Supply & Demand

Tim Russert had the Energy Secretary on this morning's Meet the Press to discuss high gasoline prices.

In today's show, Mr Russert, former demonstrated complete ignorance of supply and demand.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, if, if demand is up but supply is down, why are the profits so high?
MR. BODMAN: For that reason.

MR. RUSSERT: No, think about that.

MR. BODMAN: You know?

MR. RUSSERT: Play it out.

MR. BODMAN: Demand is up.

MR. RUSSERT: Correct.

MR. BODMAN: Right?

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

MR. BODMAN: So you’ve got more demand, you’re going to force price up.

You’ve got, you’ve got limited supply, and you’re going to have…

Expose the Left has more of the transcript and video!

When Left is Right...

... and up is down.

I read DailyKos. Don't ask why. It just adds to my confusion.

Here's a post called Why Did The President Repeatedly Refuse To Kill Zarqawi?

Today, we see yet another confirmation that this administration was hellbent on invading Iraq, [emphasis mine. -AlexC] rather than really fighting terrorists:
[Former US spy Mike Scheuer] claims that a July 2002 plan to destroy [Zarqawi's training camp] lapsed because "it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers". "Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq [emphasis in original -AlexC] and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq," he told Four Corners.

"Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."


Rumsfeld and administration officials (including the President) repeatedly pointed to the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq as "evidence" of a Saddam-al Qaeda link (nevermind that Saddam Hussein was himself viewed Zarqawi as a threat and was trying to capture him).

If the President killed Zarqawi, he would have killed the ability to falsely link Saddam and al Qaeda and convince the American people that war was a necessary response to 9/11.

To recap, Zarqawi was in Iraq playing with WMDs before the war for oil and everyone knew it (except of course those who didn't, and don't believe it still), but we needed him to be there so that we could invade to steal their oil and fund Halliburton and the BushCo cronies. (Do I have that right?) Oh, and the President was negligent for not getting him before hand.

So... what's the answer?

More diplomacy? Yet another chance?

Or gunslinging?

Because there's nothing quite so diplomatic as unilaterally launching missile strikes at camps inside a country we're not really friends with. It pissed off the Pakistanis a few months back and they're supposed to be on our side.

What's the right answer this time? I'm confused.

I guess ultimately the right answer is, "What ever Bush does, it's wrong."

The conclusion is great...

All along, the evidence has pointed to one man as "hurting the war on terror": the President of the United States himself.

Yep. Going after these guys is hurting the whole operation.

Two Wrongs make a ???

Notwithstanding the leftist groups who've organized tomorrow's "immigrant strike" day, the temperature has cooled on the immigration debate since the April recess. But it will heat up again soon. In November JK predicted "an immigration win for the GOP" that included a compromise between senate and house immigration reform bills. In general terms, the senate measure is the "guest worker" program and the house brings the "border security" element. I don't doubt JK's prediction, but I do fear the result of a compromise between these two bad plans.

The senate plan to spend lots of money and create a new "citizenship scavenger hunt" program has been knocked around here quite a bit already. But what about the house's "hard line" approach? JK is critical of it as isolationist. I'm not sure though that he knows just how right he is. Robert Tracinski, one of the guys I "truck with" calls it "Americans against the American dream."

So why are so many Republicans coming out against the American dream?

Look through the rationalization that these Republicans are only against illegal immigration. These same politicians have spent decades erecting barriers against legal immigration, and they are still doing so today. That is why they have refused to link their crackdown on illegal immigration with any provision to allow existing immigrants to legalize their status, or to allow new workers to come to the US under a "guest worker" program. They are not for legal immigration; they are against all immigration, period.

Also look through the rationalization that the anti-immigrationists are concerned that foreigners come here to mooch off of the American welfare state. Why, then, are restrictions on immigration aimed precisely at those who seek to work?

I agree with Tracinski that the house has got it wrong. I hope that much of it, like the provision to make illegal immigration a felony that Dennis Hastert promises is already DOA, will be excised from the compromise bill but that's a heapin' helpin' of wishful thinking. I still hold that Charles Krauthammer had the right approach and we'd all better hope that any compromise looks a lot like his "wall first, questions later" solution.

Happy Birthday, Duke

Giants have walked the earth.

Edward Kennedy Ellington was born 107 years ago today.

Review Corner

Steve Martin is the great renaissance man of our time. I've enjoyed his stand-up comedy, attended a play he’d written ("Picasso at the Lapn Agile"), seen about all of his movies that created their own genre ("My Blue Heaven" is my personal favorite) and have read a few of his books. I really enjoyed the novella "Shopgirl" but had forgotten most of the story. I was happy to see the movie on DVD at my local Redbox.

I was happier to see that Martin had written the screenplay for his own book, and that he was starring in it. The movie is an American art film. There are no subtitles but "Shopgirl" has photographic quality cinematography. You just enjoy looking at the scenes and the color. It moves at an art film pace but it doesn't ever seem slow. I'd have to know somebody well to give it an all-out recommendation, but if you like that stuff, check this out. jk gives it four stars.

By sheer accident, movie night had a theme. The other film was also visually appealing.

"Casanova" surprised me at first. The scenery and costumes are stunning. The dialogue and humor is, well, silly. The look could have supported a very serious plot, but instead relied on jape and ribald comedy. The juxtaposition caught me off guard at first but I ended up digging it. Well worth a rent, jk gives it three-and-a-half stars, most of those for visual elegance.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I watch movies every Friday under the influence of MS drugs, side effects, and medication to mitigate the side effects. Nobody should actually take my film opinions too seriously…

Soak the Rich

So much for tax cuts for the rich.

[N]ew IRS statistics on the taxes Americans pay show that George Bush's tax policies actually soak the rich.

It turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined.

It's also a common myth that the rich are hording all the wealth, while the middle class stays stuck in economic quicksand.

The IRS data show that the share of all income earned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans has actually fallen since 2001. The rich are earning less of the total income but paying more of the total taxes.

During this economic expansion, the middle class is growing and becoming more prosperous. About 4 out of 10 Americans now make more than $50,000 a year -- that's up from 3 out of 10 in 1990.

There's more good news. Tax revenues over the past two years are up more than half a trillion dollars — the largest two-year increase in tax collections in history.

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.

Laffer curve, we meet again.

Gas price "fix?"

This gas price hysteria we've been subject to lately is really something else. The price of gas went from $2.50 a gallon, where everything was apparently hunky dory if the lack of attention it received was any indicator, to 3 bucks, which apparently signifies the end of days. For those like Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (for whom every problem is a nail) there is only one possible explanation: Corporate malfeasance. The proof? Exxon Mobil's chairman recently retired and was awarded, gasp, a retirement bonus.

Very well then, let's just regulate the cost of gasoline nationwide so that "Big Oil" no longer has the latitude to gouge innocent consumers ever again. How about fixing the price of a gallon of gas at the pre-hysteria price of $2.50 per gallon, allowing increases only for the rate of inflation of the dollar. That ought to fix their wagon, and protect the consumer, right? Not so fast comrade commisar!

