New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Naturally, trends in rising commodity prices causes increased concern about resource scarcity. As I’ve discussed, despite such concerns (which dates back since well before the time of Jesus) the real dilemma for man is not a matter of resources but of how to transform resources into wealth. While natural resources are technically limited, and those such as oil will eventually diminish in quantity, the earth is itself a giant ball of “natural resources,” so its hardly like we are running on empty.

In fact what the real difficulty our world economy has is the scarcity of productivity–in terms of capital–and the limits of our technology. As technology improves, not only can we do more with the resources we have but we can also extract a greater quantity of these resources.

Two articles confirm this. The first includes The Economist’s index of commodity prices from 1862 to 1999 and found that real prices decreased at an average of 1% every year over that entire period of time–indicating a steady rise in supply.

The second mentions a different index of real commodity prices from 1900 to 2003, which fell by .8% every year over that time.

The lesson: as long as we continue to increase our productive capacity, resources will not be a grave problem and the goods that are important will be pleantiful.

HT: Bryan Caplan

Popularity: 43% [?]

The evidence.

Including 2008, since 1976 every presidential election has featured a lefty at the top of the ticket except for 2004 (which did include a lefty at the bottom of the Democratic ticket in John Edwards).

Save for Carter and the second Bush, every president since Gerald Ford has been left handed, and the next president will be left hand dominant as well (because both McCain and Obama are lefties), which will make five of seven left-handed presidents.

Meanwhile, only about one in nine of the total population are southpaws. The linked article tries to explain this seemingly unexplainable trend.

Regardless, I never cease to be amazed by how awesome we lefties are…

Popularity: 45% [?]

Step Two: Insert foot.

In response to a survey during the primary asking, “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” Senator Obama checked “Yes.” He elaborated:

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns…If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Clearly, John McCain’s reaction indicated that there was no effort from Barack Obama “pursuing an agreement” on public financing so to keep it in place.

The Senator has had little trouble finding spare change

But of course things have changed since February of this year–Obama discovered he hasn’t the age-old Democrat’s fundraising handicap. Nay, he’s actually got quite the knack for raising money. So much so that he expects a cash flow great enough to able him to spend more than the $84.1 million limit that public financing mandates.

Money talks. And apparently what it says is more trustworthy than what flimsy pols like Barack Obama say. David Brooks hit the nail on the head–as he often does–with his column entitled, “The Two Obamas.”

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

Senator Obama has made a career out of commanding oratory and the image of a new and different and transcending and trustworthy politician. But everywhere we look, he has not fulfilled his own prophecy.

As Brooks notes, Senator Obama could “no more disown” the derisive Reverend Jeremiah Wright than his own grandmother–so he claimed. But when political circumstances changed, he dropped Wright like a sack of potatoes after their noted 20 year history.

Obama could have accepted Senator McCain’s proposal for 10 one-on-one town hall meetings–an unprompted, candid discussion with his opponent and the American people that screams born-again politics–but he has not, and will not take such a strategic risk.

The Senator could have cast legislative votes in the same non-partisan manner that he espouses on the stump, but his voting record indicates he is one of the least, if not the least, likely to step out of the party line.

The Senator could have taken tough stances on votes in the Illinois State Senate or taken the initiative to use his keen political skills to lead on certain vital legislative issues, but he has done neither.

The issue of campaign financing is only more evidence that Barack Obama is anything but the messianic public figure that him, his campaign, and his supporters (including many in the press) have made him out to be. While I wouldn’t usually waste my time blogging about a seeming textbook flip-flop, let’s remember who is making it. This is the man who was supposed to restore public confidence to the political system. This is the man who was supposed to change the way politics is done in Washington. But it is only style, not substance, that would indicate that.

ADDENDUM: The above news came the same week that John McCain himself flopped on the issue of federal offshore drilling moratoriums. And before I get criticized for only rebuking Obama, let it be know that I am not turning a blind eye to the GOP’s nominee.

