call “agency problems”–which in the present context can be called Agency problems. That is, the progressive view endorsed by Blinder (and Woodrow Wilson et al) is that agency decision makers are acting in the public interest.
This view has been laughable since the 1960s when Stigler posited “capture theory,” and then others like Sam Peltzman and Gary Becker looked at how the regulatory sausage is really made. The Public Choice literature has also utterly discredited the public interest view.
In a nutshell: regulatory agencies have their own agendas and own incentives that are not aligned with the public interest, for myriad reasons.
As valuable and insightful as they are, even the Peltzman-Becker-type analyses are inadequate. They are best suited to model the regulatory laws legislatures pass. They posit a decision maker looking to maximize political support (“votes”). That makes some sense when modeling legislatures that are somewhat accountable to an electorate. But the problem raised by Chevron deference is that regulatory agencies are incredibly insulated from such electoral feedback. If you view Congress as an agent of the public, agencies are agents of agents of the public. As a result, their incentives are extremely attenuated, and they have considerable scope to implement their own agendas regardless of whether they comport with the public interest or not.
Here’s my Cliffs Notes theory of regulation: a large unaccountable bureaucracy combined with Hayek’s “why the worst get on top.” Ideologues with agendas are attracted to agencies with power over their agendas. Ensconced in power, they are largely immune from external check. So ensconced, they wreak havoc, the public be damned.
People, I give you–the EPA.
That’s why deferring to these agencies is disastrous. Their “expertise”–really their specialization in subjects of particular interest to the ideologues who infest them–is positively dangerous when given free rein.
I hope that the Supreme Court decides in Jarkesy’s favor, and also hacks away at Chevron deference. That said, I realize that the Supreme Court usually splits the baby, and that ringing decisions that drastically curtail the scope of agencies’ powers are unlikely. Meaning that the war against the agencies–or more accurately, the war of the agencies against us–will continue.
Former University of California Chancellor Clark Kerr once famously said that “I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty.”
University presidents’ and chancellors’ jobs are much simpler now. No such multitasking! The job is now pander to leftists, pander to leftists, and pander to leftists.
This is not a heavy lift, moreover, because virtually all university presidents and chancellors are leftists, chosen by leftists for their reliable leftism.
Only when they leave the hermetically sealed environment of the “modern” campus (“modern” in quotes because now most universities are now a perverse mixture of the pre-modern and post-modern) do the presidents really face any real challenges. As when the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn went this Tuesday (5 December 2023) to Capitol Hill to testify on antisemitism on campus. They put on a Herculean display of dissembling, evasion, and outright dishonesty.
I mean, what fools do they take us for? They all defended their letting virulent antisemitism run riot on their campuses by avowing their commitment to free expression.
I shit you not.
Who you gonna believe? Them or your lyin’ eyes and ears? To say that American universities are now viciously hostile to free expression and to intellectual diversity is to understate things. Vastly. They are Cancel Culture HQ. Censorship runs riot, and of course since they have censored with extreme prejudice in exemplary situations pour encourager les autres, self-censorship is the rule for those who might dare deviate from the program, lest their universities take the measures necessary to get their minds right.
The presidents (dishonestly) said they intervene only when expression crosses the line into conduct. This drew an incredulous response from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY): “Does that [antisemitic, genocide advocating] speech not cross that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel?”
Penn’s Elizabeth Magill replied: “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”
So just in what context is calling for genocide on this side of the line, Lizzie? Rep. Stefanik thinks the same:
“That’s your testimony today?” Stefanik responded. “Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context? That is not bullying and harassment? This is the easiest question to answer ‘Yes,’ Ms. Magill.”
I predict that when pressed further, Dr. Magill and her like will abandon the Context Line and take shelter in the Nuance Line.
I have a very high tolerance for speech I consider offensive, and that most people consider offensive. The biggest problem with universities is that their tolerance goes only one way–left.