Check out the chart below that shows historical gasoline prices in constant 2006 dollars. (from www.factsonfuel.org)

If gas prices had been fixed at $2.50 (2006 dollars) in the past then we'd all have been OVERPAYING by more than 50 cents a gallon for the 22 years since 1984. Who's the gouger now mister price control?

While it's true that gasoline now costs roughly 50% more than when I was born, and roughly 20% more than when I got my driver's license, it still hasn't reached a record high price. The real cost of gasoline was greater than today's at two times in history: One was at the birth of gasoline as a motor fuel in 1918, and the other was the transition between the Carter presidency (when oil supplies were pinched and inflation soared) and the Reagan era, when supply tightness eased and inflation was brought back to earth. In all likelihood the prices we see today are as transient as those of the early 80's.

Is it possible that we'll see record high prices? (Over $3.25/gallon as an annual average.) Yes, but this wouldn't negate my transitory argument. It would merely illustrate the power of the government to add more costs than have been eliminated by efficency improvements made by "greedy capitalists." (Such a development would also be an awesome marketing tie-in with the new 'Atlas Shrugged' movie!)

MySpace: The End of the Internet As We Know It

Web2.0 is a hot buzzword.

So everyone's got to get in on the hype.

Both YouTube and MySpace fit the textbook definition of Web 2.0, that hypothetical next-generation Internet where people contribute as easily as they consume. Even self-described late adopters like New York's Kurt Andersen recognize that that by letting everyone contribute, these sites have reached a critical mass where "a real network effect has kicked in."

But the focus on the collaborative nature of these sites has been nagging at me. Sites like Friendster and Blogger that promote sharing and friend-making have been around for years with nowhere near the mainstream success. I've got a different theory. YouTube and MySpace are runaway hits because they combine two attributes rarely found together in tech products. They're easy to use, and they don't tell you what to do.

YouTube is actually pretty cool.

But I'm convinced you have to have a high threshold for pain to be a MySpace user. As a result of this article, I decided I'd see if any people from my high school were on there. (Bensalem Township HS, Class of 1995, btw)

Yes they are. (21 out of 450)

Unfortunately they have no self control when it comes to these pages. Is it possible to open up a MySpace page that doesn't peg your CPU @ 100% or kill your web browser? Not everyone wants to hear your favorite song when you load the page!

I finally opened up the web page source and found the host that serves the music, lads.myspace.com , put it in my hosts file pointing to 127.0.0.1 and now myspace is pleasantly quiet.

But that doesn't solve the problem of garishness. Which is why I bolded the above line.

Anyone can build a webpage. It's like 1995 all over again, except instead of obnoxious blink tags, we have superflous flash animations, multiple embedded videos, Bon Jovi and black text on a black background!

I shouldn't want to punch my computer when I want to see what old friends are up to.

I'm all for making the internet and computers easy. We all benefit.

I guess that's the downside of freedom to do what you want. No one's stopping you from being obnoxious... especially if you don't even realize it.

Hot Burn

Everyonce in a while, the President drops a great line.

[David] GREGORY: But I ask you about your internal changes and what that says about how you think things need to be changed. They have been very public, your internal changes.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you for your penetrating question. Plus, I am not going to hire you, if that is what you’re suggesting.

GREGORY:I was not suggesting that.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I would, except you can’t pass the background check.

[laughter]

That's a hot burn, right there.

Climate Change

Heh

4.8% GDP Growth

Not that anybody cares, it's not as interesting as gas prices or anything, but:

WSJ.com - U.S. Economy Grew at 4.8% Rate In First Quarter, Fastest Since 2003 (Paid link)

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economy roared out of a soft patch on its fastest run in nearly three years during the first quarter, powered by consumer and business spending.

Meanwhile, U.S. employment costs advanced at their weakest pace in seven years during the first quarter, suggesting that a very tight jobs market isn't allowing workers to bid up wages and benefits, which should help limit inflationary pressures.

Gross domestic product increased at a seasonally adjusted 4.8% annual rate January through March, the Commerce Department said Friday in its first estimate of first-quarter GDP. Price gauges within the report indicated inflation eased.

The Street was looking for 5.0%, so the jump was already priced in. But the truth is that this is a perfect, Goldilocks economy. I fear Larry Kudlow is right, people are just used to prosperity, those under 40 haven't seen a real recession. Perhaps we can take 4% growth for granted, but not if we tax oil companies and send out $100 checks...

The Energy Plan

So I've been meaning to write a little about the latest plan from the Senate leadership on cutting prices at the pump.

But honestly, it's hard for me to get excited about.

Included is a $100 rebate on gas per year. At 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes, that's like getting a break on taxes for about 30 fill ups. Plus to get it will be no doubt byzantine. Yawn.

Taxing oil producers? Senators should know better than that. Companies don't pay taxes! Sure, they fill out the forms, but where does that money come from? That's right! The consumer!

Another call for drilling in ANWR, which is long overdue.

``We have been trying for years to do something about supply without their help,'' said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said of the Democrats.

``We wouldn't be in the situation we are in today'' if President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation in 1995 to open the Arctic refuge to drilling, said Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

It's all too easy to blame Democrats for the high price at the gas station. Though Ann Coulter does a pretty bang up job of it.

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

Oh, and the hysterical global warming shrieking must end. Other types of shrieking to curtail would include "exhorbitant profits", "price fixing!" and "BushCo oil buddies". It's nonsensical and ungrounded in reality, and worst of all, it's lazy.

Ultimately it's all our fault. It's both a supply and demand problem. There's not enough supply, and there is too much demand.

Increasingly supply is at multi-fold.
1) Open up drilling in more areas of the country (not just ANWR, though we're pretty much right next door). It also creates jobs. Tons of them.

2) Diversify refining locations. Putting a large percentage of our refining capacity in one spot that's in the crosshairs of storms is silly. One large storm takes it out. Severely curbing supply. Dumb.

3) Diversify the kind of supply. E85 and other blended fuels are a start. Biodiesel, obviously. Even CNG. The trouble is, those alternate fuels are not necessarily price competitive with petroleum. (This is also a chicken-egg problem, as well.)

4) Something like 70% of the world's oil reserves are under the control of state-owned industries. Central planning of business is very effective in collosally screwing things up. Where's the motive for those "companies" to extract or produce as much as possible? Plus there wouldn't be political reasons to jerk production levels around. The oil companies just want to get it out of the ground and down the pipeline.

That's a tougher problem to fix, however. ("war for oil" and all that)

Decreasing demand again has multiple facets.
1) Stop driving as much... car pooling, or saving your errands for one day is a start. Most of us can do that, at least.

2) Use hybrid tech. More MPG means more less need to tank up.

3) Easy to do is inflate your tires, drive the speed limit and use cruise control.

4) Some dollar level exists where driving will decrease because the price is too high. Isn't that what the climate change people (ie liberals & Democrats) want anyway?