The difference as I see it however is that Barack Obama choses to ride a far higher horse, which makes his reversal more noteworthy. Moreover, now that he has gone with the wind, at least John McCain has the right position on the issue of drilling. Regardless of how much he pandered to get to his stance, what this means is that if the Arizona Senator gets his way the government will reduce its restrictions on energy production in this country, and thats a good thing.

Popularity: 66% [?]

Senator Obama has offered little, if anything, remnant of an independent streak in Congress. He has practically been toeing the Democratic Party line for the entire three weeks (or three years–I can’t remember) he’s represented Illinois. Despite cries to the contrary, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise why the National Journal ranked Senator Obama the most liberal Senator in 2007, and one of the most liberal in the body over his short career. Nor does he have any notable legislative accomplishments (to the extent of my knowledge and research), but that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Obama being a partisan and/or left-winger if that is what he truly believes. But, if that is the case, the problem is that he is trying to mask it. He has run on the idea that he will transcend the politics of the past; that he is the reformer–the breath of fresh air who is immune to partisanship. At the same time, as a Senator he has been the Democratic Party Platform manifest, even before he started running. So while he is (incorrectly) claiming that McCain is running for Bush’s third term, he, himself, is running for little more than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the White House.

To be sure, John McCain still shares many of George Bush’s policy stances (and has strangely–and by strangely, I mean politically conveniently–shared an increasing number of those positions at least since 2001/02), but he has also demonstrated a long-standing streak of thinking for himself. Not only has McCain dissented from his party in his career (perhaps) as many times as Barack Obama has casted votes in the Senate, but he has shown a far greater tendency to be an independently minded politician than the Jr. Senator from IL.

In light of the facts, it is clear that the rolls are the reverse of what Sen. Obama would have many think. For better or for worse, John McCain has been his own man for much of his career in DC, while, in his short time in Congress, Barack Obama has been playing something along the lines of “follow the leader” with Democratic Party Leadership.

In Economic news, a notable panel of economists, including five Nobel Laureates, were put to task discussing various, global economic policy proposals. They assessed 40 different ideas and prioritized them, in utilitarian fasion, in order of how much good they would do for the welfare of the world’s population. The top of the list included relatively cheap nutrition and immunization for third world youth (tens of millions), which would yield hundreds of millions to billions of productivity in the future.

The top also included global expansion of free trade coming out of the Doha trade talks, which, according to studies by present economists could produce as much as $113 trillion in new wealth in the 21st century at a maximum opportunity cost of $420 billion from displaced industries.

What was perhaps most notable however was that Global Warming mitigation (as well as research and development to that end) came in at 39 and 40–the very bottom of the list. The explanation was that the costs of proposed policies to economic production and growing dynamism of the world economy will be very great, while the reasons and benefits for such overhauls have been speculative, and in some cases minimal.

Also of note: an opinion piece in today’s WSJ reminds us of the daily, yet revolutionary change that the market has offered America–and the world–over the course of history as well as in modern times. This sort of change, which coincides with unprecedented growth in standard of living, in the US and around the world, is produced by innovation and free trade both within and between nations–another sobering fact to those partial to a different type of change.

Popularity: 72% [?]

In his column today, Mark Steyn quotes from Obama’s victory speech on Tuesday:

I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation.

The contradiction in Obama’s message is pretty stark, and it’s not as if its unprecedented in this campaign either. How could any candidate not be laughed at for his obtuse sense of self-importance when he begins his train of thought by saying how humble he is and ends it by telling how he is going to save the world?

Somehow, apparently, because at every rally/rock concert of his, throngs clamor at such talk. Now that Obama has clinched the nomination, we are likely to see Obamamania reach new heights of pandemonium. This became apparent Tuesday, when Obama surpassed his career high, sending 47 nauseous and/or fainting fanatics to the hospital during his victory speech.

Yes, they were serious

It was also clear when Jesse Jackson Jr., sitting US Congressmen and namesake of his Reverend father, said of his nomination on Tuesday:

What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. … The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.

