Competitive Enterprise Institute

I watched a short "debate" online at:
http://www.eande.tv/main/?date=013106&page=1
http://www.eande.tv/transcripts/?date=013106#transcript

The last speaker, Sam Kazman (of the Competitive Enterprise Institute), was especially blunt on his opinion and repulsion to any ideals of government interfering in markets, his example being that people largely accepted higher gas prices with Katrina hitting New Orleans, but it would have been very different if the government "decided" a future shortage would exist and applied an tried to control consumption to avoid it.

He ended with name calling, Duchess of Huffington, Arianna Huffington, and claims of aristocratic attitude, to suggest that freedoms of individuals should be limited in any way of consumption except limits provided by the markets.

Well, website was easy to find:
http://www.cei.org/ The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has grown into a $3,000,000 institution with a team of over 20 policy experts and other staff.

http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_Expert.cfm?Expert=45 Sam Kazman is general counsel of CEI and heads CEI’s Death By Regulation project. This project focuses on raising public awareness of the often hidden costs of government overregulation—the lives lost, for example, when the Food and Drug Administration delays new medical drugs and devices, or the human toll of downsizing cars to comply with energy-conservation mandates.

I suppose its fair to come forth publicly with an agenda of "free enterprise" is as good as any other view for a deserved voice.

Ah, "overregulation", certainly I accept the risks of "good intentions" going badly.

And I accept some of the premise of "wait for crises" to demand reaction, rather than continuous worrying over the future and wasting energy on "unneeded solutions" because situations changed.

Of course the SAME logic applies to retirement. Why worry about retirement? It's depressing to thing of dying, or being beyond my productive peak, where mere existence must suffice, and the best I can hope for is a little comfort before I die. Okay, people don't think that way if they do think of retirement, but ultimately worrying about saving TONS of money for retirement is a rather wasteful activity, since there's no well definable "needs" of an undefined future. We can try to "manage" the future, projecting costs and investment income and savings and have some security, but mostly this problem is solved by people "working hard now" and "expecting" the future to take care of itself. i.e. Wealth accumulated will be sufficient.

I certainly can be on the "over conservative" side. I might "overregulate" my spending in hopes of protecting my future. Certainly I do that by not owning a car, not having internet access at home, not going on expensive vacations, and throwing my extra income into a mortgage. Certainly there's consumption I perhaps deprive myself from unnecessarily. If I had a split personality, I might "rebel" against myself, and perhaps I do - measuring wealth by savings rather than budgeting and setting goals.

It is a terminally ill question for me - how does a "minority" convince a "majority" that it is in their best interest to pay more for energy now just because there seems a good chance we'll pay more later and should "get used to it" now and adjust.

And the point is well taken by me - crises are what allow action, so the best the government can do is secretly "prepare" for choices when crises come, and present them when the people will listen. A more devious approach is to manipulate perceptions of crises to justify earlier action than actual circumstances may demand.

The republicans seem pretty good at painting liberals as "elitists" trying to moderate consumption while they would apparently call their neoconservative lead international interventions like Iraq as feel-good macho-american superiority - kick some ass if you're into that, and build democracy if you're into good will.

Actually living within our means is NOT an issue. We're superior, and we'll take what we can get, and no one will stop us.

Well, unfortunately beliefs like that are what generate my own "American hatred", or at least I've very happy to have others, like the president of Venesuela challening the U.S. and even China as well, not that I'd like to live in either country, just that I thing the sooner we'll have to deal with our own unsustainable demands on the environment.

Until then, organizations like CEI can offer their happy analyses of utopian visions of free markets under unlimited cheap energy, resources, and unlimited economic growth, and there's really nothing to be done except wait for reality to prove their short sightedness.

And it's not like CEI created our problem. They merely want to profit from it. They don't want "solutions" that destroy their free lunches.

I'm not even trying to put down enterprise and taking risks for rewards. Obviously I wouldn't be here now without freedoms that encouraged this temporary wealth and freedom.

