Showing posts with label AEI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AEI. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

AEI China Vastly Understated Corana Virus Deaths

AEI Releases ‘Conservative’ Estimate Of China’s True Outbreak Numbers. It’s Staggering.










 The estimate found that China had at a minimum 2.9 million coronavirus cases “outside Hubei,” which is the province that Wuhan is located in. Scissors used travel data that was published with the approval of the Chinese Communist Party and then lowered those numbers even further just to give China the benefit of the doubt.
Scissors wrote:
A natural reaction to figures in the low millions: China is plainly lying but not by nearly that much, because the Communist Party cannot hide 2-3 million cases. Yes, it can. Flu illnesses in the US neared 20 million before the end of January—before COVID-19 was widespread here, with two months left of flu season, and at less than one-fourth China’s population. Chinese respiratory illnesses of all kinds could easily exceed 100 million, hiding 2.9 million COVID-19 cases. …
Mortality remains sadly unsettled, but China’s size would obscure even a high rate. Hubei’s COVID-19 mortality should be quite high, due to the obvious inability to prepare and being initially overwhelmed. It is 4.7 percent. If extended over the rest of China—which is thankfully an exaggeration—that would produce 136,000 deaths over what is now more than three months. In a typical three-month period in ex-Hubei China before COVID-19, nearly 2.5 million people died. Even that many deaths would be easily obscured.

 The Wall Street Journal article was about the new coronavirus outbreak that is happening in China and claims that China is again engaged in a cover-up that is going to hurt the rest of the world:

As the world struggles to contain the coronavirus outbreak without triggering a new Great Depression, China is withholding vital information that would save lives and significantly alleviate the economic catastrophe that now threatens to immiserate hundreds of millions of people around the world.
This isn’t the old coverup, when Communist Party bumbling and deceit allowed a local outbreak to turn into the worst global disaster in decades. The new coverup is even more brazen. China continues to falsify vital information about the epidemic on a massive scale.
In his concluding remarks, Scissors wrote: “It is the party’s intent that no estimate of Chines COVID-19 cases can be entirely convincing. Getting to 2.9 million cases starts with information offered by state media, uses the lowest available infection rate, applies days in circulation with a deliberately reduced figure to reflect a superior Chinese virus response, then stirs in the 1.39 billion people. Or you can believe that 1.2 million travelers from ground zero of a pandemic, some freely circulating for weeks, resulted in national contagion of a little over 15,000 cases.”
AEI’s “conservative estimation” reflects a similar estimate that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was reportedly given last month from a group of scientific advisers.
“Mr Johnson has been warned by scientific advisers that China’s officially declared statistics on the number of cases of coronavirus could be ‘downplayed by a factor of 15 to 40 times,’” The Daily Mail reported. “And [the British government] believes China is seeking to build its economic power during the pandemic with ‘predatory offers of help’ [to] countries around the world.’”
Bloomberg News reported at the start of the month that U.S. intelligence officials told President Donald Trump that China intentionally lied about its numbers and that they concluded that the numbers were “fake.”
An analysis from The Washington Post earlier this month stated:
The coronavirus pandemic ravaging the globe officially claimed 2,563 lives in Wuhan, where it began in a market that sold exotic animals for consumption. But evidence emerging from the city as it stirs from its two-month hibernation suggests the real death toll is exponentially higher. …
Using photos posted online, social media sleuths have estimated that Wuhan funeral homes had returned 3,500 urns a day since March 23. That would imply a death toll in Wuhan of about 42,000 — or 16 times the official number. Another widely shared calculation, based on Wuhan’s 84 furnaces running nonstop and each cremation taking an hour, put the death toll at 46,800.
Even officials from Iran, which is one of China’s allies, say that China’s numbers are a “bitter joke.”

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Paid Family and Medical Leave Cost Model - AEI

Paid Family and Medical Leave Cost Model

Ben Gitis of the American Action Forum developed the methods employed in this tool.
In recent years, policymakers from across the political spectrum have demonstrated interest in introducing a federal paid family and medical leave program. Proposals that would introduce a new federally financed benefit all face one common question: How much will it cost? Answering this question indicates how much funding the program will ultimately require, whether from new tax revenue or reductions in spending elsewhere in the federal budget.
This tool is intended to illuminate the budgetary cost of introducing a new federal paid family and medical leave program. Specifically, it highlights the impact of two separate yet likely interrelated factors on a program's costs: policy parameters and program use.
The tool enables users to set six distinct policy parameters when estimating the cost of a paid leave program. These parameters include type of leave covered (personal medical, parental, family care, or all three), the maximum duration of leave benefits available, wage-replacement rate, maximum weekly benefit, a work history requirement, and a waiting period. Each of these decisions influence the value of the leave benefit, the workers eligible for the benefit, or both.
The tool also enables users to set assumptions on program use. At the upper end, "FMLA Experience" assumes that program participation would mirror private-sector leave-taking patterns under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the only current federal policy that guarantees family and medical leave. At the lower end, "State Program Experience" incorporates assumptions that are more consistent with the experiences of existing state paid family and medical leave programs.
Specifically, "State Program Experience" incorporates two sets of assumptions that differ from "FMLA Experience." The first, "State Program Take-Up," assumes that not all workers who take family and medical leave would claim the benefit. For instance, it assumes that 50 percent of workers on personal medical leave and 90 percent of those on parental leave would claim the benefit. The second, "State Program Employer Response," assumes that 60 percent of workers who receive paid leave from their employers would use the employer benefit for their first four weeks of leave before claiming the federal benefit. In the tool, "State Program Take-Up" and "State Program Employer Response" illustrate how each set of assumptions individually influence the projected cost of a paid leave program.

For a more detailed examination of these methods, see Ben Gitis, Sarah Jane Glynn, and Jeffrey Hayes, "Comparisons of Methods for Cost Estimates of a Federal Paid Family and Medical Leave Program Using Public Data," American Enterprise Institute, September 7, 2018.
Data on family and medical leave taking come from the 2012 FMLA public use employee survey, https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/survey/.
Wage, hour, and employment data come from the Current Population Survey 2017 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, https://www.nber.org/data/current-population-survey-data.html.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

What comes next? A look at student borrowers in default


What comes next? A look at student borrowers in default



http://www.aei.org/events/what-comes-next-a-look-at-student-borrowers-in-default/

Facing Student Loan Default

Sunday, March 30, 2014

The new Marxism

The new Marxism

A prominent liberal economist contends capitalism will inevitably increase inequality.

James Pethokoukis | National Review Online

March 24, 2014

Article Highlights
    •    Thomas Piketty thinks the German progenitor of Communism basically got it right. Tweet This
    •    Piketty's arguement: Embedded within the very fabric of capitalism is a powerful force pushing in the direction of rising inequality. Tweet This
    •    Who will make the intellectual case for economic freedom today? Tweet This

‘Karl Marx wasn’t wrong, just early. Pretty much. Sorry, capitalism. #inequalityforevah”


When trying to condense a sweeping, 700-page analysis of the past, present, and possible future of capitalism into an 85-character tweet, you’re bound to miss a few things. But the above Twitter-fication of economist Thomas Piketty’s much-awaited Capital in the Twenty-First Century captures the gist of the author’s argument.

