Let's fight global warming; now you stop breathing first

I have not been blogging much lately, which has opened the door for other activities. Other activities include, graduate work, remodeling my house and talking about global warming with my more “greener” friends. Oddly enough, in talking with them I was able to put my finger on something that seemed awkward, but I could not put into words until last weekend. It is the fact that fighting global warming is not a unified movement, because it does not equal green and does not equal environmentally friendly.

Let me explain and set up what the “fighting” global warming side of the issue should be:

Allegedly, our planet is turning into a ball of fire because CO2 is increasing. CO2 is the result of people breathing and power plants creating energy. CO2 is also innocuous aside from setting the world on fire. As a result of CO2 increasing the average temperature of the planet will increase about 4-12 degrees Celsius over the next 90 years. The result of which will lead to famine, wars and the senseless deaths of thousands of polar bears. In essence, we will bring about the end of the world.

Here is where the greenies get goofy:

Global warming sounds pretty serious right? Like, we should probably do everything in our power to stop it? Who better to advocate fighting global warming than those that believe global warming is a serious problem, right? Not so fast! I made an error in my assumptions. Since global warming is this big, huge, and an evil malice to all mankind, I assumed that those that believe in global warming would do whatever it takes to stop it. The answer to that is a…BIG…FAT…, NO!

The truth is that global warming is only a gossamer of a problem when trying to convince the unconvinced that they need to stop hurting the planet. However, when it comes to installing renewable technologies that say, chop up endangered bats, then all of the sudden the bat is more important than CO2. Another example would be solar panels that ruin iguana’s habitat and…poof…suddenly famine and wars can be averted for the lazy lizard’s sake. If CO2 is on the verge of nuking the entire world, should we really be concerned about the minimal nuclear waste caused by nuclear power plants? I’m being told from my green friends that a small amount of nuclear waste is a more pressing concern than polar bears trapped on floating icebergs 

Do you see what doesn’t add up? The argument that is being put forth by global warming fighters is that fighting global warming equals saving the planet and failure to address global warming equals you being an ignorant Meany. Yet, those that are out preaching green don’t actually accept that global warming is a serious issue, otherwise we would be doing everything possible to stop CO2. Instead, my green friends feed me half-save-the-world-from-CO2 ideas left and right. For instance, “stop eating beef because cow raising is increasing global warming or buy LEDs, which will reduce my personal energy consumption by a tiny 2% (home consumption only, not including transportation) and stop talking about nuclear energy, which would go a long way in solving the CO2 problem (It causes frogs to grow 3 arms). Please, don’t talk about liquefying CO2 and placing it into old coal mines, either. It too is bad for the environment.”

I must admit, it is funny watching the responses from the global warming fighters when you point out the futility of half-saving a world from destruction. It is as if their noble efforts will in some way be rewarded by the empty void of their extinction. Oh, how the hens, lizards and frogs will sing your praise for restraining the growth of new energies.

What’s the reason for this inconsistency (which by the way has long been the reason that I have remained a skeptic)? Why is it that those that want me to fight global warming are willing to only half-stop CO2 when I suggest that we throw the kitchen sink at such a serious problem? The answer is that fighting global warming has nothing to do with fighting CO2. What? Isn’t CO2 causing global warming? CO2 is nothing more than a monster in the closet. No, global warming fighters don’t really take their cause of CO2 seriously when stacked against all the other named evils of man like bringing about the extinction of other animals or going to war with other nations. Once these evils are suggested it is as if the average temperature of the earth stopped ticking up.

So here is my offer to the global warming fighters. I will start taking the fight against global warming seriously when you do.

Here is how we do that. Let’s agree that any energy plan without nuclear energy is a waste of time. Let’s agree that implementing renewable energies is more important than iguanas and hens. Let’s agree to go to war with India, China and any other nation in the world that does not agree to a new Kyoto protocol that is even more restrictive than the current one and is actually restrictive enough to stop global warming (serious global warming fighters know that Kyoto in it’s current form isn’t sufficient to stop global warming). Let’s wipe them off the map if we need to (In fact, I hope they do refuse, the loss of life would be an added bonus to fighting global warming). Let’s agree to do whatever else it takes regardless of other marginal environmental impacts, like say, liquefying CO2 and filling empty coal mines with it. All of this is what will likely be needed to actually stop global warming and if you aren’t going to take it seriously and commit, then why should I. I don’t acknowledge half-saving the world as useful, noble, or intelligent. You might as well be holding your breath.