I'm just putting my bets on 2025. If CEI can keep their arguments another 20 years, I'll be impressed. They're still wrong in the long term, but I'll be impressed with humanity's ability to keep pushing the limits, and also likely more depressed about the ever steepening fall that must come.

So maybe I should "go religious" and put my hopes in the after life? At least then I wouldn't have to worry about greed finishing off our yet beautiful world.

Why keep savings in banks?

The question is raised by the 2005 Form 1099-INT I got from my credit union today.

A big $39.43 interest during 2005 for my savings account, average daily balance about $7100, and APR 0.55%.

At least banks NEVER charge negative interest rates, at least with large balances, but clearly there's little incentive "investment-wise" to keep any balance in a savings account.

I might as well keep it under my mattress, at least as far as benefit is concerned. At least then I have guaranteed access, while there's a minute chance that a fast economic depression could cause a run on the banks, and a federal government FDIC "promising" protection, but in reality, how fast will they print new money? Is a $40 "reward" worth my risk?

It is largely just a question of curiosity for me, only triggered by the ridiculously small interest rate. Perhaps I should MAX my Roth IRA contributions after all, assuming I really can take the principle out tax-free under an emergency. At least that has an interest rate that MIGHT barely beat inflation!

Still, I can ask other questions, like whether there's value in "keeping money OUT of the economy". What if MANY people hid their savings under their mattress?

I don't know and don't have time to imagine the answer. Obviously economists will say it's BAD for everyone. Certainly if I'm going to STASH cash, best to pick GOLD as a better hidden investment than paper. Gold might yet plummet in value (certainly from current highs), but overall it has some guarantees of value, while U.S. currency in the end is not much better than strong paper, which might someday yet be used in fireplaces when the government collapses and hyperinflation remaps its value into worthlessness.

Of course my savings in my credit union allows George down the street to finance his new car, and such, and we all like that sort of community spirit, right?

The whole thing for me of course, the reason I don't invest it, is because I like the security of having it available whenever I like. So given my "freedom" it makes sense that savings account interests will NOT be often even competitive with inflation. They are just convenient places that I probably can't get robbed from, and probably are safe.

I MOST like the thought of withdrawing my savings as a sort of act of "civil disobedience", since I disapprove of the excesses of our economy, I might withdraw my participation.

In reality beyond my savings security, I drop all my extra cash into my mortgage, and perhaps there's some hope of maintaining value there, certainly I'm saving in interest there, and someday will have ACTUAL savings to "invest" or "disobediently divest", while for now it's just virtual savings against my mortgage debt.

Okay silly thoughts all around. I at least believe in the "get out of debt" ideal for security, even on a relatively safe mortgage on an insured home. Someday I'll have some harder questions if I'm out of debt and still find "excess income" beyond my expenses.

Someday...

Oil company breaks record for quarterly corporate profits

Oh, you really have to laugh at articles with titles like this.
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/213692.html (S&T archives disappear after a week or so)

Politicians have to "seem" tough on those greedy oil companies for their record profits, but I just can't tell how much they believe their claims of price gouging.

Back in the 1970's the government controlled the oil shortage by limiting the price gasoline could be sold for. This was possible back then since still a good fraction of our oil came from the U.S.

What if we tried this again? What if we said gasoline can't be sold for more then $2.00/gallon? Well, I'm not an economist or anything, but I imagine companies that ONLY had a domestic market would dutifully respond as they could, while companies which could sell internationally would sell there, and domestic companies would soon find themselves with insufficient supplies to meet demands, but they would get what they could, and we'd be back to the gas lines of the 1970's and empty service stations.

The U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil, with less than 10% of the world's production and less than 2% of the world's reserves. What makes us think we're so special?

SURE, oil companies are making a killing. Maybe they've earned it, those who survived the "lean years" from 1985-2000.

Okay, I'm not really a free-marketer. I believe in government actions that moderate markets. Perhaps $35B profits ARE obscene. Who am I to say?

What should the government do? We have choices, not advocating any, I consider:
(1) Nationalize our remaining domestic supply - taking both public profits and costs along the way. (Maybe silly if we really only do have 2% of the world reserves)
(2) Accept high profits as-is, given they create REAL internal tax revenue in corportate profits and dividends of stockholders. (Possibly making dividend tax rate progressive?)
(3) Apply "record tax income" from oil companies towards expanded conservation programs.

