Tag Archives: government

Defense and the Russians

Posted on by
Reply

The Russian government has shown their fundamental view of the United States and of their relationship with us.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on our missile defense shield.

At a daylong Missile Defense Conference that took place in Moscow last week, the Russians made explicit their threat against us.  General Nikolai Makarov, the Russian armed forces chief of staff said, referring to missile defense installations currently contemplated by us in eastern Europe,

A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens[.]

Makarov extended the scope of Russia’s intended actions.  He displayed on a large-screen video system for the benefit of conference delegates from 50 countries, including the US and NATO, computer-generated imagery depicting the reach of the American radar and missile systems that are components of our missile defense shield.  Russian missiles were shown streaking toward the US before being intercepted.

But this overt aggressiveness is not a new position for the Russians.  They threatened nuclear attacks against Poland four years ago if we deployed components of a then current missile defense shield there and in the Czech Republic.  We quietly canceled those plans.  The Russians invaded Georgia over a manufactured pique and perpetrated a Sudetenland-like partition of that country while we stood meekly by.

A couple of questions arise.

Why would Russia be thinking about a nuclear attack against the US?

Why would Russia casually threaten us in front of the world?

Perhaps they sense timidity on the part of the US administration.  Certainly, in the face of these public threats against both our allies and our homeland, our own State Department Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense, Ellen Tauscher could only say that it was

pretty clear that this is a year in which we’re probably not going to achieve any sort of a breakthrough.

But this was the point President Obama was making a couple of weeks ago to Medvedev when Obama pleaded for more time on the defense question—he’d have more flexibility to give the Russians what they want after he’s no longer accountable to the American people.

So much for Reset.  In the face of such naked threats of war—of preemptive war—how can the US do anything at all other than to press ahead with the deployment of a missile defense shield, now including defense against the long-range ICBMs that Russia has shown with their little demonstration that they fully intend to use against us?  On what basis can the Obama administration seriously be talking about disarming us in the face of these overt threats?

Some Thoughts on Free Markets and Limits

Posted on by
Reply

I was driving to the airport to pick someone up after a too-long absence the other day when the traffic load struck me (figuratively).  I was driving on a modern freeway with no impediments to traffic flow.  Adjacent to this was a frontage road with traffic lights.  Even though the traffic loads were the same on both roads, the traffic on the frontage road stayed bunched up and slow moving—neither the drivers who wanted to go faster nor the slower drivers were able to go as fast as they wished due to the limits imposed on everyone traffic by those lights.

On the freeway, however, the traffic quickly got strung out and widely spaced, as the faster drivers moved apace, and the slower drivers—moving faster than their brethren on the frontage road—moved at their preferred slower pace.

What has this to do with free markets, one might ask.  It’s those limits.  The traffic lights—the limits a government applies to a centrally managed economy that requires (limited) licenses to manufacture so as to not over produce, licenses to sell so as to avoid unsanctioned pricing, licenses to handle the manufacturing scraps, donations to the correct political cause, and “protection” for everyone—keep everyone bunched up and slow-moving.  Certainly, the speed range between the fast-movers and the slow-movers was much narrower than the speed range on the freeway, but everyone was moving much more slowly than we were on our freeway.

Of course, on closer inspection, the analogy breaks down, but that closer inspection, now that we have the overall picture from the analogy, demonstrates the power of the free market economy compared to one that’s controlled by government, one that has those “traffic lights.”  Within the context of this post, the individual actors on each of the two highways are largely unrelated to each other, with the cars on the traffic light-limited highway, for instance, connected only by the physical presence of a car in front that’s held up by a red light or that is a slower-moving car in the forced bunch and so is holding up all the cars behind it.

In a free market economy, though, all the players are inextricably intertwined.  Indeed, the fast-movers don’t merely facilitate the slow-movers’ ability to get along down the market road, these fast-movers actually help pull the slow-movers along—even though the speed range between economic fast-movers and slow-movers in the free market is wider than it is in the managed economy.

Take luxuries, for example.  Two come to mind: air conditioners and televisions.

