Embarrassingly Good

Canada has better Presidential election debates than we do.

The Munk Debate in Toronto (if I didn't say the location, you could pick it up off the accent of the woman hosting) on the election is one of the most refreshing things I've listened to in some time.

Richard Holbrooke & Samantha Power vs. Niall Ferguson and Charles Krauthammer.

Partisan, yes, very much so, but in an intelligent manner. Even with some logical arguments with evidence and stuff, from both sides. Crazy, man. Crazy.

The nuttiest part: Niall Ferguson and Charles Krauthammer sway an audience of people from Ontario from 29% agreeing that a Republican administration can make the world safer to 46%. Probably a lot more slack than McCain will ever pick up in the States.

Listen to it here, and have every single McCain-Obama debate become an intellectual letdown.

"Spare us your lectures on supply and demand"

An almost gag-inducing story from the Washington Post:

Another aide at the meetings warned the executives that no matter what arguments they muster, it would be hard to prevent Congress from acting. Referring to a vote earlier this year to impose new mileage standards on automobile makers, the aide said, "At 90 bucks a barrel, Congress rolled the autos for the first time in 30 years -- is it too much to think that Congress will impose more restrictions on you if oil goes to $150 dollars a barrel?"

No, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Caplan's fallacy, anyone?

In any case, when Paul Krugman, Alan Reynolds and the Wall Street Journal agree on something, it's a good time to pay attention. Stop pretending we can just regulate away high oil prices. Especially you, Democrats (and Republicans, if you care about the environment). Please tell me this is some kind of plot to destroy investment in the oil industry, drive up prices further and thus more effectively promote alternative fuels. That would still be a bit disturbing, but at least it would be logical.

Sometimes life sucks and you become reliant on a finite resource. Pretending that oil price increases are due to Bush deregulating the futures markets is not only wrong, it's buying into a fantasy of cheap oil abundance the world can no longer afford to indulge.

Politicians have an excuse of needing to get elected to spout this sort of claptrap. But for those of you who have complained about the speculators (you know who you are)... You lost yours by getting this far.

Unusual Signs III

Unusual should probably be closer to 'disturbing,' but it's interesting to see someone connected with the administration chiming in about the perennial "bomb Iran" rumors. Good news: it won't be us. Bad news: it could still happen. Doing it during the lame duck phrase is rather clever but a pretty terrible plate for your first Presidential course.

First off, I'm skeptical Israel has the power to pull it off and make it a 'finishing blow.' Iran is a big country. Iran has a lot more than one reactor. Iran has some pretty decent air defense equipment. I'm sure Israel could hit a few sites but... There's quite a few. My guess is a strike at Natanz, maybe coupled with Eshafan and Bushehr would be able to pretty much take out Iranian nuclear capability for the next few years. But such an attack by the Israelis, if it does not thoroughly destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, would likely only encourage Iran to get an actual nuclear weapon, and not just an ambiguous nuclear program.

I think Bolton's point about the Arabs has merit. After all, Israel bombed Syria without a massive reprisal, and I would imagine even fewer Arab countries would have much sympathy for Iran (with the exception of Iraq). Nevertheless, good luck to Israel resolving anything in Lebanon (and good luck to America in Iraq, most likely) should such a strike go through.

Argumento Ad Scandinavium

A lot of the left has begun arguing that the US needs to start becoming more like Scandinavia in terms of its economical model. You know, health issues ("Well, in Sweden..."), labor markets, ("Well, in Denmark"), et cetera. This would be great, but aside from all the tired counterarguments (cultural geography, demographics, questioning the Scandinavian success itself), I'm sort of curious to know this:

Does the rest of Western Europe try and model itself on Scandinavia? After all, many in the American center-left say we don't have to be like slower-growth, higher-unemployment Germany, France, etc. So do France and Germany look to the Scandinavian countries too? Has a non-Scandinavian country tried to and successfully implemented the Scandinavian model? People with a better knowledge of Europe and its political predilection might know, but now I feel compelled to find out.

Irony

Got tired of looking at potential new jobs.

Decided to read the Liberty Fund's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

Neoliberalism and hawkishness

Does it make any sense to be optimistic and supportive of free trade and still support maintaining the world's most powerful air force and navy, things not particularly useful for our current conflicts? In other words, why do I want to trade with China (and other countries) but check its power? My response is somewhat rambling since I've never been asked this, and would probably be more coherent had someone else taken up the onerous burden of interrogating me.

