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.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
"Spare us your lectures on supply and demand"
An almost gag-inducing story from the Washington Post:
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.
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.
Monday, June 23, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Irony
Got tired of looking at potential new jobs.
Decided to read the Liberty Fund's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
Decided to read the Liberty Fund's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)