Wednesday, November 25, 2009

WORLD VIEW TODAY

Stocks, Commodities Gain as Dollar Slumps on Economic Optimism

By Michael P. Regan and Mark Gilbert

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Stocks and commodities advanced, while the dollar approached a 14-year low against the yen, as reports on home sales, jobless claims and consumer confidence spurred optimism that the economic recovery is strengthening.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index added 0.2 percent to 1,107.79 at 10:31 a.m. in New York. Gold climbed to a record on demand for a store of value as the dollar weakened against 15 of 16 major currencies and broke 88 versus the yen for the first time since January, when it slid to the weakest since 1995.

U.S. reports today showed weekly jobless claims slid to the lowest level since September 2008, while home sales, consumer confidence and personal spending topped estimates. The Federal Reserve yesterday raised its forecast for 2010 U.S. growth to a range of 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, from 2.1 percent to 3.3 percent, and signaled it will tolerate a weaker U.S. dollar.

“The U.S. is our planet’s greatest consuming nation, so a healthy U.S. economy, a healthy U.S. consumer is a strong symptom of improving global demand,” said Lawrence Creatura, a Rochester, New York-based money manager at Federated Investors Inc., which oversees $390 billion. “You’re seeing equity markets respond to that globally, as well as commodity markets.”

Europe Gains

The Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index of European shares added 0.1 percent as raw-material producers climbed with metals. BHP Billiton Ltd., the world’s largest mining company, advanced 2.3 percent in London.

France Telecom SA gained 1.7 percent in Paris. Europe’s third-biggest phone company will merge its Orange Switzerland unit with TDC A/S’s Sunrise Communications SA division to expand in Switzerland and pay 1.5 billion euros ($2.25 billion) for a majority stake.

Equities pared gains after Dubai World, the government- owned holding company struggling with $59 billion of liabilities, said it is seeking to delay repayment on all of its debt, even after Abu Dhabi banks provided $5 billion for Dubai’s support fund.

The MSCI Asia Pacific Index added 1.3 percent. Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., the maker of Subaru cars, rose 5.3 percent in Tokyo after the exports data.

Commerce Department reports showed consumer spending increased 0.7 percent last month, beating the median estimate of 0.5 percent from economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, and new home sales increased 6.2 percent. Separate data from the Labor Department indicted that the number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to 466,000 last week. The Reuters/University of Michigan final index of consumer sentiment was 67.4, higher than the 67 forecast by economists.

Treasuries were little changed before the government’s $32 billion Auction of seven-year notes.

‘Excessive Speculation’

Fed officials are concerned that record-low interest rates might fuel “excessive” speculation in financial markets and possibly dislodge expectations for low inflation, according to minutes of their Nov. 3-4 meeting published yesterday. The European Central Bank is debating whether to modify the loans it makes available as it starts to scale back support for the region’s banks.

Australian central bank Deputy Governor Ric Battellino said the economy has entered a “new upswing,” while the U.K. reported that gross domestic product shrank less than forecast.

Vietnam’s central bank devalued its currency and raised interest rates to rein in inflation and a widening trade deficit that’s eroding confidence in the dong.

Vietnam Devalues

The State Bank of Vietnam lowered the reference rate 5.2 percent to 17,961 against the dollar, after the gap between spot and black-market rates widened to the most in a decade. Policy makers narrowed the dong’s daily trading band to 3 percent, from 5 percent, effective tomorrow.

Emerging-market bond yields fell 4 basis points relative to U.S. Treasury notes, pushing JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s benchmark Emerging Markets Bond EMBI+ Index of total returns to a record high of 496. The index measures the average return on emerging- market international bonds since December 1993.

The MSCI Emerging-Markets Index of equities gained 0.4 percent. South Africa’s rand climbed 1.4 percent against the dollar, leading gains in developing-nation currencies. The Australian dollar climbed 0.7 percent against the U.S. currency.

The falling dollar sent gold to record highs in New York, London and Shanghai, helped by a report in the Financial Chronicle newspaper that India may purchase more bullion for its central bank reserves. Three-month lead gained 1.6 percent to $2,370 a metric ton on the London Metal Exchange, and copper advanced 0.5 percent.