In the end, we're all swimming in the stream of the energy market and government forces only tend to push prices in one direction. The wrong way.

Legalese

DayByDayCartoon.com

Atlas Shrugged: The Major Motion Picture

So, if you were going to be the casting director of Atlas Shrugged, who would you pick?

These two?

After years of delays, AYN RAND's famous novel ATLAS SHRUGGED is being made into a feature film starring BRAD PITT and ANGELINA JOLIE, according to media reports in the US. Lionsgate Films has bought the rights to the film version of the 1957 novel, considered in many polls to be one of the most influential books in history. According to Hollywood trade paper Variety, the MR AND MRS SMITH co-stars, who are both fans of the Russian novelist, would play the lead roles of DAGNY TAGGART and JOHN GAULT.

Good Language

I disagree with most all of this TNR Editorial. Yet, sometimes you must appreciate the rhetoric of the other side. The Editors call President Bush the lamest duck since James Buchanan, which I refute, but I loved the next line:

Second-term presidents often see their agenda stalled by gridlock. But haggling over substance at least has the excitement value of conflict and opposition. Bush, on the other hand, has seen his agenda die from within, of its own accord. The last years of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan were like watching an angry traffic snarl. The last years of George W. Bush's presidency are like watching a car resting on cement blocks in the front yard.

And I'm The Optimist

Yes, there's plenty of time. No it is not a fait accompli that the GOP will lose control in November. Yes, gerrymandering will protect the GOP. Yes the Democrats would have to run the table to grab either house.

With these disclaimers aside, I see a couple of things that worry me in the latest Wall Street Journal / ABC poll.

Republicans Sag in New Poll

"There's almost nothing that the public is satisfied with," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Republican counterpart Bill McInturff. "What they're telling you is, they want change on every front."

That is a worrisome sign for Republicans, who are seeking to defend their House and Senate majorities with little more than six months remaining before Election Day. Continuing a trend that has persisted for a year, Democrats lead -- beyond the poll's 3.1 percentage point margin of error -- in public preference for which party should control Congress. The survey of 1,005 adults was conducted April 21-24.

And in the run-up to November, Democrats also enjoy an edge in intensity; by 11 percentage points, their partisans are more likely to express high interest in the midterm campaigns. The biggest bright spot for Republicans is that Democrats have made no progress improving their national image, an indication that they aren't yet positioned to take advantage of their opportunity for far-reaching November gains.

Twenty-two percent -- ouch (what would I have told a pollster?) That is worrisome, but the larger issue is the issue of intensity. I came across this article on Instapundit. Here's the whole post:

REPUBLICANS ARE SAGGING IN THE POLLS: Maybe, in part, it's because Harry Reid is doing better than Bill Frist in fighting pork?

Here's the kind of response that's getting from former GOP supporters: "Okay, real conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians, stay home. Just...stay home in 2006. Or - what the hell - vote for a Democrat. We have to wake up the Stupid Party, before it completely merges itself into the Republicrat Statist Party."

I think that a GOP disaster is now officially looming.

Politics is not Glenn's thing but he has a good pulse on the center-right, little-l libertarian, and they are pissed. Every day he has Sen. Trent Lott's railroad to nowhere or some such indefensible porkfest by a Republican.

The one thing they said about 1994 that sticks in my head is "nobody saw it coming. If somebody says they did, they're lying." I bet Jim Wright and George Mitchell were pretty sanguine in April '94. The thing that gives me hope is Tony Snow -- he might actually get some of the Administration's accomplishments across.

Texas Tea and Central Planning

Let's not forget.

The problem is that the vast majority of the world’s remaining oil reserves are not possessed by private enterprises. Seventy-seven percent of known reserves belong to government-owned companies. That means oil will be produced with all the efficiency associated with central planning. Michael Economides estimates, for example, that it will take $4 billion in investment to keep Venezuela’s oil production at current levels. Yet that country’s Castro-wannabe president, Hugo Chavez, is investing just half that.

If ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, or other private companies actually owned the reserves, the world would be in a much more secure position with regard to oil production. Instead, we are subject to the whims of figures like Chavez, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and must worry about the doubtful stability of their personalities and regimes. (To be sure, even a private reserve under such a regime would face the constant threat of nationalization or other interference.) In the mid-1990s, the world had more than 10 million barrels per day of spare production capacity. That figure has fallen to between 1 and 2 million barrels, which means that any significant disruption in supplies can cause prices to soar.

Really too much to excerpt, just go read the whole thing.

This "Long Tail" is Too Short

I have blogged many nice things about XM radio. I have it in my car, and the unit in my second car I set it up in my home office after the car was totaled.

Alas, they are taking the best station off the air. "Luna," which played Latin jazz has lost its radio slot at channel 95. It will still be available on-line or on DirecTV, but 95 now plays latin pop with a promise of more latin jazz on "Real Jazz" channel 70.

I'm keeping the radio in the car but have cancelled the second account. I suggest that this is a real flaw in the satellite radio business plan. To succeed, I expect they will need to get the long-tail subscribers. If there is not sufficient bandwidth, they will have to juggle and lose subscribers.

With 170 stations, they do have room for 24 x 7 traffic reports for several cities, and pro golf. My wife asks "can you imagine anything more boring that golf on the radio?" Umm, no., I'm not that creative.

Maybe they can shuffle or wait for new hardware, but what I thought was a future wave may just become a novelty.

A Ton of Coal

Popular Mechanics has a cool chart, comparing different fuels' capability to take a car from NY to California.

Four-and-a half barrels of crude to make 90.9 gallons of gas, fifty-three bushels of corn + a half bbl of crude for the 176 gallons of ethanol. My favorite was a ton of coal to provide the electricity. A ton of coal?

Get Used to the GOP Majority

JK recently lamented (in the comments) the likelihood of a Democrat takeover of the US House or Senate. I asked for evidence to support his pessimism, which he kindly offered (also in the comments above) including the weighty opinion of Michael Barone. But all of his arguments are general, not specific.

In rebuttal, I offer the specifics of this essay by Jay Cost that appeared on today's WSJ Ed page.

For the Democrats to take the Senate, they would have to defeat incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Missouri and Rhode Island; win the open seat in Tennessee; and hold seats against strong challengers in Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington. This amounts to a sweep of all 10 of National Journal's 10 most vulnerable races. Most would thus admit that the Senate is not on the table; those who make no such admission usually grow silent when asked to explain why they refuse.

(...)

However, pundits know less of the specifics of House contests; thus, the House seems more promising. They cannot name the seats the GOP would have to lose to lose the House. If they could, they would find themselves naming many members most think are secure. A switch of the House still seems plausible, in other words, only because details are lacking.

I strongly suggest reading the entire essay. It is fascinating and informative on the subject of Constitutional history of democracy and the representative republic. (The founders apparently never intended the president or senators to be popularly elected!)

Freedom, Pragmatism, Optimism

Okay, so it's not up there with "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy." But I have been questioned for putting all three together. Allow me to defend.

