A New Deal, or a New New Deal?

Certainly the second must be in the bill. I don't think you can have a new New Deal until after the Obama administration takes office. Clearly Bush and Paulson are not going to support such a thing. Since the bail out can't wait a new New Deal can't be included at this time. But the real problem with the Paulson bail out is the transformation of pretend money into real money. It would buy assets from banks at greater than market value. These assets probably won't regain the value paid for them. So money will be lost. The money to buy these assets will come from foreign banks. The American government will have to pay this money back to the foreign banks at some point in the future. A securities turnover excise tax would raise the money to do this without taking it from other sources. So this must be a necessary part of any bill that passes.
About Henry Paulson
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Who Knows Strategy v. Tactics? McCain or Obama? And Where is McCain's Flag Lapel Pin?

The surge was a tactic. The surge did not bring an end to the violence. The surge was successful only as a way of taking the public eye off of the removal of the sunnis from Baghdad. This is what has brought an end to the violence. If making the sunnis of Baghdad into refugees was a part of our strategy for Iraq then the surge was a good tactic for this end. If making the sunnis from Baghdad into refugees was not a part of our strategy for Iraq then the surge was not a good tactic.
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Who is the Handler?

Think of them as the American Taliban. Like our enemies they believe in theocracy. The only difference between these people and our enemies is these people are Christian theocrats and our enemies are Muslim theocrats.
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is John McCain Mentally Fit To Be President?

Also his temper may be a part of the reason for his choice. He really wanted Joe Lieberman as his vice-president. But this was vetoed by Republican leaders who feared the reaction of the hard right to this choice. Lieberman,after all, is a liberal Democrat on everything except the war in Iraq. So he picked a vice-president the hard right couldn't veto. Unfortunately she isn't qualified to be president. But she holds every position the hard right favors. So they can't complain about her. But the choice is rash. Eventually McCain will realize it.



The really troubling thing is government by temper tantrum is dangerous. Choosing a vice-president in anger is one thing. Getting mad at other countries when they do things we don't like is something else. This is one way unnecessary wars are started. If this is any example of how McClain makes decisions there is real cause for concern.
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why We Use So Much of the World’s Resources.

In the world where global warming and peak oil are discussed Americans are condemned for their use of energy and other resources. This is seen as a moral failing. Unfortunately it is not. Constant and unlimited growth is how our capitalist economy stays healthy. When growth stops our capitalist economy will collapse. So the question at issue is not self centered wasting of resources vs sustainability but capitalism vs socialism. The real problem we have with sustainability is simple: a sustainable economy is a socialist economy. At least from the perspective of today’s capitalists it is.

To understand why we waste so much of the world’s resources on useless trivialities we have to go back to the great depression of the 1930s. My father claimed that on March 4, 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated the United States of America was just weeks away from its very own Marxist revolution. That’s how bad things were then. All during the 1930s many people believed capitalism and liberal democracy were dead. The future would belong to either fascism or communism. But the fascists, especially the Nazis, overplayed their hand. The resulting world war saved capitalism and liberal democracy by providing full employment. And after the war it was decided to do whatever it took to insure an economic catastrophe on the order of the great depression never again occurred.

To understand the problem faced by those who wished to avoid another great depression let’s take a look at a simple producer of mousetraps. An inventor makes a better mousetrap and the world really does beat a path to his door. He can no longer satisfy the demand for mousetraps by the number of mousetraps he can produce in his basement workshop. So he borrows money and builds a mousetrap manufacturing plant. This plant hires employees to build the mousetraps. Now the inventor can satisfy the demand for mousetraps.

In building his factory the inventor has created economic demand. Buyers of mousetraps pay him money. He pays money to his workers. His workers spend the money to buy the things they need. Money is now flowing through the economic system. Everyone is prosperous and everyone is happy.

Then the mousetrap market is saturated. Everyone who wants a mousetrap has one. The buyers are all happy with their mousetraps. Unfortunately this means there is no longer a demand for the products made by the mousetrap factory. So the inventor has to lay off most of his workers and put the rest on half time. Being unemployed the workers no longer have money to spend on the things they need. Money is no longer flowing through the economic system. The economic system is now in a state of recession. If demand for other things decreases as well then the economy will enter a state of depression, as happened in the 1930s.

This process can be stopped if the mousetrap factory can be kept at full production. This can be done if the market for mousetraps is artificially stimulated. Heretofore all mousetraps have been produced in basic black. Now the inventor adds colored mousetraps. Advertising is used to convince people they need chartreuse, lime green and lemon colored mousetraps. The advertising works and now the mousetrap plant is back at full production. When this market is saturated the inventor makes subtle changes in the mousetrap. Advertising is used to convince people the old mousetrap is out of date and they must have the newest mode. So the mousetrap plant is kept busy, its employees are well paid, money is again flowing through the economic system, and everyone is happy.

Expand this to the national, or even the international level and you have an economic system where prosperity is maintained by convincing people to buy things they do not really need in order to provide jobs for people who then have money to spend. In such an economic system endless growth is necessary because the alternative to growth is economic collapse. And economic collapse is fatal for capitalism.

So now one begins to understand why there is so much resistance to the establishment of a sustainable economy. In a sustainable economy you are not going to be able to create jobs by producing things people do not really need and then convincing people to buy them. Since this is the basis of our presently existing free market money based economy it appears sustainability threatens the existence of a free market based money economy. Since individualism as we know it appears dependent on a free market money based economy it appears sustainability threatens individualism. And since Americans understand themselves as individuals it appears sustainability threatens how we see ourselves in relation to others. And since Americans are not going to give up seeing themselves as individuals the supporters of sustainability really do have a difficult problem on their hands.