Soybeans for January delivery climbed for a second day in Chicago, rising 0.8 percent to $10.54 a bushel, on speculation demand will increase in China, the world’s biggest oilseed importer. Wheat for March delivery climbed 11.75 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $5.65 a bushel, rebounding from a five-day, 7.2 percent retreat.

Sales of New Homes in U.S. Rise to Highest Since 2008 (Update1)

By Shobhana Chandra

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Purchases of new homes in the U.S. rebounded more than anticipated in October as buyers rushed to take advantage of a government tax credit before it expired.

Sales rose 6.2 percent to an annual pace of 430,000, the highest level since September 2008, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. The median sales price fell 0.5 percent and the number of unsold homes reached a four-decade low.

Rising demand shows the administration’s incentive for first-time buyers, which earlier this month was extended into next year and expanded to include current owners, may help housing recover from the worst slump since the Great Depression. Home values may remain under pressure as builders are forced to compete with mounting foreclosures as unemployment climbs.

“We are getting some help from the Federal Reserve in terms of low rates, lower prices and of course the tax credit,” said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics LLC in Pepper Pike, Ohio. “People are coming off the fence and getting into the market. We have seen a bottom. I’m pretty confident that the turn in the housing industry is behind us.”

Sales were projected to climb to a 404,000 annual pace from an originally reported 402,000 rate in September, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 75 economists. Forecasts ranged from 350,000 to 425,000. The government revised September’s reading up to 405,000. Commerce Department also said.

U.S. stocks rose after the report. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index increased 0.2 percent to 1107.66 at 10:36 a.m. in New York.

Sales in the South

The entire increase in sales was in the South, while the other three U.S. regions registered a decline.

“The South is the largest region by size, accounting for over 50 percent of new home sales, so that the gain is still significant, even though a broader improvement would have been more favorable,” Ryan Wang, an economist at HSBC Securities USA Inc. in New York, said in a note to clients.

The median price of a new home in the U.S. decreased to $212,200, from $213,200 a year earlier.

Sales of new homes were up 5.1 percent from October 2008, the first year-over-year gain since November 2005.

Inventories dropped. The number of homes for sale fell to a seasonally adjusted 239,000, the fewest since May 1971. The supply of homes at the current sales rate decreased to 6.7 months’ worth, the lowest level since December 2006.

Timely Indicator

While accounting for less than 10 percent of the housing market, new-home purchases are considered a timelier indicator because they are based on contract signings. Sales of previously owned homes, which make up the remainder, are compiled from closings and reflect contracts signed weeks or months earlier.

President Barack Obama this month extended the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers until April 30 from Nov. 30, and expanded it to include some current homeowners.

Borrowing costs may stay low as Fed policy makers have signaled they will hold the benchmark interest rate near zero for an extended period.

“The housing sector continued to recover, on balance,” central bankers said in minutes of the Nov. 3-4 meeting released yesterday.

Lower rates and stimulus efforts are reviving demand. Existing home sales jumped in October to the highest level since February 2007, the National Association of Realtors reported this week.

Tax Credit

The timing of the tax incentive’s extension indicates existing home purchases may jump again this month, decline in December and early 2010, before picking up again, the Realtors group said this week.

The erosion in prices is also abating, the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index showed yesterday. Home prices in 20 cities rose in September from the prior month, the fourth straight gain. Compared with September 2008, the gauge had the smallest year- over-year decline since the end of 2007.

The labor market needs to turn around to ensure a sustained rebound in housing, according to economists. The unemployment rate, which rose to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent last month, will exceed 10 percent through the first half of 2010, a Bloomberg survey showed.

Foreclosure filings surpassed 300,000 for an eighth straight month in October as rising joblessness made it tougher for homeowners to pay bills, according to RealtyTrac Inc. data.

Home Improvement

Companies seeing signs of stability include Home Depot Inc., the largest U.S. home-improvement retailer. The Atlanta- based company’s third-quarter profit beat the average estimate of analysts as it slashed costs, and the chain gained market share.

Home Depot “continued to see signs of stabilization in the markets that were hardest hit by the housing crisis,” Chief Executive Officer Frank Blake said on a conference call with analysts on Nov. 17. “Despite this positive momentum, caution is appropriate.”

Eminent Domain Abused

Happy Franksgiving

Happy Franksgiving

How FDR tried, and failed, to change a national holiday.

Last I checked, Thanksgiving is still scheduled to take place tomorrow. The economic news may be gloomy, but unlike President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, President Barack Obama has not tinkered with the date of the holiday.