If you want to get my attention, post a graph

H/T to Tao

For those of you who get bored very quickly with graphs and econ-speak, please stop reading now. I rarely write and indulge in the following types of discussions on my blog, because no one understands it, it can’t be explained without boring people to sleep, and most people don’t care. If you aren’t interested, just skip to the next post.

However, my good friend Tao had an interesting post a week or two ago and I’d be crazy not to mention it since it made the economist section of my brain cringe in pain. Anything that awakens my desire to engage in an economic discussion is worth mentioning. To date, Tao is the only one aside from President Obama who has been successful in doing so. Congratulations Tao (I apologize for the delay in this post)!

Below is a graph posted by Tao last week in his post “Back to the Farm” It shows Year-to-Year changes in Real Private Investment in Software and Equipment.



From it, two things can be learned. First, if you want to get my attention, post a graph. After living in the economics world for so long, I love graphs. Second, according to Tao:

“The 1990s saw a remarkable period of sustained, high levels of investment in equipment and software. In contrast, a sustained period of very low interest rates during the current decade was barely able to coerce firms to invest in the high single digits. This, is a critical problem, reflecting low expected returns to capital investment.”

I’m on board. This makes sense! But, in classic Tao-Conservative Generation paradox, we agree on premise and come to two totally different conclusions.

“If you are not making investments in equipment and software you are basically saying that current productive capacity is good enough for the future. This should have been a sure sign that there was trouble ahead.”

Tao goes on:

“You see, during the Bush Administration you had very low interest rates and very low taxes and still you could not entice people or companies to investment in equipment and software to grow their own capabilities. Thus, as long as investment growth remains constrained, as we have saw throughout this decade then withdrawing monetary stimulus would be a significant policy error. In fact, it would lend additional credence to reports that the Fed needs to do much, much more - a massive, unsterilized expansion of the balance sheet - should they even hope to stimulate sufficient investment demand to absorb underutilized labor.”

My guess at Tao’s conclusion, which is murky, would be; Since investment has not been sustained over the last decade, companies are either obtuse in failing to invest or unable, in which case big government/big bank Fed should come in and save the companies from their stupidity or immobility or maybe even replace private investment with government investment. This is pretty much the standard song and dance from the planned economy crowd. However, our recent economic situation is telling us something completely different.

One of the biggest problems with Tao’s argument is that it fails to take into consideration a recent nuance with regard to interest rates and big government spending, which is most likely the result of a common misunderstanding between how the Fed controls long term and short term interest rates.

When companies invest in capital it is through long term interest rates and not short term. When we hear that the Fed has cut interest rates, they are cutting short term interest rates, the result of which generally has no effect on the long term rate. The Fed often tries to influence the long term interest rates through open market transactions by buying and selling stores of US treasuries. Treasuries are a major factor in long-term rates since they represent the risk-free portion of the rate of interest. Generally speaking, when the Fed buys securities, the long term rate drops and when they sell, the long term rate increases. This is the general rule when you don’t take into account the current fiscal/monetary policy. The problem with our current situation is the massive and unhealthy fiscal spending coming out of Washington, which, if left unchecked, can and will crowd out the market, negate the Fed’s ability to influence the long term rates and send interest rates soaring.

Oh, before I forget…Tao, there was something missing from your CBO graph the day before this farm post. It was President Obama’s fiscal policy, so I decided to give the full picture below.



Don’t worry folks, Obama’s definitely not as bad as Reagan or Bush or 40 years of past President’s. He’s way beyond worse. I suppose my concerns are irrational and motivated by my conservative bias. It has nothing to do with the graph above, so don’t even look at it.

President Obama’s fiscal policies leave us with a “do one of two things” dilemma. Either we don’t pass a ton of massive spending increases finally giving the little guy what he deserves and repeal the joke of stimulus Obama signed into law so that we can open up private investment in capital, or we can have government investment in capital. Please, note that this is not a short term decision. If the US government crowds out the market with high interest rates, we are not likely to see a rebound in private capital investment for years. For those of you who have faith in government capital investment…I agree, a more mobile turtle force is going to bring us into the 21st century!