Piketty thinks the German progenitor of Communism basically got it right. It’s only that his essential insight — private capital accumulation inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth into ever-fewer hands — took a hiatus during the middle part of the last century thanks to depression and war hurting the fortunes of the well-to-do. But now Marxism’s fundamental truth is reasserting itself with a vengeance, a reality borne out in both Piketty’s own meticulously gathered data and in business pages replete with stories of skyrocketing wealth for the 0.001 percent and decades of flat wages for everyone else.

And it’s only going to get worse, Piketty concludes. Sure, the productive and innovative capacity of market capitalism will generate enough income growth for the masses to prevent revolution. He concedes Marx got that bit of apocalypticism wrong. But an “endless inegalitarian spiral” will create such wealth bifurcation that “the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based” will be undermined. The political process will be hopelessly captured by a tiny elite of rent seekers and trust-fund kids. America (and then the other advanced economies) will become what Occupy Wall Street types and Elizabeth Warren think it already is.

Piketty, a left-wing Frenchman who teaches at the Paris School of Economics, is hardly the only economist arguing inequality is headed inexorably higher. Tyler Cowen, a center-right economist and New York Times columnist, contends accelerating technological change will create an America where nearly all of us have stagnant incomes and serve as valets and massage therapists to the STEM-savvy and wealthy geek-ocracy.

Piketty is making a different and broader argument, one that intentionally rises to the level of grand theory: Embedded within the very fabric of capitalism is a powerful force pushing in the direction of rising inequality. The income generated from owning capital (everything from real estate to financial assets to intellectual property) tends to exceed the rate of economic growth. And when wealth grows faster than output — as it did in the 19th century when Marx was writing and as Piketty forecasts it will again in the 21st — inequality moves toward extreme levels since income from capital is outpacing wages from labor. When capital income gets reinvested, inherited wealth also grows faster than the economy. Even worse, from Piketty’s perspective: Not only will capital owners take more and more of national income, but more and more of labor income will go to a small group of “supermanagers” who rig the executive pay system in their favor.

“Will the world of 2050 or 2100,” Piketty asks, “be owned by traders, top managers, and the superrich, or will it belong to the oil producing countries or the Bank of China?” Actually, the answer doesn’t much matter. Whatever the exact makeup of this global plutocracy, democratic capitalism will be replaced by something more like Putin’s or Xi’s cronyist authoritarianism — unless populist progressive forces can implement a global wealth tax ASAP. And if that can’t happen right away, 80 percent top income-tax rates would be a solid first step.

Two observations:

 First, Piketty’s case, though well argued, is far from airtight. He makes a number of contestable assumptions, including

a) output will grow more slowly than the return on capital,

 b) the return on capital will stay high despite slower growth, and

c) skyrocketing corporate pay doesn’t much reflect how technology and globalization have enabled top executives to manage or perform on a larger scale.

Second, Piketty and fellow French economist and University of California, Berkeley, inequality researcher Emmanuel Saez are arguably the most important public intellectuals in the world today. Their research is driving the economic agenda pushed by Washington Democrats and promoted by the mainstream media. The soft Marxism in Capital, if unchallenged, will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future policy battles will be waged. We’ve seen this movie before.

John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek famously squared off in the 1930s, left versus right. But when Keynes published his revolutionary General Theory in 1936, Hayek went silent. It was a de facto retreat that helped give free rein to anti-market forces — even if that was not what Keynes intended — for decades until Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote A Monetary History of the United States in 1963 and energized the intellectual fight against statism.

Who will make the intellectual case for economic freedom today?

— James Pethokoukis, a columnist, blogs for the American Enterprise Institute.

Monday, January 6, 2014

To End America's Job Crisis





 

Here’s what the GOP should propose for ending America’s jobs crisis

010213employment




What does a data-driven, center-right economic agenda for the problems of the 2010s not the 1980s or 1990s look like? You know, like solutions for an economy with 4 million long-term unemployed and whose share of employed adults has barely budged from the recession lows? Well, that sort of pro-work agenda probably looks a lot like the one AEI’s Mike Strain outlines in the new, must-read issue of National Affairs.

Among Strain’s policy ideas (and I paraphrase): 1) taking advantage of low interest rates to spend money on high-return infrastructure projects; 2) with inflation quiescent, continued monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve; 3) rolling back oppressive occupation licensing requirements; 4) reforming the federal disability-benefit system; 5) admitting more high-skill immigrants; 6) giving unemployed workers a modest cash bonus when they secure employment; 7) paying jobless benefits monthly so workers who get a job at the beginning of a pay period could take in both unemployment compensation and a paycheck for that month; 8) temporarily reducing or eliminating the capital-gains tax on new business investment; 9) offer assistance to some long-term unemployed workers who want to start businesses; 10) relocation subsidies to the long-term unemployed to finance a good chunk of the costs of moving to a different part of the country with a better labor market; 11) significantly lowering the minimum wage for the long-term unemployed for at least the first six months after the date they begin work at their new job, and coupling that lower minimum with an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit or with wage subsidies exclusively available to the long-term unemployed; 12) greater work sharing where a company could cut hours by, say, 20% instead of 20% of workers and each worker could claim 20% of his unemployment benefit.
Strain sums up, beautifully:

Conservatism properly understood is deeply concerned about society’s vulnerable and about the health and functioning of society more broadly. … Our unemployment crisis is certainly an economic crisis. … But work is about much more than production, economic growth, and dollars and cents. Work harnesses our passions by channeling them to productive ends. Work gives us a sense of identity, a sense of purpose, and allows us to provide for those we love. Our unemployment crisis is therefore also a moral and spiritual crisis — a human crisis.

The solution to this crisis does not consist of massive short-term stimulus programs, industrial policy, cumbersome new bureaucracy, unnecessary regulation, and cronyist giveaways. Neither will the best solution be found in lower marginal income-tax rates, cuts in federal discretionary spending, and a balanced budget, whatever the benefits of such policies may be.

Instead, creative, genuinely conservative policies should be proposed and employed — policies that empower individuals, support their aspirations, increase their independence, help them to earn their own success, and promote virtue through work and personal responsibility.
010213employment

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

2014,s Real Economic Challenge


2014's real economic challenge
 
Creating good jobs and training Americans to get them — not snatching income from the 1 percent.


No, the worst economic idea of the year wasn’t Obamacare. First of all, that was the worst idea of 2010 (though it’s still around, so perhaps the Worst Economic Idea of the Year Award should just be renamed the Obamacare Award and given to the second-worst idea of each year). Second, the Affordable Care Act is just one policy manifestation of what really is the worst economic idea of the year: that America’s “defining challenge” — both morally and economically — is income inequality. So President Obama has declared, and it’s an opinion that seems almost universally shared by the American Left, including New York City’s incoming mayor.

It’s interesting to note all the economic problems that Obama apparently views as less important challenges than income inequality. Take, for instance, chronically weak economic growth. On average, the U.S. economy has grown by just 1 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, since 2000. Over those 14 years, the American economy has notched just six quarters of real GDP growth of 4 percent or higher, versus 18 quarters of such rapid growth in each of the two preceding decades (the 1980s and 1990s). And the president’s own economic team has declared, “in the 21st century, real GDP growth in the United States is likely to be permanently slower” than in the past.