In 1939, FDR decided to move Thanksgiving Day forward by a week. Rather than take place on its traditional date, the last Thursday of November, he decreed that the annual holiday would instead be celebrated a week earlier.

The reason was economic. There were five Thursdays in November that year, which meant that Thanksgiving would fall on the 30th. That left just 20 shopping days till Christmas. By moving the holiday up a week to Nov. 23, the president hoped to give the economy a lift by allowing shoppers more time to make their purchases and—so his theory went—spend more money.

Roosevelt made his decision in part on advice from Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins, who was in turn influenced by Lew Hahn, general manager of the Retail Dry Goods Association. Hahn had warned Hopkins that the late Thanksgiving, Nov. 30, might have an "adverse effect" on the sale of "holiday goods."

In an informal news conference in August announcing his decision, FDR offered a little tutorial on the history of the holiday. Thanksgiving was not a national holiday, he noted, meaning that it was not set by federal law. According to custom, it was up to the president to pick the date every year.

It was not until 1863, when Abraham Lincoln ordered Thanksgiving to be celebrated on the last Thursday in November, that that date became generally accepted, Roosevelt explained. To make sure that reporters got his point, he added that there was nothing sacred about the date.

Nothing sacred? Roosevelt might as well have commanded that roast beef henceforth would replace turkey as the star of the holiday meal, or that cranberries would be banned from the Thanksgiving table. The president badly misread public opinion. His announcement was front-page news the next day, and the public outcry was swift and loud.

First to complain was Plymouth, Mass., home of the Pilgrims and location of the first Thanksgiving in 1621. "Plymouth and Thanksgiving are almost synonymous," intoned the chairman of the town's board of selectmen, "and merchants or no merchants I can't see any reason for changing it."

College football coaches also objected. The United Press news service noted mildly that coaches would find the date change "a considerable headache." The Associated Press predicted that the Roosevelt plan would "kick up more clamor than a hot halfback running the wrong way." By 1939 Thanksgiving football had become a national tradition. Many colleges ended their football seasons with Thanksgiving Day games, a custom that dated back to the 19th century. In Democratic Arkansas, the football coach of Little Ouachita College threatened: "We'll vote the Republican ticket if he interferes with our football."

FDR's proclamation of the date of Thanksgiving had the force of law only in the District of Columbia and the territories of Hawaii and Alaska. A few states mandated that Thanksgiving be marked on the date set by the president, but in most states governors issued pro forma ratifications of the date the president proclaimed.

Now, however, the celebration became a political hot potato. Governors had to read public opinion, examine the local business climate, consider political loyalties, and decide which date to select as the official Thanksgiving.

Do they stick with tradition and celebrate Thanksgiving on Nov. 30, or follow FDR's lead and change the date to Nov. 23? It wasn't long before people started referring to Nov. 30 as the "Republican Thanksgiving" and Nov. 23 as the "Democratic Thanksgiving" or "Franksgiving."

Public sentiment ran heavily against Roosevelt's plan. Ten days after the president's announcement, Gallup published the results of a national poll finding that 62% of Americans surveyed disapproved of the date change. By the time November arrived, the 48 states were nearly evenly divided. Twenty-three decided to stick with the old Thanksgiving, and 22 decided to adopt FDR's date—Texas, Mississippi and Colorado said they would celebrate on both days.

For the next two years, Roosevelt continued to move up the date of Thanksgiving, and more states resigned themselves to celebrating early. By 1941, however, the facts turned against Roosevelt.

By then, retailers had two years of experience with the early Thanksgiving, and data were available regarding the 1939 and 1940 Christmas shopping seasons. In mid-March 1941, The Wall Street Journal reported the results of a survey done in New York City. The Journal's headline put it succinctly: "Early Thanksgiving Not Worth Extra Turkey or Doll." Only 37% of stores surveyed favored the early date. In Washington, the federal government reported that the early Thanksgiving resulted in no boost to retail sales.

And so, on May 20, 1941, FDR called a press conference at the White House and announced that he was changing Thanksgiving Day back to its traditional date. The early Thanksgiving had been an "experiment," he said, and the experiment failed. It was too late to move the 1941 Thanksgiving back to the traditional date, but in 1942 Thanksgiving would revert to the last Thursday of the month. This was "the first time any New Deal experiment was voluntarily abandoned," a Washington Post columnist wrote.