Another issue that Tao, Keynes and many other economists often neglect is the company’s second source of capital funding, equity financing, which is also known as “selling stock.” Below, is a side by side comparison of the change in the S&P 500 and the change in Real Private Investment. Looks similar, doesn’t it? This is why many, including Larry Summers, have argued (and yes many have also disputed) that lowering the capital gains tax can boost Real Investment, but that would require a “lower taxes” kind of solution that just makes the rich, richer.



In short, Tao is right! There is no way us smaller-government, lower-taxes types have any solutions to grow Real Investment. Central planning is doing a great job. Especially, with turtle mobility! How silly can we be? I’ll just sit here and wait for President Obama to assign me to my farm. Like the many philosopher-king types, I look forward to the return of serfdom.

Quick note to Tao: I’m not sure where your investment graph came from, but when I pulled the data from govstats.org, I could not reproduce the same large double digit changes in the 90's. Not sure if the problem is my data or yours.

THANKSGIVING, SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

With Thanksgiving fast approaching and a government that appears to be totally out of control. I thought that I would take a minute to reflect on a television variety show that I use to watch back in the 1960's. Yup, you guessed it, I'm a little older than most of you. In fact I might be older than dirt.
For those of you who are a bit younger and were born after the 1960's, it was a very turbulent time in American history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, I remember doing Duck and Cover drills in school almost every day. I was old enough to watch the television and I don't think that any of you can appreciate how close to nuclear war we really came. News media at the time were advising people what to look for, where to go for protection and that we would only have but minutes to react. It was not until 15 years later that I learned that the city I lived in was on the list of "ground zero" targets for Russian missiles and still remains as a target to this day.
Then the assassination of JFK, the Vietnam War, and the left wing revolution using the war as a cover was in full swing on almost every major campus and city in the the country.

Anyway, back in the 1960's there used to be a show called the Red Skelton Show. Red Skelton was a comedian in vaudeville and radio and using sentimental clown figure was one of the great mimes. In his show he would also use several different characters that he had developed over his 20+ years in show business. Clem Kadiddlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and the Mean Widdle Kid were a few that come to mind. Red use to end every one of his shows, as I remember it, with a soft spoken. "Good Night Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls and May God Bless".
I remember that at the end one of his shows, he reministed about a speech given by one of his teachers. I was reminded of this by a friend of mine who sent it to me the other day and I thought it was fitting time to reprint it prior to this years Thanksgiving holiday.

January 14,1969- Red Skelton-"I remember a teacher I had. Now I only went through the 7th grade. I left home when I was 10 years old because I was hungry. This is true. I'd work in the summer and go to school in the winter. But I has this one teacher, it was the principal of the Harrison school in Vincennes, Indiana.To me, this was the greatest teaher, a real sage of my time anyway. He had such wisdom and we were reciting the Pledge of Allegence" one day and he walked over, Mr. Lasswell was his name."

Mr. Lasswell told his class:
"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it's becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?"

I (me, an individual, a committee of one.)

Pledge (dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.)

Allegiance (my love and my devotion.)

To the flag (our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves there's respect because your loyalty has given dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job!)

United (that means that we have all come together.)

States (individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual
communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with
imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.)

And to the republic (a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives
chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's
from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.)

For which it stands, one nation (one nation, meaning "so blessed by God")

Indivisible (incapable of being divided.)

With liberty (which is freedom -- the right of power to live one's own life without threats,
fear or some sort of retaliation.)

And Justice (the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.)

For all (which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.)


Red-

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance...
UNDER GOD
Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?"

Later in 1969 the US Supreme court outlawed "prayer in school" and the Pledge has been under attack ever since.
Now, more than ever, remember the meaning of these words.
Happy Thanksgiving and May God Bless

BrotherJ

Mud slinging and the Left Coast Rebel

I’ve been blogging for several months now, but I’m still uncertain about some of the blogosphere’s subtle rules of political engagement. I’m not sure what exactly constitutes troll-like behavior or if linking back to a blog who recently linked to you needs to be carried out promptly before being considered rude. I’m not even sure after blogging for 8 months if I’m considered a new or established blog. However, whether in blogging, in face to face debate, or in life, you know someone is insecure about their position when the disagreements degrade into mud slinging. I like to believe that there is a classy and respectful way in delivering constructive criticism, if you feel you must. Hit pieces get no respect from me.