Or how about the long emergency that is the U.S. labor market? If the share of adults with any sort of employment were back to pre–Great Recession levels, there would be 12 million more Americans with jobs. Just as bad, that employment rate hasn’t budged much from recession lows. And the jobs that have been created aren’t as good as the ones lost during the downturn, continuing a 20-year trend of recessions’ generating weak job recoveries. More than half of the jobs that vanished during the downturn were middle-income positions, and less than a quarter of the new ones are. Analysis by Goldman Sachs found that the “hollowing out in the middle is real” and “not unique to the post-crisis period.”

Another great candidate for America’s “defining challenge” would be dealing with the continued decline, particularly in working-class America, of intact families where children live with both biological parents. Researchers on the left and right have found that kids who grew up in such old-fashioned nuclear families fare better educationally, emotionally, and financially than those who did not. It’s pretty hard to ignore the crisis of family breakdown when talking about inequality, but that’s just what Obama is doing.

Obamacrats counter that these other problems are to a great degree caused by income inequality that stems from an unfair economic system, one rigged by the top 1 percent and their minions in Washington. And there is evidence that income inequality, at least between the very rich and the rest, has increased. After-tax income for the top 1 percent of households rose 201 percent from 1979 through 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office calculations, vs. 40 percent growth for the middle three-fifths of earners.

There is far less persuasive evidence, however, that higher top-end income inequality has slowed economic growth, pinched middle-class incomes, or reduced economic mobility from the bottom to the top. A focus on income inequality as a causal factor distracts from how technology and globalization are transforming the American economy — and boosting inequality. Those macro forces, according to economists Steven Kaplan and Joshua Rauh, have enabled highly talented and educated individuals to manage or perform on a larger scale, “applying their talent to greater pools of resources and reaching larger numbers of people, thus becoming more productive and higher paid.”

Supporting that conclusion is a study out this month from researchers Eric Hanushek, Guido Schwerdt, Simon Wiederhold, and Ludger Woessmann finding that the U.S. offers higher returns to skills than any other advanced economy. The problem, then, is that America is not producing enough workers with the skills to succeed in today’s globalized, information-driven economy. If Obama is looking for a “defining challenge” in 2014, rather than a political wedge issue, that just might be it.

— James Pethokoukis, a columnist, blogs for the American Enterprise Institute.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

America 3.0

America 3.0: The Coming Reinvention of America

Tuesday, August 20, 2013
 
America is currently in a painful transition period, but once it emerges, it will be more prosperous and free than ever before.
 
 

The United States of America is in crisis. The economy is supposedly in recovery, but it is the slowest and most painful economic rebound since the Great Depression. Unemployment is high and millions have dropped out of the workforce entirely. Many American families have suffered a collapse in their net worth since 2009. During the current administration, America’s debt has increased from ten trillion to sixteen trillion dollars. American businesses face a regulatory burden of well over a trillion dollars per year. Investment in start-up businesses is thwarted and innovation is far short of what it should be. The government is abusing its powers and attacking basic liberties.

All this bad news makes it easy to despair and to worry that the decline might just be permanent. But as bad as things are today — and they will likely get worse for some years to come — the future will be bright for the United States because we are, in fact, in a period of transformation, not decline.

  Transformation not Disintegration

America has already once made a change on the scale of that which is happening now. That was when it transformed itself from the rural and agrarian society of the founding era — which we call America 1.0 — to the urban and industrial society that peaked in the mid-20th century — which we call America 2.0. That earlier transition, from roughly 1860 to 1920, was more painful than most people think. Yet the transformed, industrial America became the wonder of the world.

The American political and economic regime now in crisis was built for the world of America 2.0. Today, we are in the midst of a dramatic transition to a new technological and political configuration — which we call America 3.0. Institutions that once looked permanent are cracking at the foundations. Technology will drive the transition, and the shape of future technology can only be known in broad outline.

Most importantly, the cultural foundation of America, based on its unique type of family life, will remain intact. This is the continuous thread linking each of the three “versions” of America. Our deeply rooted orientation toward personal and economic freedom will allow us to dismantle America 2.0 and build a better, freer, and more prosperous America 3.0 in its place.

American Exceptionalism: Based on the American Family

American exceptionalism is based on our family structure, which has the following characteristics.
  • Individuals freely select their own spouses. There are no arranged marriages and very few limitations on whom a person can marry; essentially, only marriage to close relatives is forbidden.
  • Women enjoy a high degree of freedom, autonomy, and equality.
  • Parents are free to give more or less financial assistance to different children, and they are not required to treat their children equally.
  • Grown children leave their parents’ homes, marry, form new households, and create new families of their own.
  • Extended families are weak. People have no right to help from relatives.
These things seem normal to Americans, but many cultures have dramatically different customs. For example, in some cultures extended families act as protective networks and their members have a duty of loyalty and assistance to one another.
As a result of our family structure, American culture has the following characteristics.
    • Americans Are Individualistic. The American family pushes Americans to be autonomous, self-reliant, and freedom-loving.
    • Americans Value Liberty. Americans expect to be on their own, choosing their own spouses, making their own way in the world, and managing their own affairs. 
    • Americans Are Non-Egalitarian. Americans have a comparatively low interest in economic equality. 
    • Americans Are Competitive. Americans generally consider an economy with winners and losers to be fair. They believe in a minimal safety net compared to other communities. 
    • Americans Are Enterprising. The family has been the engine of economic progress in America, creating America’s well-known “go-getting” and “hustling” spirit. 
    • Americans Are Mobile. Americans form their own families, acquire their own homes, and have always been willing to move to where the work is. 
    • Americans Volunteer. Because Americans do not have extended family networks, they have formed voluntary associations as the foundation of the economy and of civil society.  
    • Americans Have Middle-Class Values. Most Americans, whatever their actual wealth, consider themselves to be middle class, and they are interested in public order and safety for their families and property. 
    • Americans Have an Instrumental View of Government. They see the government as a tool to accomplish things that benefit them and protect the interests of the middle class.
These factors led to one of America’s greatest achievements: the creation of suburbia. A house that fits one family and provides some comfort and privacy is the heart of the American dream.

Where did these cultural patterns come from? The short answer: England. America inherited its family structure from its mother country. It has been a critical factor in many of the political, legal, economic, and cultural developments in England, and then in America, for 1,500 years. 

America 1.0, America 2.0

When English practices were transplanted to North America, the settlers simplified them into a versatile template to convert expanses of raw land into new, functioning, self-governing communities. Soon after their arrival, Americans were able to act as citizens, jurors, legislators, militiamen, congregation members, and entrepreneurs.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are justly famous, but the Founders also provided a clear legal framework for the division of North America into real estate parcels sufficient to support English-style families. As a result, in early America millions of ordinary people achieved a prosperous and self-sufficient life. This was America 1.0, a world of family farms, small businesses, small towns, and limited government.

The Civil War launched America into a new age: one of a modern industrial economy, big cities, big railroads, big factories, and big businesses employing thousands of workers. This was America 2.0.

Revolutionary changes swept through American life, providing benefits to many but also removing most Americans’ capacity to be self-sufficient. Middle-class American life came to mean getting a “good job.” Millions of Americans suffered severe hardship during the frequent economic panics and downturns. The Great Depression was the great turning point, leading to the New Deal and to a permanently larger role for the federal government. President Johnson’s Great Society and President Nixon’s expansion of the regulatory state further solidified the growth of government power. 

In recent years, American government has become increasingly dysfunctional and crushingly expensive. Moreover, it is failing to fulfill many of its most basic obligations. The America 2.0 template no longer fits and no longer works.