Thankfully, there is a happy ending to this tale of Washington folly: On Dec. 26, 1941, Roosevelt signed a joint resolution passed by Congress making Thanksgiving a national holiday and mandating that it be celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November.

Ms. Kirkpatrick is a former deputy editor of the Journal's editorial page.

Finding the Right Fix for 'Too Big to Fail'
Despite its fumbles, the Federal Reserve is crucial to a better regulatory regime.

By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

In the grip of our Great Recession, with more job losses to come, we have yet to fix the broken financial system that is an underlying cause of this whole mess. The long history of financial panics wrecking American lives had led to what we thought was a tight regulatory system. But the system did not keep pace with fast-moving changes in the financial industry.

It is true that the Federal Reserve, perched at the top of the financial system, is blamed for creating the orgy of debt by failing to see the dangers in the rapid growth of securitization and derivatives, and for maintaining the federal-funds rate at a very low 1% in 2003-2004. Critically, while the regulators looked to their conventional issues of the safety and soundness of individual institutions, no one was responsible for protecting the entire system from the ricochets of interconnected risks.

It is also true that the wisdom that led to the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from investment banking during the Great Depression, was discarded. In 1999, President Bill Clinton and Congress revoked the act, thereby accelerating financial consolidation through mergers and acquisitions. So we got huge firms whose failure would bring down the whole house of cards. The too-big-to-fail phenomenon led to bailouts with taxpayer money, provoking a deep-seated public anger that has been further aggravated by the recent pile of executive bonuses.

The too-big-to-fail firms, in short, lie at the heart of the current crisis. Some are now even bigger, in part because the government had to sponsor and support several mergers that made them larger. The presumption was that big meant diversified and sophisticated and, therefore, less risky. That presumption proved false.

The dangers posed by a too-big-to-fail financial firm surely must be dealt with by new legislation, and one change needed is that the price large banks pay for the privilege of size should be significantly increased. If they benefit from explicit or implicit protection from the government, they should not be able to ride free on the backs of taxpayers.

Their risk of failure should be reduced one of two ways: by increasing capital requirements or by providing the option for the banks to be smaller or less systemic. This can be done either by narrowing what businesses they can be in or by making them less interconnected. In the worst-case scenario, the final backstop has to be bankruptcy or dissolution through a series of well-ordered procedures that do not imperil the whole economy or adversely affect our market-based system of credit.

Some also suggest that we go back to Glass-Steagall, and once again separate investment from commercial banks. This could keep the banks at least shielded from Wall Street's wild ways—but it does not deal with the financial consequences of the failure of giant investment banks or other financial institutions.

Moreover, it must be remembered that the size of many of our financial institutions, despite its role in bringing on the crisis, has also greatly benefited the U.S. economy. Size, for example, enables our big financial firms to compete against others in Europe and Asia.

The too-big-to-fail institutions operate around the world, participating with similarly large financial partners to execute diverse and large transactions. They offer a full range of products and services, from loan underwriting and risk management to local lines of credit, providing financing to states and municipalities as well as firms of all sizes.

Should we fragment and constrain the system and cap the size of banks, it would undoubtedly limit the competitive level of service, breadth of products, and speed of execution. Clients could turn to foreign banks that don't face the same restrictions. Ill-judged reform could undermine one of the most important ingredients of American global power: our financial know-how, intellectual firepower, and size.

So before any radical limits on the size of financial firms are imposed, we should test whether we can accomplish our goals through new regulatory measures, including lowering permissible leverage by imposing higher capital liquidity requirements. Regulators also should have the capacity to pressure erring firms, wind down some of their risk exposure, or wind down the firm itself. Never again should we be forced to choose between bailouts and financial collapse.

And however we go about protecting the financial system, it is critical that the Federal Reserve remain at the center of new regulatory efforts. The Fed may be less popular today on Capitol Hill, but there is no other institution—certainly not Congress—with the sophisticated understanding and detailed knowledge to monitor the financial health of the banking firms. No other institution possesses the relative degree of independence from political pressures that the Fed has exhibited over many years.

The central bank may have fumbled a bit in the evolution of the bubble economy. But once the crisis hit, it was the Fed, under Chairman Ben Bernanke, whose innovative, imaginative response to the crisis literally saved the financial world.