I created this blog category early in the life of ThreeSources. "Freedom on the March" was a centering concept around here and it united me, AlexC and JohnGalt. We watched Afghanistan hold elections, saw positive signals from Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Ukraine, and eventually, Iraq. Close to 100 million additional people are living under a government they voted for when compared to President Bush's inauguration day.

The annual reports from the Heritage/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom show improvement (although the United States has fallen back, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulations). Yes, I am pretty happy with the advance of freedom in the world, although it is frequently messy.

The underreported story of the year is the business growth in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cars, mobile phones, and satellite TV are hot consumer items, and the rebuilding efforts are attracting those who can think big. The Wall Street Journal features a a guest editorial today (paid link) that highlights Afghanistan's attraction as "A Virgin Market."

KABUL -- The recent Yale graduate I was chatting with at a party here spoke Chinese and had lived in China, the seeming epicenter of all things capitalist. "Why did you decide to come to Afghanistan?" I asked. He stared at me. "This is the largest rebuilding and development effort in the history of the world. Who wouldn't want to be here?"

After decades of conflict and the crippling legacies of communism and fundamentalism, Afghanistan is finally open for business. The signs are everywhere, from Kabul's traffic jams to Mazar-i-Sharif's building boom; from the opening of a Coca-Cola bottling plant to the country's first private university, the American University of Afghanistan, offering programs in business administration and information technology.

According to the World Bank, Afghanistan is ranked 16th among 145 countries for ease of opening an enterprise. The Afghan Investment Support Agency, the one-stop shop for investing in Afghanistan with streamlined business registration, reports that 754 foreign companies have registered investments of $1.3 billion in Afghanistan; some well-known names include Siemens (rehabilitating dams) and Serena Hotels (Kabul's first five-star). There are 13 private banks, including Standard Chartered Bank, Commerzbank-affiliated Kabul Bank, and ING-managed Afghanistan International BInternational Bank. A third mobile phone company, Lebanon's Investcom, will launch service in Kabul in June, having paid $40 million for its 15-year operating license. At least $100 million will be invested in cement manufacturing in 2006.

I believe the move towards freedom is inexorable. It may go in fits and starts, but it cannot be stopped. Hear me out:

1) Free economies always outperform non-free economies. That's a core belief to me and I could provide examples well into the night.

2) The more powerful economy -- over time -- will win an armed conflict. Like the Union in the US Civil War, they can persevere through mistakes and setbacks. Their opposition may have much going for it but they can rarely outlast a wealthier adversary.

3) Another core belief is that free societies innovate, learn, and adapt better than centralized, command-and-control. Professor Reynolds links to Strategypage for his underreported story of the war: the adaptation on troops using the Internet. Flight 93 is a testimony to free people adapting and using technology in war.

I'm talking glacial, continental drift time frames and rates here. Buffy would remind us that pain and hard times lie ahead. But I am still confident.

$32 a Gallon

That's what Evian water costs, and Ala at blonde sagacity wonders "[w]hy we aren't blaming the President and big business for water prices?"

Thirty two dollars a gallon -- now that's hard on "workin' fam'lies..."

AlexC Gets Results

Larry Kudlow reports:

CNN is reporting that Tony Snow will likely take the job as White House press secretary. This is a good thing. Snow is a strong, smart, savvy and principled person. He is also a remarkable human being.

Bush IS to Blame

Larry Kudlow (and JohnGalt in a comment below) remind us that there is more than supply and demand going on here. The energy bill that Bush signed, with great fanfare, includes an Ethanol mandate that is causing shortages in some parts of the country and driving up prices everywhere. Cui bono? I'd say ADM but the "alternative fuels" crowd still believes.

The Bushies have no one to blame for this but themselves. It is a self-inflicted wound and the ridiculous ethanol mess deserves much of the blame.

Why was this ethanol garbage signed into law last August? Why did we have to do this—particularly now? Why now? All it does is screw around with already tight international supply conditions from the global boom demand.

So, America, with all them-Willie-Nelson-subsidized-farmers, can't grow enough corn to make the Ethanol we need (don't laugh, this is serious!). No problem, we can import sugar-cane Ethanol from Brazil. No. Sadly, there is a $0.57 tariff on a gallon of Brazilian ethanol so it is cost prohibitive.

I'll defend the Oil execs, and I'll defend the President from demagogic attacks, but he is paying the political price of "compassionate conservatism, is he not?" This was a dangerous step into a more "mixed" economy, and the wages of that sin is 33% favorability...

Gas Prices

Mac Johnson

To understand 90% of everything one needs to know about gasoline prices, all one has to do is examine the following chart. Drawn from data secretly compiled by the Energy Information Administration, which I found on the Internet, it shows the price of the four major factors (not O’Reilly Factors, mind you) that actually determine the cost of gasoline: 1) crude oil, 2) taxes, 3) refining, and 4) distribution and marketing.

Read the whole thing.

Tax Freedom Today!

Happy Days for Pennsylvanians.

After today, what we earn is ours!!

What is Tax Freedom Day? Imagine that instead of having your taxes deducted from your paycheck every week, you must pay all of your taxes at once. Now, imagine that before spending any of your income on housing, food, clothes, or paying bills, you must first save enough to pay all of your taxes for the year. If you had begun saving on January 1st, placing every penny you earned into a savings account from which to pay your taxes, then Tax Freedom Day would be the first day you had saved enough to pay them and could begin spending on you and your family again.

And, guess what – that day is today! According to the Tax Foundation, Pennsylvania’s Tax Freedom Day 2006 is April 24. This year, it took 114 days for Pennsylvania taxpayers to earn enough income to pay all the federal, state, and local taxes collected by government. Nearly one-third of the year has passed, and we have just reached the point where taxpayers have started earning money for themselves.

Exhorbitant Salaries

From American Spectator's blog...

As a matter of government interest, exhorbitant salaries should be off limits. But I see nothing wrong with jawboning these execs. A $400 million golden parachute, as with the Exxon exec, is obscene. In fact, there is plenty of merit in the complaint that American corporate execs get paid so much more than do, say, Japanese ones. The compensation structure is all screwed up. In fact, the DESIRE for wealth over and above a certain point, except to do good with it (charity, etc), is a character flaw and deserving of ostracism. There's a difference between ambition and greed, and when execs get too greedy they open up a can of worms because it gives the libs a perfect target to get government involved in all kinds of mischief to correct the "imbalances" in compensation. OF course, government should NOT step in, but that doesn't mean the greed is morally defensible.

Amen.

What can a government due? Only "progressive" taxation.... if a board of directors colludes to pay executives these kinds of figures, the only real recourse would be to remove the board of directors, but that's a shareholders responsibility.... not the governments.

Oh, and anyone that's worth $400 million dollars can probably figure out that they shouldn't pay themselves that much.

Democrat Bashing

May I indulge? I read the Hugh Hewitt book and have been very disappointed with some Democrats that I thought I liked.