Overall I just can't advocate anything that reduces energy costs KNOWING that costs will increase further and higher costs are the signals needed to conserve and diversify our economy away from fossil fuels.

It would be GREAT if some policitians had the GUTS to say the way it is on oil profits. (1) Better domestic profits than OPEC (2) Higher prices are good (3) Conservation is the real untapped agenda item we must face if we want a future we can believe in.

Ah, well, at least I don't have a car! :)

Egalitarian poverty

A report came out showing an increased "wage gap" from the "top 20%" and those lower.

Inequality is growing in all parts of the country," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, which conducted the study along with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Found URL: http://www.epinet.org/

No real time to coment but I am curious about the bigger trend than recent globalization towards likely relocatization in the future as fossil fuels begin to fail to keep up with world demand and prices continue sky-rocketing.

Cheap energy seems to me to be the primary mover that has "raised all boats". A good analysis would not compare wealth to 50 years ago in the peak of U.S. power but perhaps better to 150 years ago, even if the U.S. may be too young for that analysis, but even so, how about Europe faired then under the industrial revolution. Maybe there's no backwards-vision that can enlighten our future post-industrial age when energy can't play the role its played to bring us here.

Still, it makes sense that declining resources will as likely as not continue increasing the "wage gap". Democracy works at least partly because a wide variety of people can participate, but as times get tougher, those with money will simply continue more influence and will reflect their vision of necessity over those with less wealth, and so we'd have to expect a "powerdown" stage of culture will be either lead by the wealthy into carefully maintaining their positions, or into chaos of revolution where the wealthy will just retreat to other locations that will appreciate them better.

What will happen in Saudi Arabia when the oil starts to run dry? How many prices can they support? Even without declines, they are a doomed land, and any intelligent "prince" must be looking to make investments all around, for places to bring their families if revolution or great-downturn occurs.

If we want to evaluate the U.S. wage disparity, how about Saudi Arabia? Maybe they don't have 20% royalty, but whatever it is, it must look grim from the middle looking up.

I am probably an elitist myself, recognizing that "freedom" is a luxury only of a growing society, one which is always generating new wealth to those who work hard and are smart enough to take what they can get.

I can't imagine "freedom" can be a "democratic" principle in a contracting society, one where everyone knows however hard today is, tomorrow will be harder. I suppose it'll be a long time before such realization is admitted by the masses, but any sort of contraction of opportunities and necessary expectations will cause instability, and some sort of tension between those who "have enough" who want law and order and those who "have too little" and are willing to fight.

Maybe the "lottery" is a good example. People would rather invest $1 in a 1:100,000,000 odds than $1 in a 1:10 odds, even both return only half as much as the odds demand fairly back.

Society works because there's surplus generated that can be invested in the hands of the minority for the good of the majority. Well, something like that.

Who would build the power plants if everyone is living on the poverty line? Who would invest in the future?

I can play a noble republican upon request, even if I'm not really smart enough to stay very long on the self-rightousness of meritocracy.

Still, a socialistic government must be foolish to act upon the "fairness" belief that allows the top 1% to pay in 80% taxes, or whatever. If you "use" wealthy people, you will "lose" their interest in their own desires to invest in the system that lifted them.

I can imagine wealthy people seriously considering "their needs" as greater than "the masses" who would just squander direct charity. Wealth isn't a treasure chest - it is a vision of investment that creates new wealth.

Well, then I come back to the old oil thing - what is wealth REALLY IS a TREASURE CHEST? What if it exists as an inheritence we've been spending as fast as we can?

I think the "concentration" of resources is still valuable in times of scarcity. I'm just not sure who is most able to make good use of this concentration. People with wealth might be those most able to invest it in a future that benefits everyone, OR they may just invest in their own security to keep their position on top. I certainly don't trust "government" necessarily much more, at least above the level of community and personal representation.