Free trade is good for both "us" and "them" economically. Consequently, free trade does have some positive diplomatic effects - in addition to economic benefits, free trade is a diplomatic signal. Working through organizations like the WTO strengthens international institutions and multilateralism, thus reducing harsh feelings and anti-American sentiment - that whole "image" issue. With that apparent, why then would I still support the maintenance of instruments of traditional state warfare?

I don't believe the marginal effect of free trade is enough to push countries from "brink of war" to "peace" except in the very long run (very rich, liberal, democratic countries are less likely to fight each other, yes, and free trade can generally encourage the attitudes and institutions that promote the aforementioned things). WWI, after all, occurred despite very high levels of global economic integration.

It's important to note that not all wars are fought over economic issues. However, backsliding on economic agreements like free trade can still exacerbate things because of its value as a political signal and its inducement of political and economic volatility. Take the interwar period - the backsliding on free trade probably contributed to WWII to some degree, but economic autarky both encouraged and fed on radical political movements.

Also, there's the deterrence value - maintaining a globally active military and forging strategic partnerships discourages minor powers from fighting each other. Saudi Arabia and Iran in the Middle East, India, China and any of their regional rivals (including Taiwan), Russia and its neighbors spring to mind as well. Even if one country might not want to fight the US because of economic linkages or political incentives, it might still have an incentive to fight someone else.

Then of course there is the fear of shocks to the present international order. It is too soon to say whether the dystopian visions of conflict over natural resources will come true, but one never knows. I am not advocating invading other countries for their oil, but the US has a useful role as a balancer and peacekeeper as I have just mentioned.

While this post addresses the international stage in general, it addresses China in particular. One of the lines of argument specific to China is of China skeptics to lump all its faults together - political crimes, environmental damage, and poor working conditions, and consequently want to tie free trade to standards China is unlikely to accept. Such soft protectionism is unlikely to be useful in improving the lives of Chinese. In fact, by impoverishing China it would lessen the incentive to raise wages, improve labor standards, or clean up the environment. As for the argument that it is wrong to trade with a dictatorship, economic sanctions are useful for stopping specific policies, not for transforming societies. Economic sanctions did not make Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Burma, Iraq and others into liberal democracies. If anything, integrating autocratic countries into the global economy makes major social change more likely.

Maintaining policies that limit, say, arms trade with China are far more sensible than blanket policies that serve mainly to appease protectionist interests.

Historical references & the economy

It's become trendy among economic alarmists to label the recess- er... well, slowdown as the next "Great Depression." Such complaints are generally followed with complaints about the economic policies of George W. Bush and a desire for the Democrats more left wing economic policies to save us from complete doom.

This can be rather amusing for several reasons. I will now resort to a Q&A format for purposes of my own amusement.

Why is it amusing at all? Weren't government interventions an important response to the Great Depression and unchecked capitalism?
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean all forms of government intervention are beneficial. For example, banning the charging of interest. Obviously nobody is proposing this (outside of Al Qaeda), but you get the general idea: if lack of intervention causes something bad, only some form of intervention make it better. Returning to the Great Depression idea - Keynesian economics dictate that during a recession, consumption (Demand) should increase. How do you do this? Well, you cut taxes and increase government spending. This is exactly what George W. Bush is doing and has done.

But isn't the deficit bad?
Why yes, it is, but if we're talking about avoiding the Great Depression it's rather irrelevant. If you really want to avoid a recession, Keynesian theory dictates you spend tons of money and have unfunded tax cuts. You know who responded to a recession by raising taxes and committing to balancing the budget (and protecting American jobs via trade restrictions)? Herbert Hoover. Seriously.

Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class and increase them for the rich. Why can't that work?
Well, what taxes would you increase? Maybe you could get away with increasing just income taxes for the rich without worsening a recession, but the evidence is pretty shaky. More importantly, if you want to really tank the stock market, doing things like increasing capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, etc. during a period of economic volatility are good starts.

Well, surely you must agree that more regulation is necessary!
Yes, but that doesn't actually improve the immediate economic situation any more than putting on body armor is a way to improve a sucking chest wound. Increasing regulation on banks, the stock market, real estate, or whatever is not going to increase growth. It might protect us from befalling the same fate later, though that is dubious as well. So this aspect of the [opposite of GWB policy = recession doesn't turn into a depression] thing is pretty irrelevant.