I’m a big fan of The Left Coast Rebel. LCR is an excellent writer. He has an eye for pointing out when leftward arguments and actions hit a point of hypocrisy and silliness. He is able to reach his readers with his pithy arguments, eloquent writing style, and does so while never failing to entertain. What is also impressive about LCR is that he does not engage in mud throwing or blog wars with the bloggers that disagree with him. It is no surprise to me that his blog has been exploding all over the blogosphere lately and won large accolades from Memeorandum, The Other McCain and Legal Insurrection.

However, I’m always shocked by those that take personal shots at clean bloggers like LCR. There have been a few who have LCR in their sights lately and I won’t ingratiate them with any links (feel free to utilize google if I have peaked your curiosity). It’s easier to discredit people instead of their ideas. Especially since the essential arguments behind the left/right debate have been argued and counter-argued throughout the millennia by greater minds and is not likely to be settled anytime soon.

What does belittling, grandstanding, and cursing have to do with rational arguments? It says more about the author to me. It’s a distraction from the importance of the issues being discussed and it’s not worth reading. Do yourself a favor and don’t waste your time with blogs that have an insatiable appetite for attacking everyday people instead of the issues.

WHITE HOUSE DECLARES WAR ON A NEW FRONT

We have the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now FOX News

Washington DC- President Obama is now engaging himself in an extremely dangerous political game with the 1st amendment. In an effort to silence his largest critic, by censorship, it appears that President Obama has directed his White House Staff and Democrats to declare war on Fox News. According to Aneita Dunn, White House Communications Director, "President Obama will not be doing any interviews with Fox News anytime soon and at least through the rest of this year".
This is an unprecedented move that has not been attempted since the Nixon Administration tried it with the New York Times. No American president prior to Nixon or since has taken this type of public action despite how critical news agencies were of their policies.
The fact that Fox News has the highest viewership ratings of all of the cable news networks should give one pause to think this through very carefully before issuing such a challenge to any news organization, liberal, conservative, or independent.
Like every other cable news network or newspaper, Fox has a news organization that reports the news "fair and balanced" during the day then a line up of opinion shows at night. Apparently, Obama and liberals have a problem with that fact because they don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two. Apparently they feel that liberal news organizations, should be the only ones entitled to offer their opinions.
If you look at the Presidential election results from 2008 you will find that it was not Democrats that pushed Obama over the top but Independents or Reagan Democrats as they are often referred to. Apparently Obama has taken a tact that those Independents are no longer necessary. It will be interesting to see the outcome of alienating independent voters in the next election cycle. Also of interest when you look at Democratic comments with regards to the 9/12
protest in Washington. Conservatives were not the only group that attended. A large percentage of independents and moderate democrats also made an appearance. The comments from the White House called them an "Unruly Mob". Nancy Pelosi tried to tie them to the San Francisco protest back in 70s where left wing radicals incited a riot which lead to several, deaths, numerous injuries, massive arrests, and millions in property damage. The 9/12 protest, no arrests, no deaths, no injuries, and no property damage. In fact the area was left clean and pristine. Talking to many Reagan Democrats at several of the local tea party protests and at a couple of the town hall meetings, it is apparent that they are beginning to rethink their decision.
That might account for his continued slide in the polls.
So how does that tie in to Fox News?
What Obama has done is to alienate the largest watched cable news organization in the US and its viewers. Fox News has a larger viewing audience than CNN, CNBC, MSNBC combined. Dunn, by calling Fox a mouthpiece for the "Republican party", just lit a fuse that could explode in their face.
Fox has already set up a hot-line so that Ms. Dunn or others in the administration have a direct link to Fox and advising them that they are waiting for their call 24/7.
A quick example. When investigations by Fox, reported that over 40 members of Doctors present at the Obama White house meeting, were SEIU members, the White House labeled the story as "untrue". When I took a journalism class in college, this is known as an "non-denial denial". In other words it leaves wiggle room for the White House to retract its statement if it actually is found out to be true. Had the White House come out and called it a down right "Lie", that would have been a denial. Fox would have backed off the story, unless they did not have the facts to back up their claim. Since they continue to broadcast the claim you can assume that they believe that they have their facts straight.
Remember I mentioned Nixon and the New York Times? When Nixon tried this tact with the New York Times, it blew up in his face. The paper's circulation went up as more and more people wondered what the Nixon Administration was afraid of. It did not take long to find out.
Fox has already exposed numerous allegations that the White House has called "untrue" then
had to step back with egg on their face when the facts revealed otherwise. They have had to recant statements on several occasions, giving Fox even more credibility.
Since news media sees this type of action as a challenge Fox will become relentless. The Fox viewership is not all Republicans or Conservatives. Independents and moderate democrats also make up a percentage of the overall audience. This now gives Fox legitimacy and a "green" light" to dig deeper and deeper.
The left does not seem to understand that, whatever your opinion is of Fox news , it's irrelevant.
Obama just fired another shot into his foot by declaring he can not defend himself or his agenda in a one on one with his critics. Since Fox is an international news network it also effects his credibility outside of the US and gives rise to the natural curiosity of, "what exactly is it that Obama is afraid of?"