Apparently, I am more ignorant of American history than I previously thought. And I’m not even going to touch the religious reference.

Still, others chose to manifest their romance in song–y en español tambien. Certain sycophants in the press are probably feeling that “furrowing up their leg” as intensely as ever. But, of course, I’ve written about these sorts of things before.

Ultimately, I agree with the point of Mr. Steyn’s column: the scariest part is that Obama wants to change the world. And it should be no secret how he will attempt to change it either. Caked underneath all those layers of fluffy rhetoric, all Obama is really proposing is layers of more government.

Comb closely for the sporadic remnants of substance in his speeches. When he promises providing healthcare, jobs, and saving the planet from mankind, how do you think he is going to do it? Of course, the answer is government. And not just any old dosage, programs like cap-and-trade and universal healthcare will unequivocally coincide with massive, new bureaucracy and government power over individuals.

…or else?

Then again, this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise coming from the Senator who has been swankily espousing an altruistic and collectivist ethic since as long as he’s been in the limelight. Its hard not to cringe when he’s delivering the Gospel according to Barack with the young and stupid:

There’s no community service requirement in the outside world — no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s. But I hope you don’t.

Why does he feel the need to demean private, hard-working–or even greedy–Americans, who chose to keep to themselves, perhaps not lending their time to community service, but harming no one? Why do we need a president to tell us the best way to live our lives? Has he been graced with any special wisdom that somehow escapes us common folk? I balk at the idea that our country would be better off if we all passed up productive work to become “community organizers” (whatever the hell that means).

Regardless, it is clear that Obama can attribute his exceptional support more to his oratorical prowess and his kindler, gentler liberal post-partisanship than his specific legislative agenda. For all the clamoring about how Obama is going to deliver change, “real change”, the “change we can believe in”, his platform is absurdly similar to that of his previous Democratic rivals for the presidency. I mean, honestly, he voted for last month’s $300 billion atrocity of a farm bill. How can he say that he is going to change the fabric of Washington politics and then vote for a bill loaded with wasteful, excessive subsidies to rich farmers, an important political lobby, and a sector whose commodity prices have skyrocketed in the past few years?

Obama would be hard-pressed to explain how such a bloated bill could give any remnant of hope to our political process–indeed the bill typifies everything wrong with Washington. But, he has not, now will he likely be made to explain–for the bill received the support of a large majority of Congress and the all-powerful agricultural lobby. (Oh well, at least McCain had the integrity to vote against it).

The funny thing is that when you do peel back the pristine facad, what you get from Obama is mundane and unexceptional. While he may couch it in nicer terms than others, the only changing of the world that the Senator is setting out to do is augment the roll of the government in the same way that America has condoned since the New Deal. While many have and will either be oblivious or not care, this campaign will largely be about knocking Obama back to earth in the eyes of the public and revealing his gospel as the same, stale literature that politicians have pandered from for ages.

Let’s hope John McCain–in all his infinite mediocrity–can do it.

Popularity: 54% [?]

So says Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood, which was an adaptation of the Upton Sinclair novel, Oil.

Despite sensationalist claims to the contrary, what was true at the turn of the 20th century still rings true today–the world is flush with oil. And the true dilemma is not a lack of the resource, but a limited ability to extract and utilize it.

Here is a Cambridge study covered by Reuters:

World oil production will not begin to fall for at least another 24 years, contrary to doomsday theories that supply is already in terminal decline, a prominent energy consulting group said Tuesday.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates said in a report that the world has some 3.74 trillion barrels of oil left — enough to last 122 years at current consumption rates and triple the amount estimated by “peak oil” theorists.

The world consumes nearly 85 million barrels of oil per day, with the United States using about a quarter of that, according to the Department of Energy.

The report flies in the face of many who have been predicting “peak oil” production being reached for some time now.