The Emergence of America 3.0

As the 2.0 state fails, we are seeing increasing awareness, urgency, and activism in response to a deepening crisis. The emerging America 3.0 will reverse several key characteristics of the 2.0 state: decentralization versus centralization; diversity and voluntarism rather than compulsion and uniformity; emergent solutions from markets and voluntary networks rather than top-down, elite-driven commands. Strong opposition to the rise of America 3.0 is inevitable, including heavy-handed, abusive, and authoritarian attempts to prop up the existing order. But this “doubling down” approach is doomed. It is incompatible with both the emerging technology and the underlying cultural framework that will predominate in America 3.0.

Political change is likely to lead to real policy change in the governance of America. The existing system is likely to be replaced by pro-growth laws and regulations that will lead to a vibrant and growing economy. A key theme of any such policy proposals will be a radical decentralization of power to increase the options of individuals, families, businesses, communities, and states to choose their own paths. Economic regulation and taxation will vary across jurisdictions, permitting Americans to select the regime they want to live under. Historically, this type of “regulatory arbitrage” has been a great force for freedom and prosperity.

A major first step for successful reform must be the creation of an open and accountable process to unwind current government obligations at all levels, with protection to the extent possible for older Americans who have relied on government promises. This “Big Haircut” will likely require a one time, across the board debt restructuring, accompanied with realistic measures to get entitlements under control and unleash American productivity. The danger lies in being too timid or too tardy, not in being too bold.

Similarly, structural reform should include a “peace treaty” in the culture wars. In the future, cultural norms will not be imposed on a nationwide basis and communities will be allowed genuine diversity in the way they govern themselves. This will allow true diversity and a full range of options, so that the 400 million Americans of tomorrow can pursue their happiness freely. This is what our Founders intended.

America 3.0’s reforms will come to pass in the coming years because they are consistent with the technological changes that are undermining the employment and manufacturing foundations of America 2.0, or what is left of it in the private sector. Just as 1.0 institutions no longer met the needs of the industrialized America of 1913, 2.0 solutions are failing the emerging 3.0 America today. America is fortunate to have deep-rooted social characteristics that are inherently compatible with the needs of the emerging 3.0 society.

A New Morning 

We guesstimate that by 2040, America 3.0 will be in full flower. The painful transition period will be over and 400 million Americans will be living in a prosperous and free society marked by rapid and exciting technological change. We anticipate many such changes, including:
  • Network technology will allow us to work anywhere, and with anyone, remotely. Individual- and family-scale businesses will be far more common and immensely more productive.
  • Driverless cars and other innovations in transportation will revolutionize how we travel and where we live and work, allowing us to disperse across the continent into exurban and semi-rural living.
  • 3D printing and related technologies will lead to an “internet of atoms” with localized and even in-home manufacturing. There will be a manufacturing renaissance in the United States and the factory floor will be everywhere.
  • Medical technology will transform health care, with great gains in health and longevity achieved through enhanced diagnostics, custom-tailored drugs, and fewer medical emergencies.
  • Education will be delivered through a variety of media and methods, and traditional brick and mortar schools will be far less important than they are today.
The foregoing are only a few, rather conservative, guesses about the future economy. Moore’s Law will remain in effect, allowing technologies we cannot even imagine today. We can only guess what productive breakthroughs lie a few decades before us, waiting to be awakened by the creative powers of the American people.

Without some sort of major shock, external or self-inflicted, an unreformed America might drift on for quite a while — certainly another 25 or 30 years — without facing and tackling the fundamental problems facing it. The institutions of America 2.0 can survive a while longer by borrowing irresponsibly, defaulting silently on creditors through inflation, squeezing taxpayers with more thorough intrusion and coercion, confiscating the private savings of Americans in the guise of “rescuing” them, eating our seed corn by confiscating medical facilities and running them down without proper reinvestment, and in general stripping and looting the country.

But the political and economic model we now live under cannot go on forever. Some shock may force reform. Let us hope disaster doesn’t strike before we can replace and rebuild our current rickety system. The best course would be for the American people to find the will and the leadership to build something better.

We will get through the painful transition to a new economic and technological age, as we have done before. And the bedrock of our freedom-loving and hard-working culture will remain, evolving but continuous, as it has for over a thousand years.

James C. Bennett is a writer and entrepreneur who has written extensively on technology, culture, and society. Michael J. Lotus writes as “Lexington Green” for the Chicago Boyz blog on history, politics, and books. He practices law in Chicago.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

What Bernansky Won't Tell You....


 

3 things Bernanke won’t mention at his press conference

  1. The risk of a recession if we taper too soon.
  2. The risk of deflation.
  3. What policy tools exist beyond quantitative easing or “QE”.
Bernanke has been rattling the markets with all his taper talk. The last thing the Fed wants is a Pavlovian response that every time the central banker talks, markets tank.

So Wednesday’s press conference likely will be about soothing the markets, providing clarity on the tapering timeline, and highlighting positive economic news, such as the recent jobs report.  (See Pethokoukis’ wet blanket on the job report).

Businesses, investors, and municipalities who care about what could happen to the economy once tapering begins will have to look elsewhere.

AEI scholars John Makin and Desmond Lachman discussed the possibilities of a recession, deflation, and costs of continuing QE in a conference call on June 26, 2013.  Below are their insights to supplement what you won’t hear today.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the Fed tapers. Do you think there’s a high risk of recession?
John Makin: Yes, I do. In my own mind, we still have fiscal drag from higher taxes and the sequester which isn’t fully phased in yet. So, if you step back and say, “Look, the economy can’t get past 1.9 to 2% growth and we’re tightening fiscal and monetary policy and the global economy is weak, why should the recovery accelerate and why should we grow at three percent?” On top of this, we would have higher interest rates, probably a threat to the housing recovery, and lower stock prices.
Desmond Lachman: If the Fed waits for the economy to be showing momentum for unemployment to be coming down with favorable conditions then the chances of tapering successfully without inducing a recession are heightened.

I would say that the risks of moving into recession are not high if we were to confine ourselves to looking at the US in isolation. My concern would be more the trouble you might be getting from Europe. We might get a shock of that sort for which we are not prepared.

So, my answer would be conditional, depending on what are the conditions prevailing at the time that the Fed starts tapering. And my expectation is that the Fed will only start tapering when it sees the economy having sufficient momentum and unemployment coming down. And I do not expect to see those conditions occurring anytime soon
How big of a risk is deflation?
John Makin: I think saying deflation, outright deflation, is a risk in the United States is perhaps pushing it a bit. But disinflation to year-over-year and price changes of below one percent brings us kind of into deflation scare territory.

I think it was odd that the Fed dismissed that notion by saying, “Well, these lower inflation rates we’ve seen are a temporary factor or related perhaps to a drop in medical costs and others.” I don’t see any evidence for that.

So, if I take the possibility that, you know, the dollar strength in the economy is slowing, interest rates are higher, that adds to the disinflation risk and will certainly compound the Fed’s problems if the economy slows.

Desmond Lachman: Not looking at the United States but looking in Europe, there’s clearly a risk of deflation. If you look at core inflation in Europe it has now come down to 1% and you’re getting actual deflation in places like Greece, where prices are now falling and that of course is hugely problematic.
 If you get deflation in Europe, it’s going to make it all but impossible for many of these highly indebted countries to get out of their debt problem. The deflation adds to the burden of the debt and that’s why it has to be very much regretted  that the ECB, at its last meeting, self-constrained not to do anything. So, this is really troubling in Europe.