Perhaps I overstated things when I said university presidents have only one job. They also have the task of shaking loose large bank from donors and government. The only possibility for an even slight course correction is that the backlash to the rank antisemitism on university campuses will reduce the flow of donor funds. (Alas, it will probably encourage additional flows from the current administration.) But even there the hopes are slim. Universities will bob and weave and make insincere apologies and commitments to change. The intensity of the tumult on campuses will abate when Israel completes its campaign in Gaza. When it does, the donors will probably return, by and large.
Universities were the first conquest in the left’s Long March Through the Institutions. Its victory there would do Tamerlane proud, for the destruction it wreaked. To be honest, I believe they are beyond saving.
The war in Ukraine grinds on with no appreciable movement on either side–except in the body counts.
The conflict is often compared to World War I, but this is in some respects unfair to World War I. Territorial gains on both sides are measured in meters–when there is any progress at all. Even catastrophic assaults like the Second and Third Battles of Artois in 1915 saw the French advance a few miles.
The most extreme current example is the sustained Russian assault on Avdiivka. Day after day for more than a month the Russians have mounted attacks on the three fronts of the Ukrainian salient enclosing the town. And day after day their attacks are repelled with massive losses. Many times the assaulting troops do not even make it to the contact line, being smashed by Ukrainian artillery and drones as they move to contact.
At most the Russians take a field or two here, a tree line there.
The Ukrainian experience to the south, around Verbotene, is much the same. The Ukrainians made some decent (albeit slow) progress there during the summer, creating a modest bulge in the Russian positions, and here and there breaching Russian minefields and fortifications. But for months the two sides have fought to a standstill, exchanging fields and tree lines here and there.
Moreover, in each location the attackers at first attempted armored assaults, only to suffer massive tank losses from mines, artillery, and drones. Consequently, each now mounts small infantry assaults. In Avdiivka, the Russian AFVs drop off their mounted infantry a couple of kilometers from the front. The soldiers slog forward and then throw themselves into frontal assaults.
You can find lots of video of the results on Telegram. It is not pleasant viewing.
And if these infantry assaults succeed breaching enemy lines? Nothing will change. Just as in WWI, infantry cannot exploit a penetration by infantry. The “successful” attackers are worn out and often combat ineffective due to heavy losses. Even if they were capable of moving forward, or reserves could be rushed into the breach (something neither side has proved able to do) the defenders can withdraw and regroup faster than the attackers can advance. Meaning that a “breakthrough” just moves the stalemate a kilometer or two. Absent the ability to exploit with armor–and crucially, without the logistics to support armored exploitation–decisive advances are impossible.
The stasis of the battlefield is in large part due to the inability of either side to achieve air superiority. In Ukraine, air superiority does not refer to manned fixed wing aircraft or helicopters, but drones. Both sides are able to operate drones for both reconnaissance and attack with relative impunity. This is a major reason (mines being another) for the impotence of armored forces.
The only front holding out the prospect for maneuver is in the south, on the left bank of the Dnieper/Dnipro River near Kherson. Unlike on the remainder of the front, here Russia did not create deep lines of entrenchments, and its forces are spread relatively thin. But an advance here would require Ukraine to send large amounts of supplies over a wide river, and it is doubtful that it is capable of doing this. (Its logistic capabilities to support a deep drive are suspect generally, even without the necessity of bridging a wide river, and defending the bridges.)
The Ukrainian government and its Western supporters claim that if it only had more weapons, it could drive out the Russians. Given the trivial incremental effect of the offensive weapons already supplied, this is to be seriously doubted.
The real constraint on Ukraine now is manpower, not equipment. It started at a severe manpower disadvantage, exacerbated by the emigration of many military aged men, evasion of conscription, and lukewarm volunteering. In contrast, Russia has proved able to replace its ravaged ranks by hook and crook, even without resorting to a formal nationwide mobilization. Even at an inflated exchange ratio, this meat swap is a contest that Ukraine cannot win.
That said, there is no real prospect for peace because Zelensky and many others in Ukraine are still wedded to the idea of driving Russia out of Ukraine altogether, and Putin is perfectly willing to pay the exchange rate for as long as it takes to out wait Ukraine.
