Killing jobs in the name of saving the planet

During his State of the Union address to Congress this year, President Joe Biden delivered an astonishing Orwellian endorsement of socialism, dressed as its anti-matter counterpart.

“I am a capitalist,” the president declared, but capitalism without competition is not capitalism. It’s exploitation, and it’s raising prices. When businesses don’t have to compete, their profits go up, your prices go up, and small businesses and family farmers and ranchers go down.”

Besides blaming today’s 40-year high inflation on corporate greed (greed that supposedly had been inexplicably dormant during decades of inflation that was a fraction of the day), Biden’s remarks unabashedly suggest that imposing his administration The rigor of new and renewed regulations boosts competition when the real task is to impose unprecedented burdens and government oversight on companies of all sizes.

The phrase “I am a capitalist” belongs to the side of “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is power.”

The promise to reduce average global temperatures by a degree or two is the most common excuse in America today for state-strike companies, even though Russia and China have no intention of joining the climate crusade at the expense of their expansionist goals, and India and other developing countries will not give up on industrialization. The constant that its people yearn for in return for receiving congratulations from international bodies for the transition to a green environment.

And socialists who don’t hide their true identity suggest a quick and merciful death to the private sector, such as the now ousted British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn arguing that wasteful “fragmentation” calls for a renationalization of privatized railways. Or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a 95 percent tax on companies that are more successful than they like. But while Biden suggests he’s enabling enhanced competition, his Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, Gary Gensler, is finding new forms of slow torture for employers in this country. Gensler was heavily involved in writing one of the most daunting regulatory legislation ever—the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which costs Fortune companies 500 million dollars a year on average, and has been a powerful disincentive for companies setting themselves up for public circulation or retaining that status.

The most prominent policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Gensler required issuers of stocks and bonds to assess and report the risks that climate change poses to their investors. As David Burton, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation noted in a letter to Gensler, “Require all public companies to develop expertise in climate modeling, the ability to make macroeconomic projections based on these models, and then conduct company-specific economic assessments based on these climate and economics.” The models will be expensive, and will impose billions of dollars in costs on exporters. These expenses will harm investors by reducing shareholder returns.”

Burton also points out the paradox that discouraging corporations from being present or engaging in the public sector gives fat cats more wealth and a lower average atmosphere because it “would deny ordinary (unaccredited) investors the opportunity to invest in dynamic, high-growth, profitable companies even the most of money already made by wealthy accredited investors” and “will impede entrepreneurs’ access to the public capital markets.”

According to former Securities and Exchange Commission chief economist James Overdahl, the regulations’ “enormous scope and mandatory privacy,” which “centered around the inherent complexity of gathering the required data and completing the calculations and analyzes needed to make the proposed disclosures” make it “difficult to remember” any other case mandated The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has disclosures where there are many important uncertainties, data limitations, and practical difficulties in developing the required information.”

It is clear that lawsuits will become plentiful, with publicly traded companies endlessly accused of failing to report the climate impact to the full satisfaction of environmentalists. But companies that won’t be found on the stock exchange, and that they think are safe in their own situation, will in fact also be subject to steep new costs, because private partners and contractors of public companies will be required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to report their emissions, offshore . Companies to be consulted for certification.

In a conference call Thursday, U.S. Chamber Executive Vice President Tom Quadman noted that, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission itself, the climate disclosure rule in its current form “would be at least three times the costs of implementing Sarbanes-Oxley, which has been the most extensive disclosure regime in the world.” Expensive we’ve had over the past generation”, and it requires “approximately 16 to 18 years to finish all the different Sarbanes-Oxley bases”.

Quadman added that after “numerous meetings” with US Chamber member firms, they reported to the Chamber “implementation costs in the millions or tens of millions of dollars” per company – times the SEC’s estimate.

Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee in September, Gensler claimed on climate risk information that “investors are really demanding it.” More precisely, modern asset managers, most notably BlackRock, the largest such company in the world and under its control, demand 10 trillion dollars, and it is better to impose their desires on the companies in which they invest. Blackrock prides itself on having “voted against 55 director/director components on climate-related issues. This is a tool available to us in nearly every market in which we invest on behalf of our clients… 83% of the time they vote against directors in FTSE.” [Financial Times] 350 wage concerns led to reviews of payment policies within 12 months.”

Pointless or politicized regulation destroys private sector productivity and kills jobs. A board survey found that “more than 60 percent of CEOs globally say they expect a recession in their key area of ​​operations before or before the end of 2023…

With an economic downturn looming – in the wake of the devastation wrought by the Covid virus – it’s time to help multi-trillion dollar money managers bully the country’s private-sector job providers, and one of their goals is the fascination of the left until they forget about things like massive military investments. For BlackRock?

And all under the guise of a “capitalist” eager to boost competition – like an invite girl attending a masquerade dressed up as Supermother.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.

Thomas McArdle

Follow

Thomas McCardle was a White House speechwriter for President George W. Bush and writes for IssuesInsights.com

.