Oh, wait; these aren’t luxuries anymore, and they haven’t been for decades.

When these things first came out, only the rich, the economic fast-mover, could afford an air conditioner in the window of his house or a TV in his house’s living room.  But in a free market, these fast-movers helped create the market for the air conditioner and the television.  Call it a status symbol—I’ve arrived—or a desire to be first on the block to have one, or any other reason, only the rich both could afford such things and were interested in acting on the desire.

Air conditioner and television producers, wanting to sell more into that nascent market, produced more, and so more were bought.  In the free market economy, others wanted a piece of that action, and they produced air conditioners and televisions.  Competition between the producers—which doesn’t exist in a managed economy—began driving prices down, which made these luxuries more affordable—which drew in more producers wanting a taste of the money, which drove prices down even more, and ultimately, nearly everyone could—and did—buy.  Today, most houses have central air, and of those that don’t, most have window air conditioners that cost as little as $100—an unheard of level of cheapness 50 years ago—and air conditioning comes standard in our cars.

Today, most houses have multiple televisions, and increasing numbers have 50″ and 60″ plasma or LCD televisions, technologies not even imagined in the ’50s when television sets first started to become widely affordable.  And our higher end (no longer strictly high end, even) cars now have DVD players, or streaming video, or both—again, technologies unheard of just a bit ago.

Moreover, it’s those fast-movers that do the hiring of those slow-movers, either directly into their own production facilities, or indirectly, by the market’s push to get more manufacturing online, into other production facilities that are newly built or expanding existing operations to support the burgeoning market for all those (ex-) luxury goods. The ripples spread, too.  Supporting functions grow: the transistor and chip manufacturers to support the circuits in all those televisions, for example.

All this because the economic fast-movers wanted a luxury good, and a free market, unlimited by government “guidance,” enabled those luxuries to become commodities.

Finally, one too-often overlooked result is that those relatively farther behind free market slow-movers are vastly better off than are their slow-moving counterparts in the managed economy.  And with the jobs created by that free market, they have excellent opportunities to move up their economic ladder.

Some Thoughts on Energy Policy

Posted on by
Reply

The administration’s rap is that we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves, and there’s that fossil fuel pollution problem, so we have to push green energy sources (which President Obama masquerades as an “all of the above” energy policy).

The good folks at the Institute for Energy Research have a different take on the matter.

The figure below is a graph showing American population growth, energy use, economic performance, and pollution (emissions) rate since 1970 (the vertical dotted line is simply a break in the time scale from 20-year increments to 2-year increments).  It’s interesting to note that energy consumption per capita has been remarkably constant over these last 40 years.  Meanwhile, our GDP has gone up sharply, so that our energy use per unit of GDP—per unit of economic performance—has gone down sharply as we produce and use our energy more efficiently.  Also over that same time frame, our pollution rate—per capita and per unit of GDP—has gone…down.

Now, what about those miniscule reserves?

The reality is that we have more combined oil, coal, and natural gas resources than any other country on the planet. We have enough energy resources to provide reliable and affordable energy for decades, even centuries to come. The only real question is whether we will have access to our abundant energy resources, not whether sufficient resources exist. … According to the Congressional Research Service, we have the most fossil fuel resources of any country on Earth, but most of these resources are off-limits due to federal policies.

Indeed,

  • The United States is home to the richest oil shale deposits in the world—estimates are there are about 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in U.S. oil shale deposits, nearly four times that of Saudi Arabia’s proved oil reserves.
  • The United States has 261 billion tons of coal in its proved coal reserves. These are the world’s largest coal reserves and over 27 percent of the world’s proved coal reserves.
  • The United States has 486 billion tons of coal in its demonstrated reserve base [measured quantity of [coal] which, based on the geological and engineering data supporting proved energy reserves, can be recovered with presently available technology at an economically viable cost], enough domestic coal to use for the next 485 years at current rates of consumption. These estimates do not include Alaska’s coal resources, which according to government estimates, are larger than those in the lower 48 states.
  • The federal government leases less than 3 percent of federal lands for oil and natural gas production—2.2 percent of federal offshore areas and less than 5.4 percent of federal onshore lands.