Israel stupidly hit pause in the other war, in Gaza, apparently bowing to U.S. pressure. The pressure was stupid, and bowing to it was too. Israel was making steady progress at extirpating Hamas and digging up–literally–its military infrastructure.
The deal it made with Hamas takes off the pressure on the terrorist organization. Moreover, the terms of the deal, in which Israel releases more prisoners than Hamas does hostages only encourages future hostage taking. This is utterly insane.
The fecklessness of Biden and his administration exceeds even what I had expected–which is saying something. The only American hostage released so far is . . . wait for it . . . a relative of one of the connoisseurs of Hunter’s art. I mean you cannot make this shit up. And it demonstrates that the administration calculates that it will pay no political price.
The proper response to the taking of American hostages should have been reboot of “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.” The Hamas “leadership” livin’ large in Qatar (apparently on large stacks totaling billions) should have been told: all our hostages alive, or you dead.
But noooooo. Indeed, that’s not even the worst example of his cravenness. Yesterday, he abjectly apologized to five (unnamed) Muslim heavyweights for questioning whether Gazan “authorities'” (AKA Hamas stooges’) casualty figures are accurate.
Joe is disappointed in himself. Aren’t we all. Aren’t we all.
He “promises to do better.” Even though the bar is very low indeed, I’m taking the under on that one. It’s always the sure bet with Biden.
War is always grim. These wars are even grimmer than most. They will be long running attractions, with no constructive results.
On Sunday 19 November 2023 the flamboyant–outré, actually–Javier Milei won the presidential election in woeful, tragic Argentina. “Won” does not really fully capture the result–he trounced his opponent, winning almost 56 percent of the vote.
Milei is repeatedly compared to Donald Trump, but there is really no comparison. He is truly unique among prominent world political figures. So unique that mainstream sources don’t know how to pigeonhole him–though God knows they strive mightily to do so.
Since he is not a leftist, he is of course repeatedly called “far right.” But any epithet that is used to describe both the open borders, anti-collectivist Milei and the nationalist, anti-immigration Alliance for Germany (AfD) is obviously meaningless–except as a signal from the left that someone is beyond the leftist pale.
He is also referred to as a populist, but that also widely misses the mark. Milei is a self-described anarcho-capitalist, whereas most populists now and historically (such as the Populist Party in the United States in the 1890s) are openly hostile to capitalism and markets: modern populists hurl the “neoliberal” insult at those with pro-market views far milder than Milei’s.
Even Milei’s dogs’ names advertise his beliefs and intellectual heroes. They are Murray (for Rothbard), Milton (for Friedman of course), and Robert and Lucas (a twofer for the late Robert Lucas–one of my professors at Chicago). What, no Friedrich? Milei should have cloned another one! (These pets are all clones.)
When I wrote Milei is not a leftist, let’s say that rather understates the matter. Milei loathes leftists and leftism, and repeatedly refers to them on television and in public appearances in scatalogical terms, and calls them “leftards.” He despises collectivism, and asserts bluntly that leftists are out to destroy you. His mission is to destroy them first.
As someone so vehemently hostile to the left and well outside conventional political categories, Milei’s victory has triggered a mass moral panic, especially in the media. The New York Times’ coverage was (unintentionally) hilarious: “Some voters were turned off by his past outbursts and extreme comments over years of work as a television pundit and personality.” Well, obviously a lot more weren’t, but I guess one has to take solace where one can, eh, NYT?
Milei’s agenda is indeed a radical one, especially for a statist basket case like Argentina. To combat the country’s massive (140 percent annualized) inflation, Milei says he will dollarize the economy and eliminate (“burn down”) the central bank. He also wants to reduce radically the role of the state in Argentina’s economy. He says he wants to “chainsaw” the government–and emphasizes the point by campaigning with an actual chainsaw.
His election on this program sparked a rally in Argentine financial markets, with government debt rising modestly and stock prices rallying smartly.
But will Milei be able to deliver? Some early commentary has doubted his ability to govern based on the fact that his party’s representation in the legislature is well below a majority.
Yes, that may be an issue, but not the major obstacle to Milei’s ability to transform Argentina into what it was at the dawn of the 20th century–an advanced, rapidly growing economy and a relatively free society.