Mr. Bernanke's Fed found new ways to pump liquidity into the credit markets that were on the verge of a total freeze-up. This could only have happened because of the Fed's independence, experience in and understanding of the financial world, and its wide-ranging authority. No one could respond better than the Fed if the next crisis is anywhere near as severe as the last one.

Should Congress undermine the Fed, we could face a world-wide collapse of confidence in the dollar that would inevitably lead to higher interest rates. Congress is always playing the blame game, but it would be irresponsible to undermine the Fed and its capacity to handle the new financial world that we will all be living in.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.
The Uncertainty Economy
Tim Geithner is not the Democrats' biggest problem.

Preparing to write about yesterday's downward revision in third-quarter GDP, we were tempted to say the Obama Administration has hit a speed-bump on its promised exit out of the recession. But it is the American economy that has hit a speed bump, and on the evidence of the policy mix emerging now from Democratic Washington, the road ahead for the economy is bump, bump, bump, bump, bump. Other than a few lucky banks, few seem be enjoying the ride.

What last month had appeared to be third-quarter growth of 3.5% in gross domestic product turns out to have been a more modest 2.8%. Consumer spending was pared back to 2.9% from 3.4%. The cash-for-clunkers subsidy produced fewer new-vehicle purchases than first estimated. In short, we aren't getting much bang for our $787 billion stimulus bucks. But you already knew that.

The frustrated Congressional Democrats who designed and enacted the stimulus seem more surprised, and they are now circling the wagons and starting to look for someone else to blame.

The Democrat catching most of the bullets is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon last week called on Mr. Geithner to resign. No surprise there. More noteworthy was that not a peep of support emerged for Mr. Geithner from the Obama White House. We've had our differences with the Treasury secretary, but how throwing Mr. Geithner off the wagon train would turn around the unemployment rate is, to put it mildly, far from clear.

The panicked Democrats' biggest problem is that Congress and the President have erected the biggest overhang of economic policy uncertainty that anyone can remember.

One big difference between Washington and private markets is that politicians think everything they do is free-standing. Markets, however, combine all the potential costs of Washington's policies and then decide whether to invest, or not. Consider what private decision-makers see in their future:

A 2,074-page, trillion-dollar health-care bill to redesign 17% of the U.S. economy. A carbon tax—cap and trade—that remains an Obama priority ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit next month. A falling dollar and gyrating commodity prices, with no idea where those prices will go next.

Democratic liberals are talking about an income tax surcharge to pay for any commitment in Afghanistan. Card check, to expand unionization of the private economy, remains a priority. Domestic discretionary spending in fiscal 2010 is set to rise at 12.1%, with inflation near zero.

Nurturing a fragile economic recovery into a durable expansion requires policies that restore public confidence and reassure investors, risk-takers and employers. The Democratic agenda is doing precisely the opposite, which is how you get subpar growth and fewer new jobs.

PM Report: The Future of GM

AM Report: Black Friday Beckons

Economic Data Lift Stocks

Economic Data Lift Stocks

Stocks were modestly higher Wednesday as data on new-home sales, consumer sentiment, consumer spending, personal income and weekly jobless claims all came in better than expected, although a disappointing durable-goods report limited investors' appetite for risky investments.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 23 points, or 0.2%, at 10457 in recent trading. Alcoa was its strongest performer, up 1.1% as metals futures climbed. Consumer-discretionary stocks including Home Depot and Walt Disney also rose, gaining 1% and 0.7%, respectively. However, the gains were held in check as Kraft Foods dropped 1%. The food giant meets Wednesday with labor representatives for Cadbury PLC's workers to discuss its plans for the U.K. confectioner.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite climbed 0.3%. The Standard & Poor's 500 rose 0.3%, led by the materials and consumer-discretionary sectors. Its energy sector was the only category in the red recently, hurt by a drop in crude-oil futures. Halliburton and Schlumberger were among the energy sector's decliners.

In other markets, the dollar fell against the euro and the yen, while Treasurys were lower, with the 10-year note recently off 7/32 to yield 3.329%.

The action came after reports showed last week's initial jobless claims fell by more than predicted and spending by Americans bounced by in October as their incomes rose slightly more than expected.

In addition, new-home sales unexpectedly climbed 6.2% in October despite bad weather and uncertainty over a big tax credit for first-time buyers.