The “peak oil” idea was first proposed by the late geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956, who correctly predicted a 1970 peak in U.S. production in the lower 48 states. Hubbert followers have carried forward the theory, applying it to global supplies …

“Peak oil” theorists fail to note that the industry has replaced more oil reserves through field reserve upgrades than from exploration, which has tended to keep production levels steady, Jackson said.

Technological development and geopolitical shifts, more than realities underground, will govern how production unfolds before it begins to decline permanently in the second half of the 21st century, the Cambridge report said.

Some still worry about exhausting our oil reserves–which will (essentially) happen, albeit not for a very long time–and use it as a reason to defer oil usage in favor of “alternative” energies. Even without the recent findings of Cambridge however, the idea strikes me as a silly one that shows a lack of appreciation for the price system.

If we are truly running out of oil then the price will go through the roof. As the global availability shrinks toward nothing the price of oil will be so high that consumers and producers will begin to turn towards substitutes. The increase demand for alternative energies will create incentive for investment in these alternative energies.

And futures markets will have the similar effect of boosting such investment even earlier on.

But, what promoters of energy independence and alternative energy need to remember is that we live in the real world, and the energy we use is bounded by its chemical properties and our capacity to harness them. Simply put, there is a reason that 85% of our energy is the product of fossil fuels: they are presently the most efficient sources.

Now, I am sure that for many hearing me label fossil fuels as “efficient” may seem peculiar. After all, all we here about in the public sphere is that fossil fuels are the antithesis of energy efficient. The disparity is a matter of standards: while the political standard for efficiency may be a matter of popularity or CO2 emissions, the market standard for efficiency is opportunity cost.

When economic actors (rationally) look towards maximizing efficiency, they do so under the constraints of limited capital–both human and nonhuman. Economizing is about maximizing utility per unit of input. Thus, when applied to the sector of energy, people are going to want to produce the maximum amount of energy per the amount resources they invest. So given its potential and all of the technology and capital we have in place to harness it, fossil fuels are the most market-efficient source of energy.

This is why the vast majority of our energy consumption comes from fossil fuels. And it is also why alternative energies are just that–alternative.

Popularity: 54% [?]

In light of the Cap-and-Trade bill, recently defeated in the Senate, I thought it proper to post on a recent scientific studies on future warming trends.

First, published in early May, a study published in Nature Magazine contends that, contrary to what is supposed to be scientific consensus, there will be no global warming until at least and possibly as late as 2020. The study found that the earth’s temperature will actually drop from the present to 2015. And since we have already witnessed a global temperature decline since 1998 (again, you do not hear about this very often in the news, do you?), this means that by the end of the next decade, there will have actually been a drop in global temperatures for two whole decades.

No, you did not read that wrong. In an era of globalization, rising human greenhouse gas emissions, Inconvenient Truths, and Nobel Peace Prizes for environmentalists, we are in the midst of two decades of no global warming.

Here is a review of the study in the NYT.

What makes this finding even more amusing is that it flies in the face of the Nobel-laureate IPCC which has predicted a .3 degree centigrade increase in temperature over the next decade. As a matter of fact, in their predictions, the IPCC uses a grand total of 0 climate models that have predicted any “lull” in warming over the next 7 years, such as the above study found.

And let us also remember that even despite its model-based estimates of global warming, the IPCC still only predicts a rise in sea levels between 7 inches and (at most) 23 inches over the course of the entire 21st century.

One has to wonder if this is the sort of imminant and emminant global warming that Barack Obama thinks warrents an 80% cut in GHGs by 2050.

Popularity: 71% [?]

From the AP this morning:

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would substantially raise gasoline and other energy prices.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote. The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill’s supporters.

Although few expected this bill to actually go very far, the fact that it was shot down so quickly is a good sign for now.

The Climate Security Act (co-sponsored by John Warner (R-VA) and Joe Lieberman (confused-CT)) calls for limiting emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, 30% below 2005 leves by 2030, and finally reducing emissions by 74% by 2050. With present population growth accounted for, that would mean that by 2050, per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be more than 90% less than what they are presently, which–according to one commentator who I unfortunately cannot recall in order to cite at this point–would reduce per capita emissions to a level not seen since around the time Thomas Jefferson was president.