Rep. Jane Harman was on FOX News Sunday yesterday. When she came on, I said "Here's my second favorite Democrat (Rep Harold Ford is first)." When she spoke, you'd've assumed it was Leader Pelosi. All she did was attack the President (okay she's a Democrat) and the Iraq War (not so okay, she's ranking D on the Armed Services Committee). Let's say she went from two to 200 on my list yesterday.

Senator Bayh has gone left to fuel his presidential aspirations, Jane Harman sent away for her moonbat membership card. It's a matter of time before Harold Ford calls for nationalized oil and Sen. Lieberman wants to cut and run.

Another soi disant Democratic moderate was Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. The state that sends Jon Kyl to the Senate elected her to be Governor. The WSJ Ed page gives her low marks today. The state has a $1.2 billion and growing surplus (a lesser man would make his immigration points here...) and by the state constitution, they have to spend it or refund it. Guess how the battle lines form.

In the spending corner is Governor Janet Napolitano, one of the celebrated "moderate" Democrats running a red state. Earlier this year she proposed a one-year 22% budget expansion to $10.1 billion from $8.2 billion -- with the goodies spread far and wide across the government and especially to the teachers unions. That's nearly three times the rate of increase that the spendthrift U.S. Congress is contemplating. Ms. Napolitano is also floating a tax cut, but one microscopic in size and sheer gimmickry: for example, a three-day sales tax holiday for purchasing school supplies and a tax credit for buying environmentally friendly cars.

Republicans in the Arizona legislature are taking a page from tax-cutting former Governor Fife Symington and proposing to cut the income tax. The state senate has passed a bill chopping the top marginal income-tax rate to 4% from 5% over five years, while the house wants a smaller reduction over three years. The GOP also wants to eliminate the state portion of the property tax, which would shave $125 a year off the tax bill on the average-priced home. That makes sense too: In only two years, property taxes have soared by 51% thanks to the hot local housing market.

I hope she closed her eyes when she said "tax credit for environmentally friendly cars."

UPDATE: This WaPo story transcribes some of the exchange I was discussing, specifically the point that it is a double standard for the admist4ration to prosecute a leaker when the President has declassified information. How much do we have to fear Iran? Harman is confident that if the Iraqi threat was overblown, things should be just fine next door.

Harman picked up the point, saying, "Our intelligence is thin. I don't think we have enough sources." Referring to recent statements from Tehran that it had begun enriching uranium, Harman said: "Just the fact that the Iranian government is making a lot of noise doesn't prove their capability."

She compared Iran today to Iraq in 2002, when "the Iraqi government made a lot of noise, and they had nothing." She said when the Bush White House did not have a strong case that Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, "those who tried to speak truth to power were shut out."

While I am Democrat bashing, the President has a clear constitutional authority to declassify information and share it with the American people. To compare a politically-driven CIA agent’s leak of sensitive national security information is specious. Will they really run with this?

All Is Lost

After throwing all I had into a vicious bout of optimism in a comment yesterday, I have been laid low.

The Everyday Economist links to a NYTimes story on the correlation between Presidential approval ratings and gas prices. Here's the chart, read and weep:





I'm rethinking this democracy thang, that is a stunning chart.

Review Corner II

On JohnGalt and Dagny's good recommendation, I picked up a copy of "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" by Ayn Rand.

I credit Ms. Rand as an influence. Her writings were like the bracing pitcher of ice water that is thrown over a sleeping drunk in an old western. "Atlas Shrugged," "The Fountainhead," "Anthem," and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" shook me out of my folk Marxist stupor; her writings and the Reagan presidency really established my first serious adult worldview.

I had gone on to other sources and had not read Rand since Reagan’s first term. "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" was a good trip back -- highly appropriate to some recent arguments on this blog and good example of her clarity in thought and prose. I cannot list any serious grievance with anything in the book and I came out with new insights: the anti-statist objection to pulling out of Bretton Woods, the difference between duty and responsibility (argued on this blog as well) -- good stuff.

The Nixon-era essays and speeches hold up well for 30year old political discourse. I see some things she feared that have gotten better, but the dismantling of academia and the intellectual class are much worse. Her call to oppose those who teach our young people not to think is well heard. As is her call to have a philosophical center, based on reason, and to build your ideas on that foundation. This was the reason I was given this assignment; my political pragmatism seems un-centered to the Randians around here. (I don't mean "Randians" as insult and hope it is not taken as one.).

So, maybe somebody can explain to me why I enjoy and agree with her writings, yet I can never find a point of agreement with any of those who follow her writings -- a mystery for the ages.

She does caution against too close an affiliation with political parties, and I suspect she would not appreciate much of my pragmatism. Yet her homeland was liberated by a man of faith who was voted into office with a coalition of Catholics and Christians. Does anyone sense that she would have disapproved stridently of President Reagan?

In short, I enjoyed the book and found no quarrel with it. Anybody expecting a road to Damascus conversion away from political pragmatism will be disappointed. Perhaps I didn't get it.

UPDATE: To follow ThreeSources style, I provide a link to the book on Amazon. The good news is that it is only $7.99 or $15.98 with another (I snagged "For The New Intellectual"). The bad news is that these are Signet's "Centennial Edition" paperbacks and mine, at least, was printed in microscopic type on bad paper with margins so uneven the page numbers bled off the page.

Review Corner

Not many movies of note the past few weeks.

• I would love to watch "School of Life" with JohnGalt and Dagny someday. I'd like to see their reaction when the hip, young, cool teacher "fixes" the losing basketball team by teaching them to cheer for their opponents baskets as well as their own. jk gives it half a star.
• One star to "Chicken Little." I love animation and this was well done. The plot and underlying theme, though, is "Dads are bad. If we were all like Oprah, and little boys shared their feelings, all would be well."
• "The Greatest Game Ever Played" gets two-and-a-half. Some interesting cinematography, and a great story based on fact. It's all Disney, all the time from there, choose your tolerance accordingly. But I'd call it well worth a rent.
• "Weather Man" with Nicholas Cage did not wow me. In fact, after an hour sharing his torpor, I gave up. Maybe it was great in the second hour -- anybody seen it? I will withhold judgment having not seen it all.

With that out of the way, this is a book review. I enjoyed Hugh Hewitt's "Painting The Map Red" far more than I thought I would. I have many disagreements with Hewitt but much respect. The respect went up after reading this book.

Hewitt is far more "social conservative" than me -- and he has a populist streak. He opposes gay marriage and is enforcement-heavy when it comes to immigration.

"Painting the Map Red" is a partisan book. He proudly quotes Benjamin Disraeli saying "I am a party man." He contends that it is time for partisanship, that the left wing has so taken the Democratic party off the rails that they cannot be trusted to win the war or to reign in an "imperial judiciary." For those who don't know him, he is a law professor and speaks in measured tones and prose. He is partisan without being an attack dog. I don't expect Democrats would agree with everything he says but suspect they'd find him readable and reasonable. I would love to read a book by a mutatis mutandis Democrat Hugh.