And while the University of Michigan/Reuters preliminary consumer sentiment index moved lower to 67.4 from 70.6 in October, it came in above the expected level of 66.8, as well as the preliminary reading of 66.

Still, the boost from those reports was limited as the Commerce Department said Wednesday demand for long-lasting goods unexpectedly fell in October, and a barometer of capital spending by businesses tumbled in another sign of the recovery's sluggishness.

Nevertheless, Eric Thorne, senior vice president at Bryn Mawr Trust, noted that the market's reaction to all the data Wednesday won't mean as much as its reaction next week, when volume comes back after the Thanksgiving holiday.

"Durable goods is somewhat of a concern but not a major concern right now, as it's really housing that we think will drive things and ultimately drive consumer confidence," Mr. Thorne added.

Still to come Wednesday is the Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Survey.

Among stocks in focus, Tiffany climbed 4.1% after the jeweler Wednesday raised its sales and earnings outlook for the year.

Dobbs Reaches Out to Latinos, With Politics in Mind

Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, pondering a future in politics, is trying to wipe away his image as an enemy of Latino immigrants by positioning himself as a champion of that fast-growing ethnic bloc.

News Hub: Lou Dobbs Offers Latinos Olive Branch

1:57

Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs reaches out to the Latino community, possibly ahead of a political run. WSJ reporter Peter Wallsten says Mr. Dobbs is even for legalizing the undocumented now.

Mr. Dobbs, who left the network last week, has said in recent days that he is considering a third-party run for a New Jersey Senate seat in 2012, or possibly for president. Polls show voters unhappy with both parties, and strategists believe Mr. Dobbs could tap populist anger over economy issues just as Ross Perot did in the 1990s.

First, though, Mr. Dobbs is working to repair what a spokesman conceded is a glaring flaw: His reputation for antipathy toward Latino immigrants. In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."

Associated Press

Lou Dobbs, shown appearing on NBC's 'Today' show last week, is working to repair his reputation for antipathy toward Latino immigrants.

"Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together," he said in a live interview with Telemundo's Maria Celeste. "I hope that will begin with Maria and me and Telemundo and other media organizations and others in this national debate that we should turn into a solution rather than a continuing debate and factional contest."

Mr. Dobbs twice mentioned a possible legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., saying at one point that "we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions."

Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."

After a career as a broadcaster and Internet entrepreneur, Mr. Dobbs turned himself into a populist firebrand, campaigning against labor outsourcing, free trade and immigration.

Mr. Dobbs left CNN saying he wanted to become an advocate. Immigration advocates, including Ms. Celeste, had long called for his ouster; critics in particular cite a 2007 report on his show that cited erroneous data suggesting illegal immigrants were tied to a spike in leprosy cases in the U.S. Mr. Dobbs told Ms. Celeste the report was a mistake, and blamed a reporter ad-libbing on the air.

Frank Sharry, who heads America's Voice, a group that advocates for legalizing undocumented immigrants, said Mr. Dobbs's conversion isn't credible, given his history of opposing efforts to liberalize immigration policies.

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, which seeks strict border enforcement and opposes legalization, said he admired Mr. Dobbs and will "watch him for several months before drawing a conclusion."

Political strategists, however, aren't dismissing the potential power of a Dobbs run. Ed Rollins, a Republican consultant who advised Mr. Perot, said Mr. Dobbs has two big factors in his favor: name recognition and a turbulent economic time that can help a populist, third-party figure.

During his Telemundo appearance, Mr. Dobbs was both defensive and conciliatory as Ms. Celeste ticked off what she said were the Latino community's grievances about Mr. Dobbs. "Many Hispanics consider you to be the No. 1 enemy of Latinos," she told him. "Do you think that the community is somehow misjudging you?"

"Oh, not somehow. Definitively, absolutely," Mr. Dobbs responded. "By the way, I don't believe for a moment that the Latino, Hispanic community in the United States believes that of me at all. It has been the efforts of the far left to characterize me in their propaganda as such."

Mr. Dobbs's relationship with Latinos will be crucial if he chooses to run against Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), the Senate's lone Hispanic. In response to the possibility, Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi said: "I'm sure that he would relish eventually having an opponent from so far out of the mainstream who has never delivered a thing to the hard-working people of New Jersey."