The economic costs of the central planning will obviously be imense. Low-end estimates like that of the Energy Information Administration estimate the costs to economic output at somewhere between $1 and 2 trillion by 2030 (in 2000 dollars) while other estimates, like that of the Heritage Foundation, expect losses up to $4.8 trillion (in 2006 dollars) by 2030.

This cannot even account for the potential deadweight losses and stifled innovation that will result from the massive politicization and bureaucratization of economic planning. Its a wonder how an economy that runs on 85% fossil fuel could cope with such massive overhaul.

While it is a positive to see these massive regulations thwarted, the real battle will come in the next four years when we know we will have a president who supports a Cap-and-Trade scheme. And with a Congress that will likely have even greater Democratic majorities there should be a real worry for those who actually value the idea of economic freedom and remotely limited government. The coming years will really test whether Congressional Republicans (as few as they are) and the American people are willing to go the distance to prevent what the minority leader, I think, correctly calls “the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.”

Popularity: 61% [?]

It’s hard not to admire Hillary Clinton, even in times like these. As a Barack Obama supporter, I have every reason to be angry at her refusal to concede the nomination. For one thing, she’s stopping the unification of the party. Barack Obama’s victory speech Tuesday night, at once a call for unification and a beautiful complement to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, provided the perfect exit for her. Saying that “our party and our country are better off because of her,” Obama couldn’t have made a better speech, except for one little omission. Were Hillary on the stage with him, endorsing the victory he had uncontestably and mathematically achieved, it would have been symbolic. Not quite a dream ticket, but still nothing short of magical.

It’s that kind of support that Hillary now needs to lend to the Obama campaign. The Republicans have already gotten their propaganda machine rolling, and it’s clear that they intend to do exactly what many Democrats feared - use Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Barack as their own. While she intended to make her case to voters as to why they should vote for her, she’s now convincing voters to vote against Obama. An appearance and a speech Tuesday night could have quelled those fears.

Her failures notwithstanding, there’s still time to assemble some sort of coalition to revive and unify the Democratic Party. In an election once thought to be impossible to lose, the Democratic Party now faces an uphill battle against John McCain. News has emerged today that Clinton does indeed hope to cave to the party’s wishes and concede the election at an event on Saturday. She and her campaign director, Howard Wolfson, have also turned down thoughts of a Clinton Vice Presidency. As Dick Morris says, a Clinton VP would be creating a White House menagé-a-trois. That’s not something we want a new President to have to put up with. Still, independent backers like Lanny Davis, the creator of Black Entertainment Television, persist in attempting to foist a “dream ticket” on to Obama.

Obama’s victory is a symbolic moment for African Americans, and for the country. The pity in all of this is that there are several key figures, and many Clinton voters, who refuse to recognize this. The disappearence of a woman from the race has now led dozens of Clinton supporters, including some commenters on the NYT’s The Caucus Blog, to note that they’ll be lending their support to John McCain.

Someone who supported Hillary Clinton has a bundle of reasons to support Obama. The major differences between them were not even policy based, but instead character based. Feminists who supported Clinton because she was a woman should recognize that Barack Obama is a man doing the same thing for African Americans. In the process, he’s not just breaking down discrimination against blacks; he’s breaking down discrimination as a whole. Clinton supporters must also realize that Clinton still did something incredible for females everywhere, helping them to realize that the sky truly is the limit. She didn’t lose the nomination because she was a woman; she lost it because Barack ran a better campaign.

——

In other news, The Caucus, quickly becoming one of my favorite go-to sources for political news and insight, has a new feature entitled “The Long Goodbye.” Informative and humorous, the series provides interesting insights into the race and Hillary’s potential strategy. I recommend you keep a close eye on it for more up-to-the-minute news on Hillary’s concession.

Popularity: 60% [?]