He also contends that the Democtratic party sees itself disintegrating and will try everything in the book to grasp power in 2008. After that, reapportionment will solidify Republican gains, and an out-of-party power might lose its bench of politicians and donors. Hewitt wants the GOP members and supporters to come together on core principles. (Win the war, confirm the Judges, cut the spending, lower the taxes). Truth be told, I could tolerate a wall on the southern border if it would keep Rep Pelosi from becoming Speaker and Senator Clinton from becoming President.

The book is smart, well reasoned, and readable. I would recommend it to any ThreeSources writer/reader. Again, no shortage of things I disagree with, but a trenchant summary of were we are and a cogent look forward to the next couple of elections.

Pius and the Market

There's only one answer to this problem ya know...

The fact is, hybrids just aren't selling like they used to. While the Toyota Prius is still a hot item, Ford is offering incentives on its hybrid SUVs, and sales for other hybrid vehicles are softening.

One reason is that most hybrids, unlike the Prius, are not distinctive. A Toyota Highlander Hybrid looks like a Toyota Highlander. A Ford Escape Hybrid is a Ford Escape. "So the hybrid becomes another powertrain option," said Anthony Pratt, an analyst with J.D. Power and Associates.

That means that consumers are increasingly putting hybrid systems through the same cost/benefit analysis to which they would subject any other high-cost option.

With those same looking cars costing $3,500 to $8,000 more, what's the point of buying one? Especially if it takes years to break even on it.

But there is another option.

Another answer might be to buy a vehicle with a less complex, less expensive hybrid system. It might not be quite as fuel-efficient but it will pay for itself faster.

The Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid SUV, coming out this summer, will cost about $2,000 more than a regular Saturn Vue. It's sticker price will be about $23,000, making it the cheapest hybrid SUV you can buy.

Really the correct solution to this problem would be for the federal government to subsidize the purchase of a hybrid to the tune of the price difference between a hybrid and a regular version. I mean, when it comes to the environment, there's no problem the government couldn't solve, and no dollar amount too much.

Amnesia

Well...

A man who went to a hospital complaining of a headache was found to have 12 nails embedded in his skull from a suicide attempt with a nail gun, doctors say.

Surgeons in Portland removed the nails with needle-nosed pliers and a drill, and the man survived, according to a report on the medical oddity in the current issue of the Journal of Neurosurgery.

You might say to yourself, "Self, how can you forget about shooting yourself in the head twelve times?"
Well, it is twelve shots to the head.

No word on the length of the nails.

Why Aren't We Rich?

A good question from Jonathan Pearce at Samizdata.

He links to a book review "chronicling how filthy rich some prominent American leftists are. The usual collection of intellectual gargoyles are on show: Ralph Nader, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore" and wonders:

What intrigues me is why there are so few seriously, stinkingly, rich folk on the libertarian side of the street, so to speak. There are a few libertarian friends of mine with decent jobs, nice houses; some have inherited fairly serious money and do not have to work; but I don't know any of our number who has the sort of wealth described in Jason's book review. It is a paradox that celebrants of capitalism and market economics are often on their uppers, financially, in my experience, although my impressions are just that, impressions.

Certainly, a huge part is the belief that "I've got mine." I've always suspected that a Jon Corzine, or a pick-your-favorite internet millionaire are comfortable making it difficult for the next entrepreneur. But holy cow -- they have Corzine, Senator Cantwell, all the Kennedies, George Soros, Hollywood, &c.

Certainly some wealthy businesspeople support the GOP, but they tend not to be the ideologues that limousine liberals are.

Dark Days Ahead

It is my view that world events are bad and are going to get worse. Not that there will be a war -- there is already a world war. If you are informed about world events, you recognize this.

The blogger Fjordman has two good essays here and here. Excerpts are in the "extended entry."

Multiculturalism is part of America's and Europe's problem, but more fundamentally the problem is bad epistemology: the theory of human cognition. You are seeing people unable to recognize evil and fight it, because they are unable to define the nature of evil -- as well as the good -- and integrate that idea into the whole of their knowledge.

They cannot define evil because they don't take ideas seriously (they say "we must be practical" or if they are in government, 'we must not upset the balance of power'), they don't recognize intellectually that things have identity (they say "everyone sees things different" or "how do you know" or "it's all relative" or 'what's good for you isn't necessarily good for me'), they don't know the rules of definition, they generally don't relate ideas together, they generally can't see an idea in a larger context.

In short, we will loose this war because people in general are too stupid to think. Not that it's their fault -- they are products of the modern educational system, which is a system designed to destroy the capacity of reason in every individual. (And of egoism.)

Not sure about that? Check out the "intellectual" products of the educational system, such as the news -- reporting is horrible. Their writing is poor. They have trouble gathering relevant facts and checking validity, and they have trouble putting things in context (especially of reality!!!). Reporting is concrete-bound -- it deals mostly in the here-and-now, and has little cause-effect relationships in it.

Modern politicians, another "intellectual" product of the educational system, produces people who don't even know what our government represents or what its history is. I wonder how many have read Locke's "Two Treatises of Government?"

How, after all, can you reconcile the facts about Islam, the history of Islam over the past 50 years -- hell, the history of Islam over the past 1300 years -- and current events, with Bush's taking no action toward Iran or Palestine? You can't reconcile it, because it is irreconcilable: it is irrational. He is out of touch with the facts. (And I am NO Bush-basher, I am NO damned lefty.)

Or read Dewey and Kant and investigate our educational system for yourself.

Multiculturalism is, by comparison, just window dressing. It's just a device of power-lusting, wanna-be intellectuals to rule over people -- until the real pros, that is, come along: the barbarians. But it does have an important, moral element to it: altruism, giving up your own ideas and values for those of another culture. Reason in contrast is egoistic.

It is not until people can use reason (a conceptual faculty, which integrates knowledge) and logic (man's means of conceptually knowing reality; the methods by which reason functions properly) -- not until people can say and understand that "a thing is what it is" -- that they will be able to say "Iran and Islamism is evil, therefore we must destroy them." That's the world we live in: a world of cause and effect.

Thank goodness volition is in the equation; thank goodness our destruction is not deterministic. There is the element of choice to consider.

But looking at all the facts, I say we are doomed.

(I thank Ayn Rand for these insights: 1) the importance of epistemology, and (2) the relationship between corrupt intellectuals and barbarians.)

From: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/04/fall-of-france-and-multicultural-world.html

In my essay about the retreat of the Western world order, I mentioned the possibility of civil strife in the West caused by runaway immigration. This is no longer just a theoretical possibility. It is pretty clear to anybody following the developments in Europe that the situation in France is starting to become rather serious. President Jacques Chirac threw out part of a youth labor law that triggered massive protests and strikes, bowing to intense pressure from students and unions. The unemployment rate for youths under 26 is a staggering 22 percent nationwide, but soars to nearly 50 percent in some of those troubled areas with many Muslim immigrants. French Jews are leaving the country in ever-growing numbers, fleeing a wave of anti-Semitism. Nidra Poller, American ex-pat writer and translator in Paris, has written some appalling stories about aggressive anti-Semitism, such as the murder and brutal torture of French Jew Ilan Halimi early in 2006.