Why Can’t We Do Anything About Peak Oil and Global Warming?

One of the mysteries of the age is the public complacency concerning peak oil and global warming. The evidence is there. Both are extremely serious problems. They must be addressed immediately. The consequences of not doing so are serious. Yet the answers being promoted don’t begin to address the problem to be solved. The most prominent answer to peak oil is to drill for more oil and turn to coal. The answer to global warming is “clean coal”. We are told renewable sources of energy will not be viable until the second third of the century and then only if we are fortunate. Until then we must continue to use fossil fuels. That the fossil fuels may not be there is ignored. That global warming might be out of control by the end of the first third of the century if we don’t act now to reduce our use of fossil fuels is ignored. The public is in a state of denial.

The saddest fact is this state of denial is a result of the general public taking the evidence seriously. The public looks at the evidence scientists bring forth concerning peak oil and global warming. They know this evidence means drastic change in their way of life. So they begin to grieve the way of life to be lost. The first step in the grieving process is denial. So the general public looks at the evidence and goes into a state of denial. There is no way to avoid the state of denial. Change leads to grief, grief leads to denial. Before any progress can be made on either peak oil or global warming the public must move beyond this state of denial.

Scientists who wish to do something about peak oil and global warming often fail because they think the general public uses evidence the same way they do. Scientists use evidence to get to truth. Most members of the general public already have truth. This truth comes from faith in a particular system of belief. For the general public evidence merely confirms presently held beliefs. If evidence doesn’t confirm such beliefs it is ignored. Belief systems don’t change until reality hammers them really hard.

This means, simply put, many people won’t believe in peak oil until the price of gas goes to ten or even twelve dollars a gallon. Indeed some people may never believe in peak oil. And belief in global warming won’t become universal until the world average temperature actually increases by four degrees. Until then the tenaciousness of faith will make shaking faith by the use of evidence difficult to impossible. The evidence just isn’t strong enough.

Ultimately the problem here is that scientists are what they are and the general public is what it is. The scientist is in a quest for understanding. Since how we understand reality can change over time the scientist likes intellectual flexibility. Unfortunately the general public confuses belief with truth. This means the general public likes people who fight for what they believe in even when those beliefs are completely inaccurate descriptions of reality. Scientists just aren’t comfortable with closing their minds like that. But because scientists are not comfortable with presenting a closed mind to the public they come across as weak willed nerds and wassies. This ultimately is why so few people take peak oil and global warming seriously enough to do something about them.

The Democratic Presidential Primary is Not a College Basketball Game

Last night Kansas beat Memphis for the NCAA Division One basketball championship. In this game Memphis lead by 9 points, 60-51, with 2:12 left. Kansas was able to close this gap because Memphis couldn’t make foul shots down the stretch. Tying the game as time ran out Kansas was able to win in overtime.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters want us to believe they are Kansas. Yes they are behind. Yes time is running out. But they are still within striking distance of winning. Why should they not be given the chance to win? Unfortunately for them they Democratic Party primary process is not a college basketball game. They simply cannot stage a comeback. At least not at a price either they or the party should be willing to pay.

If they had hit their foul shots Memphis would have won the game. If they had been able to trade baskets with Kansas Memphis would have won the game. Unfortunately for Hillary “trading baskets” is about all she can hope for down the stretch in the primary campaign. The proportional delegate allocation rules adopted by all the state Democratic parties insure this. Hillary simply cannot win big enough in the remaining primaries to make significant delegate gains on Obama. The system is set up to prevent this.

There is no way Hillary can prevent this outcome without hurting her chances in the general election campaign. She cannot afford to alienate Obama’s supporters. But in order to win the remaining primaries by margins large enough to gain on Obama’s delegate lead she must do exactly that. Showing she would make a better candidate or president simply is not going to be enough. She has to show Obama is another McGovern or Mondale, a candidate who has no hope of winning anywhere. Hillary can win only by destroying Obama as a presidential candidate. But his supporters are not likely to forgive her for doing this. So in destroying Obama she is destroying herself.

And this is one difference between the Democratic primaries and a college basketball game. Kansas doesn’t have to worry about the support Memphis fans give its team later on. Hillary does have to worry about the support Obama’s supporters will give her later on. In the general election Hillary will need his support and theirs. Yet she cannot get to the general election unless she does things certain to alienate both him and them. A “catch 22” situation boding no good for the future of Hillary’s campaign.

Furthermore the party needs to get on with the general election campaign as soon as possible. This is another difference between the Democratic primaries and a college basketball game. Extending the game by fouling ones opponent may very will give the trailing basketball team victory. It obviously worked for Kansas. But the Democrats need this campaign to be over so their candidate presumptive, Barack Obama, can take on the Republican’s candidate presumptive, John McCain. The party cannot afford to have this campaign extended simply because Hillary hopes to stage a comeback. I realize quitters never win and winners never quit. In sports this works quite well. But the Democrats need Hillary to quit so the party can get on with its main task, defeating the Republicans lead by John McCain.

Political pundits like sports analogies. Seeing the Democratic primary contest as an athletic contest is satisfying to them. Unfortunately it is not. To see it so is misleading. In this case it misleads people into believing Hillary should be given a change to comeback and win. It is difficult to see how she can stage a comeback and damaging to the party for her to do so. This is why so many people are urging her to quit.