So I guess I do see the future's wealth disparity must change, hopefully cooperatively, although I have my doubts. It'd probably take a full generation to weed out those confuses as to our needs.

So I'll pick 2010-2040 as the "transition period" of wide scale chaos and uncertainty as everyone tries to figure out which expectations are real and worth fighting for. If we've not ironed things out by 2040, then I expect the world will be a grim grim place.

Peter Hutchinson for Governor

Independence party candidate, Peter Hutchinson, officially declared his candidacy for Minnesota Governor this morning.
http://www.openupmn.com/

It is interesting to read the GOP and DFL opinions on his running, and publicly it seems they are hopeful he'll be a spoiler for the other major party. Tim Penny got 16% of the vote in 2002, and blocked a majority victory for the winner Tim Pawlenty, but it seems likely he didn't change the winner with Roger Moe a fairly distant second.

I would accept the opinion that 3-way races generally support the incumbent, splitting his opposition, even if there can be some protest votes against the incumbent as well.

If I had my way, we'd have a top-two primary in September (or October if you like), and that would allow voters to make a real decision on our choices, rather than being forced into artificially limited choices of a party primary followed by spoiler fears in the general election.

Being we can't have this, can't all vote freely for fear of our least liked candidate winning by minority support, all we have is to hope OUR candidate is the one who benefits from a plurality victory, like Jesse Ventura in 1998.

The Greens can be seen as legitimate spoilers for the Democrats, and perhaps the Libertarians can be spoilers for the republicans, but I think the Independence party is capable of benefitting from an imagine of "the middle way" and seek to gain respect and recognition from all sides as freeing ourselves to facing real issues that make a difference over polarizing word games.

Well, I can hope. I can support Hutchinson, but hope the democrats can also put forth a bold candidates or two as well. The republicans must raly around their leader, so we'll just have to feel sorry for them.

It'll be interesting, and this is a happy day!

McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil

Ah, such fun headlines, as oil prices rise back approaching $70/bbl.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_oil

We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.

Hmmm... Of course McCain is a smart man and knows that energy independence from foreign oil is a nonstarter - a ever decreasing domestic supply of oil and ever increasing demand for oil and the largest oil consumer in the world isn't going to trade in our gasoline powered cars any time soon. AND even if we had a huge investment in nuclear power, that generates electricity that's not going to power a smallest fraction of our travel for a long time. In short, LONG term solutions are GOOD, but don't help in our short term demand.

You would think if people are AFRAID, they might be willing to accept a little sacrifice in exchange for a portional increase in security. So at least McCain is right to voice the fears, even if the solutions are yet politically unviable.

I'm convinced that we are on track for disaster and no real political will for reform. Political will for me means legislation that intends to immediately start meaningful actions in conservation.

This can START by enacting a restoration of a 55mph speed limit. Second we can make it long term policy to raise gasoline taxes towards European levels around $3-4/gallon in the next say 5 years. If I'm a business leader making financial decision, I'm going to make different decisions I must assume my transportation costs WILL go up. We need leadership being willing to not only admit a problem, but admit higher costs are a necessity for alternatives to be competitive.

It would be nice to have a third point, and I could go further with some ideas but until we get the first two, I see no point. Make driving LESS convenient and MORE expensive. Politicians can't admit such goals, but I'm not running for nothing, so I can be truthful. We pay now, or pay later.

The U.S. should be afraid of world oil prices, but WE are part of the problem. We are 25% of the world's consumer, and 2% of the world's supply. That's a problem. That's OUR problem.

To say "democracy" is the answer to the world's conflicts is crazy. How can you have a world where wealth is controls by the few, where money oils all relations such that the only democracy is for people fortunate enough to not have vast resources the world is currently trying to exploit.

If I lived in Saudi Arabia, I'd be doing all I can to LEAVE and find a land where my government actually has to tax WORK to get money. Such places have a CHANCE for democracy.

I hope McCain continues his expressions. I hope he's got some "bigger ideas" than throwing money at nuclear. I'm sure it will happen because we'll get desparate, but I hope we can do a little more too in conservation.