But unchecked capitalism caused all this mess, right? Just like the Depression?
Well, see link in previous post. It caused it, but that doesn't mean checking it solves it. Also, the idea that unchecked capitalism is the only cause of the Great Depression is a gross oversimplification. Unchecked capitalism was the cause of the 1929 Stock Market Crash, but we have those all the time. The Hawley-Smoot Tariff, Hoover's tax increases, and the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply all contributed to turning a recession into the Depression.

Fine then, how about some constructive commentary then?
Firstly, a Second Great Depression is not inevitable. Secondly, if the economy looks worse or actually slips into a recession, wait until it gets better to raise taxes. Be intelligent about regulation - do not exacerbate the credit crunch. Don't try and "protect American jobs" by complicating trade liberalization. Finally, allow new appointments to the Federal Reserve, even if you think the one nominating them is Satan.

So, you know that Amity Shales came up with half these points in like, March, right?
Yes, or, I do now. Fact-checking your blog posts afterwards is a fabulous way to deflate your ego. Also, sometimes two snowflakes are alike.

Proliferation for whom?

So, returning to the great question: who should have nuclear arms?

Theoretically this question is impossible to answer in any manner involving ethics. So I would suppose we'd have to deal with this one in the real world.

The "Official" Five Nuclear Weapons States: Good luck convincing them to give them up. Now, there is certainly a case to be made for reducing the size of their arsenals (with the potential exception of China, which has a very limited nuclear deterrent with regards to its peer competitors of America and Russia), but the balance of power, however repugnant the concept seems to many Americans, does have to be maintained when dealing with something like nuclear arms. As former, present and likely future superpowers (respectively), Russia, the USA and China all have the strongest cases for maintaining their nuclear arsenals. So what of the two European countries? Britain probably has the weakest case for maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent, given the general affinity between its own security interests and that of the United States. France would have a similar interest to disarm if not for the chance that it will lead the EU in any sort of combined-defense scheme, since it is more centrally involved in the European project than the UK and has a more powerful air force and navy than Germany. Were the EU ever to truly form a military alliance, France would be the natural candidate to provide its nuclear deterrent.

India and Pakistan: Again, good luck getting them to disarm. Even if India and Pakistan were to disarm bilaterally, this would not settle the region's nuclear question. Many in the West are not entirely cognizant that China is, and has been, more of an issue for India than America. They have border disputes, and fought a war over them in the 1960s. This is mostly settled now, but China's rise and support for Indian rival Pakistan could prove a sticking point. Then there's the darker possibilities of resource competition for not just fossil fuels, but possibly water control (a good number of major river systems in South and East Asia originate from China). Pakistan needs a nuclear deterrent against an otherwise militarily superior India, and India needs a nuclear deterrent against China. The system is in place, and it will take a long time and a lot of effort and goodwill to undo it.

Israel: The first important thing to note about Israeli nuclear weapons is that they've not done well as a deterrent against conventional attacks. They likely had nuclear arms during 1967, and this did not convince Arab states their conventional efforts would be useless (they built up troops that the Israelis then destroyed in the Six Day War). In 1973, the Arabs attacked directly and it took an American bailout to relieve conventional Israeli forces to win the war. Nuclear weapons did not deter the Arabs, they still had to be defeated on the battlefield. Though one might argue Israeli nuclear arms have prevented a similar clash since the Yom Kippur War, this probably has more to do with Israeli conventional superiority and knowledge that the US would bail Israel out as much as the nuclear threat. They work as a precautionary deterrent against WMDs such as Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and the potential Iranian (or Egyptian, or Syrian, or in the 1980s, Iraqi) nuclear device.

Speaking of '73, it's important to note that part of the reason the US bailed out Israel during Nickel Grass wasn't out of some great love for the state of Israel (we're talking about Nixon and Kissinger here, the former was pretty much an anti-Semite and the latter opposed the state's creation in '48!) , but out of Cold War politics. If the US didn't give Israel the means to defeat the Arabs conventionally, Israel would have had to use nuclear arms, and given the Soviet involvement in the conflict... That could have meant WWIII. Just another case of how 3rd parties make effective nuclear deterrence difficult.