The real obstacle is one that is faced by anti-statists everywhere–the bureaucracy. (I do not say “civil service” because that phrase is at best aspirational and more realistically a patent falsehood. Akin to the Holy Roman Empire that was neither holy nor Roman, the “civil service” is neither civil nor a service.)
Argentina’s bloated state is its own clientele with its own interests–mainly self-preservation and an expansion of its powers. Moreover, it has created a whole host of patronage clients in business and labor. Milei’s agenda is an anathema to this nexus of public and private interests. They will go to the mattresses and make war to the knife to subvert Milei and his agenda.
Even a president with an electoral mandate–like Milei–faces formidable obstacles to implementing his agenda. The most important obstacle is what economists call an “agency problem” (which in the U.S. could be referred to as an “Agency problem”). The bureaucrats are agents of the chief executive, but it can be nigh on to impossible to get these agents to implement the executive’s directives if they don’t want to. Their incentives are not aligned with the executive, and are often antithetical. As a result, they resist and often act at cross purposes with the executive.
The modern chief executive’s power to force his bureaucratic agents to toe the line is severely circumscribed. At best, the executive can make appointments at the upper levels of the bureaucracy (such as the heads of ministries or departments), but the career bureaucrats who can make or break the executive’s policy are beyond his reach, and not subject to any punishment if they subvert the executive’s agenda.
This problem is not unique to Argentina. Indeed, it is the main defect in the governance of virtually every country in the world. Cf. Suella Braverman in the UK, who was recently defenestrated as Home Minister for daring to offend the sensitivities of the British civil servants. (I again emphasize this phrase’s oxymoronic nature.)
But the travails of the likes of Braverman (or Trump) are likely to pale in comparison to Milei’s in confronting the gargantuan Argentinian state and bureaucracy. Even if he avoids Trump’s fault of repeatedly appointing those hostile to his agenda to the positions in the bureaucracy he can hire and fire, Milei will still face the immense task of bringing those myriad bureaucrats outside his direct reach to heel.
There are indications that Milei understands this problem, and has devised a solution. Rather than attempting to control particular bureaucracies, he states that he wants to eliminate government departments (like the Ministry of Education) altogether. This is likely the only way to succeed, but whether he can cut the bureaucratic Gordian Knot a la Alexander brings us back to the question of his doubtful legislative backing.
Indeed, Milei needs to be more than a mere Alexander. He must be a Hercules to clean the Augean Stable of the Argentinian state. I don’t hold out much hope–Hercules is a mythical figure, remember. But it is at least refreshing that someone has been elected to play Hercules, and one who is eager to take on this labor. Would that this starts a trend worldwide.
About 3 weeks have passed since my previous post making 18 observations on Israel v. Hamas. Events in those 3 weeks prompt some additional observations.
Israel appears to be filtering out the near universal screeching, preaching, and second guessing regarding its methodical campaign in Gaza, where assault by fire has been succeeded by a ground assault. It recognizes that a cease fire or “pause” would rescue Hamas from destruction, and likely in the long run result in more Gazan (and Israeli) deaths than will result from a campaign that extirpates the terrorist organization that rules Gaza. That is, it has determined not to play Sisyphus again.
It is likely that Israel recognizes that the screeching, preaching, and second guessing is almost totally ineffectual posturing by pusillanimous western politicians and Hamas fellow travelers, and that the costs of bending to this criticism far exceed any benefits that would result from doing so. Doing so would spare Israel’s enemies, and not make it any friends. So the dogs are barking loudly, but the Israeli caravan is moving along inexorably.
Indeed, those who could pose the greatest threat to Israel–namely Arab states, especially the Gulf states–are making only perfunctory criticisms at most–when they are not outright criticizing Hamas strongly as the UAE did today. It is telling that Saudi Arabia does not permit pro-Palestinian (i.e., pro-Hamas) protests while the streets of Paris, London, and Washington are awash with them. One can only imagine what the Saudis, etc., are telling Israel in private.
Meaning that the pro-Palestinian ferment is a far bigger threat to western governments than to Israel. Which helps explain the bleating of those like Macron.