God Bless,
BrotherJohn

I’m not Bush either, but where is my Nobel Peace Prize?

Do you remember all the controversy over the Obama SNL skit? Well the boys at SNL may have been a few steps ahead of the entire world. Today’s announcement that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize has started the international cannons firing. What can be worse than getting the Nobel Peace Prize when you haven’t done anything to earn it? How about countless from around the world coming out to tell you how underserving you are?

Here is the UK Guardian (more liberal than the Times):

“Which is all very well, except that Obama is fighting wars in two Islamic states – Iraq and Afghanistan – and his efforts at international diplomacy, notwithstanding his powerful desire to achieve quick results, has thus far shown almost no progress in pushing forward peace talks in the Middle East and only very partial progress on Iran. It is true that he has made real advances in "resetting" US-Russian relations, not least over his decision to cancel an anti-missile shield that was to be based in eastern Europe, but the consequences of that engagement are too early to judge.
The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W Bush. Or rather being less like the last president. The question now is whether having being anointed perhaps too early by the committee, a Nobel prize earned so cheaply and at so little cost will help him in his efforts on the international stage or rather be an albatross around his neck. Something against which all his future efforts will be judged – and perhaps found wanting.”

Or the UK Telegraph:

“The only possible explanation for the judges' decision to reward Mr Obama is that they are betting on his future achievements. They think he might secure an epoch-making settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians as well as a sweeping disarmament treaty with Russia. Having previously given the Nobel Peace Prize to leaders who have made real agreements to resolve real conflicts, the judges now appear to be rewarding effort and possible future accomplishment.” (Emphasis mine)
Ouch.

Here AP says the committee was favoring Chinese dissidents. Could it be Obama was chosen so as to avoid offending China? A Nobel Peace Prize for the Nobel Peace Prize anyone? Obama gets sloppy seconds? Double ouch.

My take? Two points really.

The first is why should the committee wait to give Obama a prize? Those on the left are rewarded for intentions, not results. Look at Hillary Clinton’s election campaign where she touted her health care reform credentials and stated that few had done as much as her for health care reform. That was the clincher for many on the left, not the fact that few had failed so miserably at health care reform. Even if Obama ends up creating WWIII he will be heralded from the left as someone trying to calm the tumult of an international maelstrom.

The second is that I seriously have trouble reading such critical pieces from the international press regarding a US President. Even if it is Obama and much of it is true. We don’t need our Presidents, right or left, belittled by half-hearted, insincerities. By awarding an award without the weight of legitimacy to back up their decision, this particular award will be little more than a ball-in-chain. Obama should have rejected it, insulted. On a personal note, I would have accepted it. I could use the money.

Via Left Coast Rebel

Via The UK Guardian

Via The UK Telegraph

Conservative Generation is on the Radio!

Check me out on the L Comment's first radio airing.