Muslim blogs are calling for violence against the Jews, the whites and the well-to-do. They say, “We must burn France, as Hamas will burn Israel.” The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is now a Muslim. Around 70% of French prisoners are Muslims. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos are already de facto following sharia, not French law. Some have pointed out that the French military are not always squeamish, but there are estimates that 15% of the armed forces are already made up of Muslims, and rising. How effective can the army then be in upholding the French republic? At the same time, opinion polls show that the French are now officially the most anti-capitalist nation on earth. France has chosen Socialism and Islam. It will get both, and sink into a quagmire of its own making. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, others believe in civil war in the near future:

I’m not sure which of these scenarios [slow Islamization of France over a generation, or a civil war in the next few years] is scarier. People keep talking about the nukes that the Iranians may get, but what about the hundreds of nuclear warheads the French have? Will they be used to intimidate the rest of the West? How do we handle an Islamic France, still the heartland of the European continent, with Muslim control of hundreds of nukes? And how do we handle a Bosnia or Lebanon with a population much larger than either of these countries, and with hundreds of nuclear warheads at stake?

…

The population movements we are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe, they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Migration Period, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast. We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other countries. On top of that, the Romans didn’t have human rights lawyers advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that what we are witnessing now? The second fall of Rome?

…

The Islamic world is now at war with most of the major powers on the planet at the same time, from the USA to India and from Russia to Western Europe. It is a real possibility that we will get a full-blown world war because of these events. If so, I don’t think this will happen 50 years from now, but within the coming generation.

***************************************************************************

From: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/04/retreat-of-western-world-order.html

Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” thesis has generated a lot of debate, and some justified criticism. He has been accused of simplification, but also for underestimating the case of Islam. Huntington does talk about “the bloody borders” of the Islamic world. However, he has also stated that there is nothing implicit in Islamic teachings that has created the current turmoil among Muslims, but rather the huge number of young men, the primary instigators of violence in any culture. This is obviously not the case. If Huntington had read books such as “The Legacy of Jihad” by Andrew Bostom or “Onward Muslim Soldiers” by Robert Spencer, he would have understood that Jihad and aggressive violence have been intimately related to Islam on three continents for 1300 years. Yes, an abundance of young men as “cannon fodder” for war or demographic Jihad certainly helps, but this situation was created by the contents of Islamic core texts.

…

Maybe future historians will label this age “the retreat of the Western world order.” I say “retreat of” because it is not yet certain that this is the end of the Western world order, although that is a possibility. These massive changes and the real or perceived weakness of the Western civilization that has been dominant globally for centuries could very well create a new world war. Multiculturalism and the inability or unwillingness of Western nations to uphold their borders from massive immigration is viewed by Muslims as an invitation for attack and a signal that their ancient Western rival is weak and ripe for conquest. This is no doubt the background for the ongoing aggressive posture by the Iranian president, among others. We should take this dead seriously, because it is meant that way.

Muslims really do believe that the time has now come for overthrowing the West and putting Islam into the global, dominant position it should have according to their scriptures. They will spare no efforts, including nuclear war, in achieving this goal. The Iranian president has quite openly stated that “Islam will soon rule the world,” which implies that they will have to destroy or subdue the West. Al-Qaeda strategists have earlier outlined a schedule for awakening the Islamic world and crushing the West, with a timeline stretching over the coming fifteen to twenty years. They still stick to this plan, which means that tensions are bound to escalate even further in the near future. Westerners need to understand that a world war of sorts with the Islamic world is already inevitable by now, no matter what we do.

Shhh. It's a Boom.

Don't tell the media, but we are having a boom. So says Larry Kudlow:

Kudlow's Money Politic$: B-O-O-M

This is not just a “rich getting richer” story here. On the contrary, greater numbers of hardworking Americans are making more money than ever before in our nation’s history. These folks are fueling the continued overall growth and health of our nation’s robust economy.

You measure a nation’s economy by its most successful, not by its least successful. This is because the burgeoning numbers of wealthy men and women—the wide-eyed entrepreneurs, the risk-takers, etc—create new ideas, plant new seeds, and forge new paths to prosperity for all Americans.

Remember, more and more capital is necessary for healthy and thriving capitalism. Let’s be thankful to successful capitalists who keep plowing new investment into our economy.

Be vewy, vewy, quiet -- you don't want to upset the Keynesians!

Private Planes

Reuters

The Transportation Security Administration has warned aircraft owners and airport managers that Muslim extremists may be targeting private American jets and urged them to boost security.

"On April 13, 2006, a message posted in Arabic on an Internet forum explained how to identify private American jets and urged Muslims to destroy all such aircraft," the TSA said in an advisory issued on Thursday and obtained by Reuters on Friday.

The TSA quoted the Arabic message as saying: "We call upon all Muslims to follow and identify private civilian American aircrafts in all airports of the world."

"It is the duty of Muslims to destroy all types of private American aircraft that are of the types Gulfstream and Lear Jet and all small aircraft usually used by distinguished (people) and businessmen," it quoted the message as saying.

Hmm. I always figured that stealing a plane from an airport and flying it into a supertanker or an oil refinery would be high on the list. Those guys are slow.

Demon Joe

You have to be overly sensitive to take comments from left wing bloggers and get really upset, but it is funny that Joe Lieberman's challenger for the Democratic nomination to his Senate seat in Connecticut has to distance himself from his supporters

The challenge to Joe Lieberman

et the record show that Ned Lamont does not consider Joe Lieberman a whiny-ass titty baby. Nor does he believe that Connecticut's junior senator is a douchebag, an ass clown, or any of the other nasty names liberal bloggers have called Lieberman--whom, with those bloggers' help, Lamont hopes to defeat in this August's Democratic primary. "I really regret that rhetoric," Lamont said one recent afternoon, blushing a little as some of the derogatory appellations for Lieberman were read back to him. "I think he's a good man, I think he's a patriot, I think he does what he thinks is right. ... I just happen to think he's wrong."

It would be interesting for, say a blogger or somebody, to compare the rhetorical temperature between Lieberman's Democratic primary and Senator Lincoln Chafee's GOP Primary next door in Rhode Island. I can't really think of an objective standard for comparison, could somebody else?

Also, I am struck that Republicans tend to admire Sen. Lieberman for his brave stands and pro-US positions. Many like me have questions about some of his positions, but I think most GOPers have come to respect his integrity.

I don't know that I have ever heard of any great love for Linc across the aisle. I'm sure the Senators dig him, but I've never heard a Democrat extol his "courage and clarity." This would be a fun comparison, we need to come up with a rating system.

Dearth of Death

USA Today...