There’s a real scare of deflation and at the same time, you’ve got an ECB that is highly constrained at least through October.
Is the cost of QE greater than the benefits?
John Makin: One of the costs of QE that has been put forward over the past several years has been that, well, we’re going to have higher inflation and we have lower inflation. I have a hard time with that problem. Then the other is, well, you know, when the bubble bursts, it’s only going to be worse the more we keep pushing it up.

It’s going to be difficult, but to say that is going to be painful to exit the accommodative policy, it doesn’t translate into the idea that, “Well, let’s do it when the US economy is slowing, the world economy is weak, and let’s see if the economy can stand higher interest rates and less wealth creation.”

I don’t follow that. I think the burden of proof is on those, you know, like Bullard and others on the FOMC who said, you know, terrible things are going to happen if the Fed continues this.

Desmond Lachman: I certainly agree with John that you don’t want to start the tapering right now. But the way I see it is there is a tension between when you want to exit and what you’re doing to asset pieces in general.

The longer that you keep pumping additional money in – the Fed is not doing it by itself, it’s got the Bank of Japan revving up and likely the Bank of England will join in later – that pushes asset prices up. So the further you push up those asset prices, when you do exit the bigger the danger that you’re going to have a nasty correction going forward.
There is a tension there. You want to get out of QE3 as soon as you can but you don’t want to do it if it’s really going to sink the economy because this is really your last shot that you’ve got to get the economy back on a good track.
Excerpts are taken from the AEI conference call, “Discussion on QE tapering and market turmoil,” featuring AEI scholars John Makin and Desmond Lachman on June 26.  If you would like to be included in future calls, please contact Abby McCloskey at abby.mccloskey@aei.org.

Want to learn more about QE? Here’s some beach reading:

Commentary:
The White House sends a wake-up call to the Fed, John Makin, July 9, 2013
QE undone, John Makin, July 1, 2013
How to predict the Fed, Steve Oliner, June 17, 2013
QE: A guide for the perplexed, Steve Oliner, May 29, 2013
Mr. Bernanke needs to be replaced, Desmond Lachman, June 20, 2013
AEI scholars react to FOMC statement, Abby McCloskey, June 20,2013
Oldie but goodie: QE in Theory–and Practice, Vincent Reinhart, March 09, 2011
Research:
Troubling taper talk from central banks, John Makin, June 26, 2013
The Fed can’t save the stock market again, John Makin, May 21, 2013

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

HHS FRAUD

The HHS mandate fraud exposed
            James C. Capretta | National Review Online
                                          July 03, 2013




 
Article Highlights
  
 •    The administration’s final rule requires insurers and third-party administrators to provide contraceptive products for free Tweet This

    •    There is no public-policy rationale for the HHS mandate- the products covered by it are already widely and readily available Tweet This

    •    The administration is imposing this requirement for entirely ideological reasons. Tweet This

For the past 18 months, as the battle over the “HHS mandate” — the requirement that all employers must include free contraception, sterilization procedures, and abortifacients in their health-insurance plans for workers — heated up, the Obama administration insisted, to courts and the general public alike, that it had a plan to make the political firestorm go away. An “accommodation” was being written, we were told, and it was so clever and imaginative that it could somehow satisfy both the religious sensibilities of employers objecting to the mandate and those who insist that our laws must provide for an absolute right to free contraception and other “reproductive” services through job-based insurance — with no exceptions.

Of course, it was never going to be possible to square this circle; something would have to give. The administration could either do what previous administrations would have done, which is to recognize the importance of providing ample space for those with religious sensibilities to follow their consciences without running afoul of the government’s laws and regulations, or it could ignore our nation’s history of religious tolerance and impose an inviolate “right to contraception” on every employer, religious objections notwithstanding.

But the administration insisted it did not have to choose, because of its clever “accommodation.” Some people even believed them, or at least said they did.

In its original form, the “accommodation” was supposed to create a “rider” policy, triggered whenever a qualified religious employer objected to providing the products and services required by the mandate. In these cases, the contract between the insurer and employer would make no reference to the objectionable products and services, but the insurer would be required to issue a separate insurance plan to all the employer’s workers providing coverage for the items supposedly excluded from the employer’s plan. A similar requirement was imposed on the companies — called “third-party administrators” — that process the claims for employers who self-insure. These companies are often not even insurance providers. No matter. The administration was going to force them to issue insurance products to perpetuate the fiction of religious tolerance.

Of course, this ruse did not satisfy those seriously objecting to the mandate, because it did not fundamentally change the moral equation. An employer objecting to the mandate would know in advance that sponsoring job-based insurance would necessarily trigger free coverage for the objectionable products and services in the form of the rider policy. That’s no different from directly providing for the coverage in the employer’s insurance contract itself. It also didn’t satisfy the insurers and the third-party administrators who objected to the idea because of the many administrative problems it would cause.

The administration’s final rule on the subject exposes the fraudulence of the entire “accommodation” exercise. In response to the concerns expressed by insurers, the rule drops the fig leaf of a separately issued insurance plan and instead simply requires insurers and third-party administrators to provide the items and products covered by the mandate for free to workers and their families, even if a religious employer elects to exclude those products and services from the insurance contract. In other words, these products and services are covered in every insurance plan sponsored by employers (with the exception of a narrowly drawn list of churches and houses of worship), whether or not it says so in the insurance contract. Amazingly, the administration asserts that this is an “accommodation” to take seriously.

Of course, the Obama administration never made a pretense of being sympathetic to the concerns of for-profit employers who object to the rule. They have no choice but to provide the coverage — in clearly visible ink — or pay the fines under Obamacare for not offering insurance to their workers.

As usual, the administration issued this rule when it hoped to generate the least media attention, on a Friday before a congressional recess. The irony — undoubtedly lost on the administration — is that this recess is devoted to the nation’s birth, which was motivated heavily by the pursuit of genuine religious toleration.

The fight is not over, and can still be won. Those opposed to the mandate are exercising their constitutional rights and are suing the administration. And there’s reason to believe the courts will ultimately defend and honor the religious-liberty traditions of this country in a way the administration would not.

Moreover, this issue can and should be contested in the political arena. There is no public-policy rationale for the HHS mandate, because the products and services covered by it are already widely and readily available, and heavily subsidized by the government for those with low incomes. The administration is imposing this requirement for entirely ideological reasons. The GOP should expose the zealotry that is at work here, which would then pave the way for undoing it through legislation or at the next available opportunity to rescind the rule.

— James C. Capretta is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a vi

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Hillary's Huma - Mrs. Wiener/Ms.Muslim Brotherhood

Huma’s Moonlighting? No Problem … Just Don’t Mention Her Crescent-lighting

Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On May 17, 2013 @ 4:32 pm In Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Well, well, well, the Huma Abedin controversy has finally hit the legacy media. Okay, okay — it’s not the Huma Abedin controversy, but it’s one Obama’s court stenographers apparently feel comfortable talking about.