This graph shows one impact of government intervention in energy production.

Notice the price drops when government intervention is reduced.  On top of this, the Federal government leases less than 3% of its lands for oil and natural gas production—2.2% of Federal offshore areas and less than 5.4% of federal onshore lands.  Finally,

Total federal subsidies in fiscal year 2007 were $24.34 per megawatt hour for solar-generated electricity and $23.37 per megawatt hour for wind, compared with $1.59 for nuclear, $0.67 for hydroelectric power, $0.44 for conventional coal, and $0.25 for natural gas and petroleum liquids. In fiscal year 2010, the subsidies were even higher. For solar power, they were $775.64 per megawatt hour, for wind $56.29, for nuclear $3.14, for hydroelectric power $0.82, for coal $0.64 and for natural gas and petroleum liquids $0.64.

My energy policy? Pretty much akin to “Drill, Baby, Drill.”  And export the excess.  Push for more nuclear power plants.  Three Mile Island demonstrated that our safety systems work, even in extremis.  Encourage wind and solar farms, but not with those—or any—subsidies (eliminate those trifling subsidies for the other energy sources, too).  The free market will decide the economic viability of our sources of energy, and the free market is the only mechanism qualified to determine what is economically sound among the several energy sources.

 

h/t Power Line

This is Promising

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News reported over the weekend some excellent news concerning the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross, also known as the WWI Mojave Desert War Memorial.

A veterans group can restore a memorial cross in the Mojave Desert under a court settlement that ends a decade-old legal battle….

The [National Park Service] will give up the acre of land [the hilltop area known as Sunrise Rock on which the cross had stood for decades before thieves stole it after losing a court battle to have it removed legally] in exchange for five acres of donated property elsewhere in the 1.6 million acre preserve….

Justice Anthony Kennedy, siding with the 5-4 majority, wrote that the cross evokes more than religion.  “It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten[.]”

As part of the settlement,

[o]nce the swap is complete, the park service will fence the site, leaving entrances for visitors, and post signs noting that it is private land. A plaque will be placed on the rock noting that it is a memorial for US war veterans.

No small amount of credit goes to Liberty Institute, who fought the legal fight for so long, and to Henry Sandoz, who worked so hard and so long maintaining the cross—keeping a promise he’d made those decades ago to his dying friend, Riley Bembry, who had erected the original cross in 1934—and producing the replacement that will go up when this all comes to fruition.

It’s not time to celebrate, yet; the land swap isn’t completed, the cross hasn’t been emplaced, and in the event, we still need to be alert for a repetition of the theft that prolonged this case.

Big Government and Economic Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Via UCLA comes an analysis of the Great Depression and the failures of Big Government policies in alleviating what began as a sharp recession.  Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, after studying Franklin Roosevelt’s performance, have reached a conclusion about the New Deal.

Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump.  We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.

These two lay the responsibility for the failure, in particular, on the anti-competition and pro-labor measures FDR signed into law in 1933.  Even though much of that first New Deal round was found unconstitutional, that outcome took a couple of years to reach, during which the damage was being done, and it was replaced by similar New Deal laws that a later, more submissive Supreme Court upheld.

Cole added

President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services.  So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.

The Cole and Ohanian study went on:

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression.  By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect.  They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt’s policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate.  But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy.  With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

And with those carefully elevated prices—deliberately elevated through mandated price floors and, with agriculture, government-controlled production rates—food was so expensive that FDR forced food stamps—and the taxes to support them—through the Congress.

Ohanian added this, too:

High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns.  As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high.  By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.

Does any of this sound familiar?  Under the present administration, with its Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, its Dodd-Frank Act, its wholly unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it’s really not so unimaginable.  Under the present administration, that singles out private citizens and publicly castigates them for political donations to the wrong candidates, with its picking and choosing individual business—and whole industry—winners and losers, it’s entirely understandable.

Cole concludes,

The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes.  Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.

RTWT.

 

With a h/t to GayPatriot, who actually were writing about a different matter.