Unusual Signs II

Via Foreign Policy:

"Thank you, Uncle PLA!" said Elizabeth in the newly acquired Chinese vocabulary "Jiefungjun Shushu" meaning uncle soldier of the People's Liberation Army, "You saved many lives from ruins. You bring hope to each and every corner of China. We will never forget your love to the young, the old and to the people! I will never forget this new Chinese word that I learned today!"

Is Oregon that bad? Really? Or does everything translated by Xinhua from Chinese to English sound like Maoist propaganda? Grandpa Hu? Grandpa Wen? Uncle PLA? Seriously? It's mostly hilarious, but a little odd that somewhere little American girls are writing to CCP officials in prose straight out of the party handbook.

(For the record, I'd be pretty damn confounded if Chinese students wrote to "Grandpa Bush" during Katrina, too.)

UPDATE: I have since been informed by native Chinese speakers that the "grandpa" thing is just a result of literal translation of normal Chinese language. They agree on the "Uncle PLA" being weird, however.

Proliferation

Is there a logical or ethical case for nuclear nonproliferation without disarmament? If there is what states should - and shouldn't - possess nuclear arms?

Firstly, is it hypocritical of the United States and other powers to maintain nuclear arsenals while discouraging Iran, North Korea, and others from doing the same? By most moral standards, absolutely. However, moral equivalence is not a particularly useful standard when dealing with the most destructive device available to human beings.

OK, so what makes the United States so qualified to have nuclear weapons? After all, we are the only country to, you know, actually use them.

Aside from the argument from historical circumstance (Max Hastings makes this point incredibly effectively in a mere page with two photos in Retribution: The Battle for Japan 1944-1945 - it's a fascinating book, read it), there's also the theoretically relevant circumstance - the use of atomic bombs occurred in the world's first and only period of nuclear monopoly. Because of this important circumstance, you essentially get the case for having two or more nuclear powers - when you can annihilate a city or two and your enemy can't do the same thing, why not do it?

OK, so how is that relevant? The point is, even if everybody in the world got rid of their nuclear arms, there'd still be a pretty significant incentive to develop them - moreso for states such as North Korea and Iran (and Pakistan and Taiwan and others) than the US, Russia or anyone else. Atomic arms first existed as a substitute for conventional force in WWII, but is unlikely the US would be engaged in that sort of apocalyptic pitched battle against a suicidally determined enemy - yes, neoconservatives, I find it very unlikely we'll see millions of Americans fighting millions of Islamic jihadists - look at AQ strength estimates in Iraq if you don't believe me, but I digress.

Here's the idea: if the US and North Korea, or heck, the ROK and North Korea, are in a confrontation, the obvious conventional advantage is to the US/ROK. These countries are richer, larger, and have more powerful and competent military forces. North Korea is going to lose any conventional conflict. What it needs to do is increase the price of attack so much that the opponent does not invade - and if you're already stretching your small country's conventional capability to the limit, the easiest way is to get yourself a nuclear bomb. Thus, nuclear bombs have two separate purposes as deterrents - against conventional military power, and nuclear military power. Advocates of the 'hypocrisy' argument say the fact other countries sit on so much nuclear power necessitates a nuclear deterrent for other states - this is, for the most part, ridiculous. Iran and North Korea are never going to deter US, Russian, or probably even French nuclear capability. The wealth and potential power disparity does come into play when you have to deter against hundreds or thousands of nuclear bombs. Current nuclear aspirants simply could not maintain the numbers of warheads, strategic aircraft, missiles and naval assets necessary to deter a major power's nuclear arsenal. What a smaller state can do is develop enough nuclear weapons to wipe out a division, carrier group, or base or two of an invading force - enough to make the cost of invasion prohibitive and ward off a neighboring, non-nuclear power or even a nuclear major power, which in many cases will be reluctant to enter a nuclear war even in a second-strike situation - if the situation gets out of control, the potential that another major nuclear power might launch is dangerous enough for the invader to write off the entire enterprise in the first place.

So in a denuclearized - and nuclearized - world, there remains a significant incentive to get a nuclear device, especially if the aspiring state is unpopular, unstable and/or weaker in conventional terms than a potential opponent. One might argue there is nothing wrong with 'self defense' nuclear weapons, but the ability to ward off potential opponents gives a great deal of offensive flexibility - a state can wage a campaign that might invite a wider conflict if it has a 'nuclear veto' over the entry of a potentially stronger opponent's conventional forces.

So... If nuclear monopoly and nuclear proliferation are generally dangerous, who then should have nuclear weapons? That will be the subject of a future post.