It seems Ms. Abedin, accurately described by the New York Times as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s  ”longtime aide and confidante,” spent her last months at the State Department not really at the State Department. Despite maintaining her title as Secretary of State Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, she was permitted, upon returning to government service from maternity leave in mid-2012, to remain at home in New York with her newborn child and her husband, the disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner — he of the notorious Weiner all aTwitter photos. While the State Department was paying her $135,000 as a “special government employee,” Abedin was also permitted to moonlight as a “strategic consultant” for Teneo, a firm founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. (Teneo, the Times informs us, advises such firms as MF Global, the brokerage firm whose investors were broken by Jon Corzine — the former New Jersey governor and Obama campaign bundler.) In addition, Abedin found time in her busy “special government employee”  schedule to do consultant work for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation.

With that familiar Clinton flare, Abedin did not disclose her consultant income on government financial disclosure forms. According to the State Department, you see, her new “part-time” position as “special government employee” meant the usual disclosure requirements did not apply to her … notwithstanding that, the Atlantic Wire reports, Abedin continued to be referred to in official documents as deputy chief of staff to the United States secretary of state. The arrangement finally came to an end in March when Ms. Abedin officially left the State Department to head up Mrs. Clinton’s six-person “transition office” — i.e., the transition from secretary of state to what the tongue-in-cheeky Atlantic calls Mrs. Clinton’s “version of private life.”

Apparently not to the great delight of the Clintons, Weiner, as part of his effort to come back from his virtual sex scandal and maybe make a run for New York City mayor, decided to release the couple’s 2012 tax returns. They show that these dedicated public servants made just shy of a half-million dollars last year. Turns out Weiner’s been “consulting” too, but the couple is not saying how much of the haul comes from Abedin’s extracurricular activities while she was still on the government payroll.

This story is getting some attention — sure to be fleeting — from the reliably Clinton-adoring press and some “good government” types. But that has more to do with a potential Weiner political campaign than with the tangled web of government policy-making and Clinton cronies (like the Saudis and Qataris — multi-million dollar donors to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation who do mega-business with the State Department). There has to date been scant media interest in Abedin’s earlier part-time job.

As detailed previsously here at Ordered Liberty, Ms. Abedin began her long professional association with Mrs. Clinton in 1996, as an intern to the first lady in the Clinton White House. In the years that followed, she remained a Clinton staffer from the White House to the Senate, and eventually to the State Department. At the same time, she also served from 1996 through 2008 as assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a publication founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major financier of al Qaeda whose Islamic “charity,” the Rabita Trust, is a designated terrorist organization (on which Naseef colluded with Wael Hamza Jalaidan, an Osama bin Laden intimate who is one of al Qaeda’s founders).

Naseef is a former secretary general of the Muslim World League, which Osama bin Laden described as one of al Qaeda’s primary funding sources. In the late seventies, he retained Abedin’s parents to run his newly formed Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and edit its journal, which has been an Abedin family affair ever since. For seven years, Naseef overlapped with Huma Abedin at the journal, as a member of its advisory editorial board. He withdrew after 2003 — right around the time he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by the victims of the 9/11 atrocities (a suit from which he was dropped in 2010 because a court found it lacked jurisdiction over him). The journal is still edited by Ms. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin, who took over when Ms. Abedin’s father passed away. Both parents have had deep Muslim Brotherhood ties. In fact, Saleha Abedin runs an organization, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which is a part of the Union of Good — a major Hamas supporter and, yes, a designated terrorist organization run by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the top Muslim Brotherhood sharia jurist.

Somehow, Ms. Abedin’s consulting work at Naseef’s journal has been of considerably less interest to the media.

IMF Tells US to Kill Sequester, Surprised?

Why is the IMF telling the US to kill the sequester when tax hikes are
the bigger fiscal drag?


James Pethokoukis | June 14, 2013, 3:51 pm

The IMF is advising Washington to, among other things, kill the sequestration budget cuts in order to boost
economic growth:

 On the fiscal front, the deficit reduction in 2013 has been excessively rapid and ill-designed. In
particular, the automatic spending cuts (“sequester”) not only exert a heavy toll on growth in the
short term, but the indiscriminate reductions in education, science, and infrastructure spending
could also reduce medium-term potential growth. These cuts should be replaced with a back-loaded
mix of entitlement savings and new revenues, along the lines of the Administration’s budget
proposal. At the same time, the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the increase in high-end
marginal tax rates also imply some further drag on economic activity.

Except that a new study from the San Francisco Fed estimates while US budget policy will knock as much as one
percentage point a year from GDP growth over the next three years — 90% of the fiscal drag comes from higher
taxes.

So why isn’t the IMF talking about repealing the “super-cyclical” rise in taxes, everything from higher income tax
rates for high-income households to the recent expiry of temporary Social Security payroll tax cuts to new taxes
associated with Obamacare?

Anyway, the sequester is unlikely to continue in its current form for the next decade. The defense cuts, for one,
are way too deep. So, too, cuts in the government’s public investment budget. But the tax hikes shouldn’t get a
pass, especially since they were so ill-designed, as the IMF basically concedes when it sketches what smarter tax
reform might look like: a) fewer deduction and b) taxing consumption rather than investment:

New revenues could be raised through a fundamental tax reform which would simplify the tax code
and broaden the tax base through a reduction in exemptions and deductions, as well as through the
introduction of a carbon tax and a value added tax.

Tags:  Debt, Spending, Taxes

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Energy Bonanza

Walter Russell Mead on America’s revolutionary, energy bonanza

Walter Russell Mead weighs in with some profound insights on America’s huge, game-changing, job-creating, energy bonanza:
“Forget peak oil; forget the Middle East. The energy revolution of the 21st century isn’t about solar energy or wind power and the “scramble for oil” isn’t going to drive global politics. The energy abundance that helped propel the United States to global leadership in the 19th and 2oth centuries is back; if the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad.

By some estimates, the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined, and Canada may have even more than the United States. A GAO report released last May (pdf link can be found here) estimates that up to the equivalent of 3 trillion barrels of shale oil may lie in just one of the major potential US energy production sites. If half of this oil is recoverable, US reserves in this one deposit are roughly equal to the known reserves of the rest of the world combined.

Domestically, the energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream.

The energy revolution is first and foremost a revolution that affects jobs. We are in the very early stages, but since the financial crisis of 2008, fracking alone has created something like 600,000 new jobs in the United States, says the FT. Throw in more jobs in both extracting and refining the new energy wealth, and add the manufacturing and processing industries that will return to US shores to benefit from cheap, secure and abundant energy and feedstock, and it is clear that the energy revolution will be a jobs revolution.
These jobs pay well; for the first time in a generation we are looking at substantial growth of high-income jobs for skilled blue collar workers. Some of these jobs, especially with overtime, will pay in the six figures; most offer wages well above the national blue collar average.

Nature — or perhaps Nature’s God — seems to love mocking pundits. Just when the entire punditocracy, it sometimes seemed, had bought into the “American decline” meme, Europe collapsed and huge energy reserves were discovered underneath the United States. The “special providence” that observers have from time to time discerned in America’s progress through history doesn’t seem to be quite finished with us yet.

Getting the new oil and gas raises complicated technical and environmental issues, and it may take some time before the dust settles and we understand exactly what we are looking at here. And drilling is a notoriously uncertain business. The energy revolution may fall short of the full hopes it stirs up. Yet the rapid progress of extraction technology is making these unconventional reserves look more real and more ‘gettable’ all the time. Rather than coping gracefully with the consequences of inevitable decline, America’s job in the 21st century looks like handling its new set of opportunities wisely and well.”