The Biden administration is like a deer in the headlights. Its initial unambiguous pro-Israel stance unleashed a firestorm on the Democratic Party’s left that jeopardizes Biden’s already extremely shaky political situation. This firestorm has led to–well,what better way to put it?–insurrectionary actions (at least as those have been defined for the last 35 months). These include a boisterous protest inside the Our Lady of Our Democracy, AKA the Capitol, an attempt to storm the White House, and an attack on a reception at Democratic Party headquarters in DC. This is a no-win situation for Biden and the Democrats. Breaks me all up.
There is opposition to the administration’s largely pro-Israel stance from within the State Department. I’m shocked! Shocked! Well, not really. The State Department has been anti-Israel since 1948. Truman recognized Israel only over the determined resistance of the “striped pants boys” in the State Department. La plus ca change.
Reactions in the West generally, and the U.S. in particular are quite clarifying. In particular, the Left’s embrace of Hamas–largely dishonestly camouflaged as concern for oppressed Palestinians–is quintessential the-enemy-of-my-enemy “logic” that demonstrates the profound anti-western animus of the left. The Palestinian cause has been a major element in the anti-Western alliance since the 1960s. The USSR was a major supporter of Palestinian “resistance,” and now Islamist Iran–a rabid revisionist anti-Western nation–is the major supporter of violent Palestinian forces. Political Islam is also profoundly anti-Western. The Western left is also rabidly anti-West–and terms like “colonialism” are barely concealed anti-western code. A common enemy unites Western leftists and Islamist terrorists, and explains the enthusiasm of the former for the latter. They don’t love the Palestinians. They both hate you.
The most bizarre manifestation of this nutty nexus is “Queers for Palestine” and the like. If the self-described queers actually went to Gaza, the only question among the Palestinians would be whether to hang them from cranes, throw them off rooftops, or crush them under large rocks. But since the self-described queers have no intention of setting a single painted toenail in Gaza, they can embrace Hamas from the safety of leftist enclaves like Cambridge and Amherst as a means of undermining traditional Western societies, ethics, and morality.
The events since 7 October 2023 have demonstrated beyond any doubt the utter depravity of western–especially American–universities. Certainly the humanities and most of the social sciences, and clearly the administrations (administrators being a dominant force in the modern university), but also a non-trivial portion of the STEM faculties. And the more “elite” the university, the more profound the depravity. There really was not much doubt about the state of universities prior to 7 October, but whatever doubt that remained has been pulverized. I know how we got here, but I don’t see any way back. The institutional dominance of anti-western forces in the quintessential product of Western Enlightenment is too entrenched to be overthrown.
These events have also made plain the depravity of public education in the United States. The vacuity of Zoomers, and their embrace of pathological pro-Palestinian propaganda like Osama bin Laden’s post-911 letter, show that the left’s march through the institution of public education has triumphed. And again, I don’t see any way back, especially given the vice grip of the teachers’ unions. Until that is broken, public education will become even more broken.
Hezbollah doesn’t appear to be in any hurry to commit suicide by throwing in with Hamas. Its histrionics and support of groups that pull Uncle Sam’s beard in Syria and Iraq aside, the same is true of Iran. Which makes it all the more inexplicable that the Biden administration continues to shower billions on it. All that will do is convince the mullahs that they can go further without triggering a response that hits them where it hurts.
Insofar as the Israeli campaign itself is considered, it is proceeding relentlessly and methodically. It has surrounded northern Gaza, then proceed to cut that half almost in half (from east to west). The Israeli inkblot will continue to expand until Hamas is eliminated in all of northern Gaza. There are very few reports of pitched battles, suggesting that Hamas realizes it is overmatched and that Israel’s overwhelming force and obviously long-standing operational plan make all but scattered resistance futile. The urban warfare nightmare widely predicted for Israel has not materialized. Casualties have been light, as compared to expectations and previous experiences in urban battle (e.g., Fallujah). Total Israeli casualties so far amount to the toll of a few hours of Russian assaults on Avdiivka, Ukraine. But that is a subject for another day.