The U.S. population may be aging, but the number of Americans who died in 2004 represents the biggest one-year decline since World War II, according to preliminary government data released Wednesday.
Nearly 50,000 fewer Americans died in 2004 than in 2003, according to data based on about 90% of U.S. death certificates. The preliminary number of U.S. deaths in 2004 was 2,398,343, compared with 2,448,288 in 2003.

Color me shocked. What could be the cause?

It's not clear why there was such a big drop in 2004, he says. Minino says he and his colleagues suspect a mild flu season might be one of many converging factors. Better treatments and improved access to health care are among the possible contributors to the decline, he says.

Whoa there. I thought we had a health care crisis.

Like the "jobless recovery" and the "but what kind of jobs are they" we'll be hearing, "but yeah, living in in an Iron lung for thirty years, you might as well be DEAD!"

(tip to Ace)

Minneapolis

I grew up in Denver and can barely tolerate it now. New Orleans and Boston were always fun for a three day trade show. But Minneapolis was a tertiary home to me. I have had family on both sides, friends, and business there, so I've spent some time and come to dig it. I’ll be there at the end of May, though I’ll be staying outside the cities.

Sadly, I think the little Marxists have completely taken over there, refusing to fight crime lest it offend some minority somewhere. Powerline calls it "Murderapolis." That is probably way too far but for a pleasant collection of friendly Midwesterners, good economics, pretty scenery, and happy Scandinavian-Americas it does have some scary places.

LILEKS takes a whack today. It seems Target Corporation (It was Dayton-Hudson in my day) cannot upgrade a store in its hometown.

Target would like to raze the store and build a gigantor UberHyperTarget with a grocery store and twice the shelf space and a petting zoo and underground NASCAR track, etc. But! The city wants to upgrade the entire area, make it a new downtown with the usual pedestrian amenities. This means bisecting the aforementioned blocks with a “spine” that connects dead old Southdale with the housing to the south.

Here’s the catch: the new store Target wants to build does not sufficiently respect the spine. The city says: we’d like you to put affordable housing facing the spine, please. Target says: uh, we sell laundry soap and shoes and batteries; we’re not exactly in the housing business. The city says: you are now. And so the latest proposal to build the new Target was rejected. Rejected! New Urbanism, triumphant!

A friend of mine tried to build a new stereo store in Boulder and was told his company would have to put affordable housing on top (umm, mightn't that be a little loud?) Again, I fight the fight nationally, and these little Stalins ruin everything on a local level.

(The same "Bleat" also has some kind words about "Firefly.")

Minimum Wage

The best reason to oppose minimum wage laws is philosophical: governments don't set wages, the market does. But there are a bevy (how many quarts in a bevy?) of practical reasons that support the premise.

Disturbing supply and demand will result in fewer jobs, unless the mandated wage is so low that it will have no effect. Thomas Sowell makes a great case that the law is racist, because it does not allow a minority group the opportunity to undercut other workers to get their shot. He offers the reductio ad absurdum that if the minimum wage were $100,000, racists could hire whatever workers were wanted for any job. Whereas, the marketplace would kill a company that tried that with no minimum wage.

Professor Bainbridge discusses California’s proposed hike in minimum wage and comes up with yet another reason why it's bad. It will encourage students to drop out, when we need more educated workers to compete.

If you stay in school, you sacrifice current wages for higher future income. If you drop out, you likely will have a lower lifetime income, but start making money immediately.

Although you likely wouldn't articulate the problem in these terms, you're faced with a capital budgeting problem. Should you invest in your human capital by staying in school or should you drop out and go to work full time?

Although there are several ways for a business to make capital budgeting decisions, the simplest and most relevant to our hypothetical teenager is net present value. You therefore should discount to present value the net stream of income that would be generated by each of your choices.

The problem is that research in behavioral economics suggests that young people tend systematically to err in assigning discount rates; specifically, because they tend to be systematically biased in favor of current consumption, they tend to use too high a discount rate in making such calculations. As a result, the prospect of an immediate income will be given too much weight in their calculus and the prospect of higher lifetime earnings in the future too little weight and, when deciding between work and a present paycheck versus staying in school and deferral of income, they will tend to err towards the former.

I'll give the Golden State credit -- they have the world's most resilient golden goose. The poor fowl is under constant attack from Rob Reiner and his ideological brethren, yet it limps along. Imagine the economic dynamo if that state's Hank Reardon's were let loose!

Hu and Cry, Strum and Drang

Always great when a Chinese leader visits because of the possibilities of stupid headlines.

The WSJ Ed Page resists this far better than I, with a smart lead editorial (free link) today on "The Long China View."

News flash: there are serious problems with China. Her devotion to human rights is tenuous at best, there is no appreciation for the sovereignty of Taiwan, much less Tibet. Bloggers are jailed, American citizens have been jailed. A more economically powerful China will threaten its neighbors.

So what's the big talk today? The Trade Deficit, a.k.a. the Capital Surplus. With all these real problems, we are going to jawbone a fake problem.

Over the past decade, China's GDP has more than doubled, lifting millions out of poverty and creating, for the first time in centuries, hope for a better future for its 1.3 billion citizens. All of this has been helped by the mainland's steady, if uneven, embrace of international legal and trading rules, which should grease the wheels for more liberalization in the future--and especially for the steady rise of a Chinese middle class.

For America, more efficient Chinese production has slashed the price of consumer goods and created investment opportunities for U.S. companies, which poured more than $15 billion into China in 2004 alone. These U.S. companies then export their goods back to the U.S. or elsewhere around the world. This doesn't merely help China; it makes American companies more competitive. The Chinese government's purchase of U.S. securities has also kept bond yields low, extending the U.S. and world economic expansion.

The hue and cry over America's trade deficit with China is a distraction that masks this broad and beneficial economic relationship. It's also misleading. China runs a trade surplus with America, but it also has a deficit with the rest of Asia. That's because Asian companies that once exported goods directly to the U.S. now send them to Chinese factories for assembly and export. More than half of all Chinese "exports" aren't really "Chinese" at all. And here's a trade statistic you won't hear much about: China's relative share of the U.S. trade deficit is shrinking as wages rise on the mainland and American businesses source cheaper goods from other countries.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sanguine about reforms and freedoms taking hold as an empowered middle class gets a taste for life and access to information technology. But the fact that this visit will be wasted on protectionism, and that nobody seems to mind is depressing.

Let it Snow

Oh please let it be Tony Snow

Oh please let it be Tony Snow

Oh please let it be Tony Snow

Oh please let it be Tony Snow

Oh please let it be Tony Snow

Oh please let it be Tony Snow

The Junior Senator From New York

Senator Clinton has been brushing up her conservative bona fides over the last year. To her credit, she has been a defender of the War on Terror and has been careful to distance herself from the wackier, left-wing ideas of much of her party.

She does seem to be in a good spot for 2008. She may be loved by the left enough to get the Democratic nomination, while appearing moderate enough to do well in the general.

It's a good plan, but I fear the real Hillary Clinton lives too close to the surface. Larry Kudlow