Energy Revolution 2: A Post Post-American Post

Walter Russell Mead

Forget peak oil; forget the Middle East. The energy revolution of the 21st century isn’t about solar energy or wind power and the “scramble for oil” isn’t going to drive global politics. The energy abundance that helped propel the United States to global leadership in the 19th and 2oth centuries is back; if the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad.
By some estimates, the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined, and Canada may have even more than the United States. A GAO report released last May (pdf link can be found here) estimates that up to the equivalent of 3 trillion barrels of shale oil may lie in just one of the major potential US energy production sites. If half of this oil is recoverable, US reserves in this one deposit are roughly equal to the known reserves of the rest of the world combined.

Edward Luce, an FT writer usually more given to tracing America’s decline than to promoting its prospects, cites estimates that as early as 2020 the US may be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia.
So dramatic are America’s finds, analysts talk of the US turning into the world’s new Saudi Arabia by 2020, with up to 15m barrels a day of liquid energy production (against the desert kingdom’s 11m b/d this year). Most of the credit goes to private sector innovators, who took their cue from the high oil prices in the last decade to devise ways of tapping previously uneconomic underground reserves of “tight oil” and shale gas. And some of it is down to plain luck. Far from reaching its final frontier, America has discovered new ones under the ground.
Additionally, our natural gas reserves are so large that the US is likely to become a major exporter, and US domestic supplies for hydrocarbon fuels of all types appear to be safe and secure for the foreseeable future. North America as a whole has the potential to be a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades and even generations to come.

Since the 1970s, pessimism about America’s energy future has been one of the cornerstones on which the decline theorists erected their castles of doom; we are now entering a time when energy abundance will be an argument for continued American dynamism.
The energy revolution isn’t a magic wand that can make all America’s wishes come true, but it is a powerful wind in the sails of both America’s domestic economy and of its international goals. The United States isn’t the only big winner of the energy revolution — Canada, Israel and China among others will also make gains — but the likely consequences of the energy revolution for America’s global agenda are so large, that the chief effect of the revolution is likely to be its role in shoring up the foundations of the American-led world order.

I will look at the global consequences for geopolitics and the environment in some upcoming posts, but first things come first and I’d like to look at the domestic consequences of the boom before moving on to its impact on the world.

Domestically, the energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream.

The energy revolution is first and foremost a revolution that affects jobs. We are in the very early stages, but since the financial crisis of 2008, fracking alone has created something like 600,000 new jobs in the United States, says the FT. Throw in more jobs in both extracting and refining the new energy wealth, and add the manufacturing and processing industries that will return to US shores to benefit from cheap, secure and abundant energy and feedstock, and it is clear that the energy revolution will be a jobs revolution.

These jobs pay well; for the first time in a generation we are looking at substantial growth of high-income jobs for skilled blue collar workers. Some of these jobs, especially with overtime, will pay in the six figures; most offer wages well above the national blue collar average.

The boom has the potential to change the debate over immigration. The best blue collar jobs in the new oil and gas patches will demand workers with good English language skills and some technical background — good junior colleges and strong vocational high schools will prepare workers for these new jobs. Low skilled, non-English speaking workers will have a hard time competing for these jobs but will work instead in less well paid jobs servicing the energy sector and its workers. They will build houses for the oil workers to live in and staff the restaurants where they eat. As more blue collar native-born Americans see their living standards rise, it is likely that (legal) immigration will lose some of its political salience.

Towards A New Geography of Power?

There’s another advantage: these jobs will mostly be located away from the coasts. The hollowing out of Middle America has been one of the tragedies of the last generation. Looking at the depopulation of the northern Great Plains, planners began to speculate about returning large chunks of whole states to the wild: the “Buffalo Commons” idea that would have taken up to 20 million acres out of private hands. The buffalo will have to move over now for the oil rigs and the people who work them; North Dakota will not be reverting to the wild anytime soon.

But there are large oil and/or gas reserves in other downtrodden areas. Western New York State and much of Pennsylvania and Ohio appear to have commercial quantities of fossil fuel. The revival of the Rustbelt may be getting under way. And Dixie will not lose out: the US share of the Gulf of Mexico is now believed to have the potential to produce 2 to 3 million more barrels per day than the 1.2 million that it currently pumps.

Overall, the new energy geography points toward a revival of the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri river system as the axis of American growth. That’s likely among other things to be good for America’s political climate; the Midwest has traditionally been something of a swing region — less liberal than the coastal northeast and less aggressively conservative than Dixie. Middle Westerners have tended to be pragmatic optimists over time, and it would be interesting to see how a revival of this political tendency would work out in our politics today. In any case, we may be looking at a decline in the power of the northeast and (unless California embraces its inner tycoon and begins to exploit its own energy riches) the Pacific, while Dixie continues current rates of growth and the Middle West booms.
Energy frontiers tend to be individualistic places. Canada, where the oil boom is a few years ahead of the US, has shifted to the right as power and money flow from blue Ontario and Quebec to Alberta. Prosperous blue collar workers and aspiring oil tycoons are not generally the strongest supporters of expensive welfare states, and American greens are already feeling the political consequences of a newly energized hydrocarbon sector. They are also not very interested in subsidizing the fiscal problems of other states; should California’s woes worsen and the state come to Washington for more help, the energy rich states and their representatives are likely to take a hard, skeptical look at its requests.

Even so, the Middle West’s traditional moderation is going to soften the rough edges a bit; much of the oil is coming to places where people historically have valued community ties and concerned themselves about the well being of the less fortunate. This won’t be the second coming of Ayn Rand.

Heartland Economics

There are significant economic benefits in having all this prosperity in the heartland. North Dakota and Wyoming are states where shipping costs from China and Japan are high — but Chicago and St. Louis are much better placed to serve them. Put cheap and secure energy in the Middle West, and build large new cities and centers of economic demand in the neighborhood, and the energy revival in a few states will support general economic growth in many more.

The long term outlook for the dollar and even for the federal government’s accounts will also improve. Even quite recently people assessing the long term health of the United States pointed toward inexorably rising energy imports as an important drain on the balance of trade and on the health of the dollar. But oil imports are going to decline, and exports — especially of natural gas — will help offset them. The federal government is also going to be collecting taxes on the new energy production — and on all the incomes of the individuals and companies involved, directly or indirectly, in the new energy boom.

The United States will be a more attractive place for foreign investment. Building the infrastructure required to get the new energy industry up and running and to transport its products to the market offers some very profitable and secure investment opportunities. And with the US much less dependent on foreign oil (and with the foreign oil it does need coming largely from Canada), the US economy will be much less exposed to the risks associated with turmoil in the Middle East. That is the kind of thing investors look for: high growth in safe places.

Few places are going to look more secure in the 21st century than America between the Rockies and the Appalachians, between the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian frontier. Some of the world’s largest energy reserves will be sited next to the world’s most fertile crop land. Geopolitically, few places on earth are as secure from war; politically few can match its record of stable governance; legally, few offer as much protection for property rights and few have as long a record of offering foreign investors the equal protection of the law.

Avoiding the Pitfalls

Every silver lining has a cloud, and the energy bonanza isn’t all good. We will have to watch out, for example, that the hydrocarbon boost to the dollar doesn’t price American manufacturing goods out of world markets. Here we will need to look at Europe, and see how some countries — like Germany — responded in a more disciplined way through the years when the euro was high to reduce costs and improve quality so that German goods remained internationally competitive.

We will also have to work to keep the political classes from distributing the oil wealth to the rent-seekers. We don’t want to be either the Nigeria or the Russia of the new century, in which corrupt rent-seeking elites hijacked the political process and appropriated the lions’ share of the hydrocarbon wealth to themselves. Cheap, attractive subsidies for the masses, while the real wealth goes into the Swiss bank accounts of the well connected and the unscrupulous: that could very well happen here and there are plenty of people in leading positions in American life — in both parties — who stand willing and ready to sequester the loot.

But the first great wave of oil discoveries did not turn America into a corrupt petrostate when the oil discoveries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries made the US the world’s greatest producer of fossil fuels. One important reason that still holds true today is that the US economy was so diversified and so high tech (by the standards of the day) that the oil tsunami was only one part of a much larger story of innovation and development.

Innovation remains a big part of the American energy picture. The United States has very large reserves of these new fuels, but we are not alone on the planet in having this wealth. But America is getting to the energy revolution early because our oil companies and drillers were ahead of other people in developing the technologies that can bring the new resources on line. We don’t just happen — like the Saudis and others — to be sitting on incredibly large pools of oil which the skills of other people discover and pump out of the ground. We haven’t exactly made our own luck, but we’ve made the discoveries that enabled us to take advantage of it.

That spirit of innovation and the culture that supports it are the true sources of American wealth. That is how we found oil in the first place and built our first energy economy; it is what enables us to benefit from these additional reserves — and it is what will get us on to the next thing when the new energy sources begin to run dry.

Thankfully, the United States is not a Russia or a Nigeria. Our economy and our political system are strong enough and diverse enough to benefit from an energy boom without being overwhelmed by it. The energy boom will stimulate the development of new technologies and new products in the non-energy sectors and will likely to usher in an era of broad prosperity and social advance across many industries and regions rather than just in a few.

Nature — or perhaps Nature’s God — seems to love mocking pundits. Just when the entire punditocracy, it sometimes seemed, had bought into the “American decline” meme, Europe collapsed and huge energy reserves were discovered underneath the United States. The “special providence” that observers have from time to time discerned in America’s progress through history doesn’t seem to be quite finished with us yet.

Getting the new oil and gas raises complicated technical and environmental issues, and it may take some time before the dust settles and we understand exactly what we are looking at here. And drilling is a notoriously uncertain business. The energy revolution may fall short of the full hopes it stirs up. Yet the rapid progress of extraction technology is making these unconventional reserves look more real and more ‘gettable’ all the time. Rather than coping gracefully with the consequences of inevitable decline, America’s job in the 21st century looks like handling its new set of opportunities wisely and well.

Trillions of Barrels of Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah: GAO

May 13, 2012
By


DENVER – Trillions of barrels of potentially recoverable oil lies within the Green River Formation of Colorado and Utah, and perhaps as much or more than the current proven oil reserves for the entire world, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In it’s May 10 report “Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development” that covers testimony provided by Anu K. Mittal, Director of Natural Resources and Environment to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, the GAO updated a 2010 report, confirming that more than a trillion barrels of recoverable oil exist in the world’s largest oil shale deposits on Colorado’s Western Slope.
Mittal’s testimony began with the prospect of centuries of domestic energy production:
Increasing domestic oil production. Being able to tap the vast amounts of oil locked within U.S. oil shale formations could go a long way toward satisfying the nation’s future oil demands. The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves. [emphasis added] The thickest and richest oil shale within the Green River Formation exists in the Piceance Basin of northwest Colorado and the Uintah Basin of northeast Utah. Figure 1 shows where these prospective oil shale resources are located in Colorado and Utah.”
Mittal also concluded that socioeconomic benefits “could also yield important socioeconomic benefits, including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth, and increases in tax and royalty payments to federal and state governments for oil produced on their lands.”
The GAO testimony is careful to note the existing concern over “viable technologies” necessary to extract recoverable oil from the oil shale, as well as environmental concerns over water quantity and quality, impacts on air quality, and disruption to wildlife. Rapid socioeconomic development could falter just as quickly, as it has in the past, with an unpredictable “boom and bust” cycle.
The GAO’s best estimate of oil shale development is projected to occur at least 15-20 years from now, but notes that preparations to account for many of the environmental concerns—a factor, in part, for the longer time frame—should begin as soon as possible.
The GAO included recommendations directed at the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Geological Services, and the Department of Energy to develop baseline measurements and inter-agency collaboration frameworks to ensure that “potential opportunities for commercial development of large unconventional oil and gas resources, such as oil shale” be undertaken in such a way to so as to “be balanced with other potential technological, environmental and socioeconomic challenges.”

 

Paul Ryan Blasts O's" Govt. Does It All"

Pethokoukis
Paul Ryan rips Obama’s comment that ‘if you’ve got a business — you
didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen’
James Pethokoukis | July 16, 2012, 8:26 pm

It was Rep. Paul Ryan’s wife, Janna, who first saw — via Twitter — President Obama’s recent comments about
American entrepreneurs, that “if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
And the Wisconsin Republican — thought to be on Mitt Romney’s running-mate short list — couldn’t believe it. He
thought someone must “have been putting words in the president’s mouth.”

But Obama said it all. And Ryan absolutely tore into the president in a chat I had with him earlier today. Among
the highlights:

– “The idea that these entrepreneurs owe all their success to some government bureaucrat or some centralized
planner just defies reality.”

– “Every now and then, President Obama pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets
the veil slip from time to time.”

– “We believe in free communities and this is a statist attack on free communities.”

– “He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some
dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a
list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.”

– “As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a
statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of
the 20  century.”


– “Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want
government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and
do well and achieve their potential.”

– “He wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution.”

Now here are some longer excerpts:

Every now and then, he pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the
veil slip from time to time. … His straw man argument is this ridiculous caricature where he’s trying
to say if you want any security in life, you stick with me. If you go with these Republicans, they’re
going to feed you to the wolves because they believe in some Hobbesian state of nature, and it’s
one or the other which is complete bunk, absolutely ridiculous. But it seems to be the only way he
thinks he can make his case. He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these
crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is
basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his
failures.

His comments seem to derive from a naive vision of a government-centered society and a
government-directed economy. It stems from an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy
is government not the people. … It is antithetical to the American idea. We believe in free
communities, and this is a statist attack on free communities. … As all of his big government
spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of
government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of
the 20  century.

This is not a Bill Clinton Democrat. He’s got this very government-centric, old 20  century
collectivist philosophy which negates the American experiment which is people living in
communities, supporting one another, having government stick to its limits so it can do its job really
well … Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has
limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and
families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.

How does building roads and bridge justify Obamacare? If you like the GI Bill therefore we must go
along with socialized medicine. It’s a strange leap that he takes. … To me it’s the laziest form of a
debate to affix views to your opponent that they do not have so you can demonize them and defeat
them and win the debate by default

I think he believes America was on the right path until Reagan came along, and Reagan got us
going in the wrong direction. And and he wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the
entire Reagan revolution. … I think he sees himself as bringing about this wave of progressivism,
and the only thing stopping him are these meddling conservatives who believe in these founding
principles so he has to caricature them in the ugliest light possible to win the argument.