Surge Targets Taliban Bastion

Surge Targets Taliban Bastion

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Commanders in Afghanistan say they will devote the majority of the fresh troops expected from the White House to securing the country's troubled south and will especially target this volatile city, the Taliban's main power base.

Reuters

A U.S. soldier snaps an image of an Afghan man's iris to be used for identification. Commanders will concentrate any new troops in the southern part of the country, putting a ring around the Taliban power base of Kandahar.

President Barack Obama will announce his revamped war strategy in an address Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the White House announced Wednesday morning. He is widely expected to adopt a plan that sends between 20,000 and 40,000 more troops to bolster a flagging military campaign and the 68,000 U.S. troops now fighting it.

But even before Mr. Obama takes his case to the public, military commanders on the battlefield are ready to implement a plan that makes a defensive ring around Kandahar a linchpin of the fight to come. No matter how many troops the president decides to authorize, the Kandahar campaign will be an early, large-scale test of U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's plan of refocusing allied military, political and economic efforts on population centers and away from sparsely peopled rural areas.

The new commander of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, and his staff detailed how they will put the McChrystal approach into action, in interviews with The Wall Street Journal: They plan to mass thousands of troops now scattered around the south and pack them into a tight cordon around the outskirts of Kandahar city.

WSJ's Michael Phillips reports from Kandahar with an exclusive look at how the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy will be carried out on the ground. He's joined by Jerry Seib in Washington and Alan Murray in New York, in a News Hub extra.

At the same time, the coalition plans to pour economic, police and political assistance into the urban core to try to persuade residents that the Afghan government serves them better than the Taliban alternative. "We have to regain the initiative, and we have to get some momentum going," said Gen. Carter.

As Gen. McChrystal's team scrambles to reverse Taliban gains in Kandahar, they will also dispatch thousands of American soldiers to secure the major highways that pass through the city to Pakistan and southern Afghanistan.

As soon as this weekend, officers expect to order the fast-moving armored Stryker Brigade to devote itself full time to securing roads plagued by hidden bombs and illegal checkpoints run by insurgents, bandits and corrupt police.

Commanders say the Kandahar campaign will force them to pull troops away from less-urgent fights. "There's no slack out there," said U.S. Brig. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges, director of operations in the south. "Additional forces -- I need them big time. I can't dominate all of the places I want to dominate."

Thousands of the new troops also would likely be deployed to expand the Kandahar approach to the most densely populated districts of the Helmand River Valley in neighboring Helmand province. Together, the two areas contain about two million of the estimated three million residents of southern Afghanistan.

Reuters

A U.S. soldier from the armored Stryker Brigade, soon expected to secure roads in the Kandahar area, patrols the city recently.

The new southern strategy is an explicit recognition that a move this past summer to position a few thousand Canadian and U.S. troops outside Kandahar failed to stop insurgents from infiltrating the city.

For years the coalition paid little attention to the city, despite a huge allied presence at the airfield outside town. That neglect allowed the Taliban, whose Islamist movement was born in Kandahar, to again make inroads.

Insurgents have intimidated residents with threats and bombings and set up rudimentary courts to adjudicate local disputes -- a direct challenge to the government's right to control the instruments of justice.

Gen. McChrystal's urban strategy has its detractors, among them Arturo Munoz, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. "Retreating from rural areas to focus on populated areas would put us in the same position as the Russians at the end of their failed campaign" in Afghanistan a generation ago, Mr. Munoz wrote in an email. "They held the cities, but the insurgents held the countryside. If we cannot engage the enemy in the countryside, then we have lost already."

But allied and Afghan officials say Kandahar is too crucial to lose. "The history of Afghanistan always was, always is and always will be determined from Kandahar," provincial Gov. Tooryalai Wesa said in an interview.

Regional Violence

Follow events in Afghanistan and Pakistan, day by day.

The Military Toll

U.S. and coalition casualties in Afghanistan

[Afghanistan]

The city is a crossroads on trade routes to Pakistan. The Taliban came to power in the 1990s in part on the strength of their ability to make the roads safe for travelers and truckers. The Taliban were toppled by the U.S.-led invasion after the 2001 attacks on America.

Now insurgents, common criminals and corrupt police officers set up illegal checkpoints along the highways. Allied officials say such insecurity has crippled the local economy and that Gen. Carter's plan to protect roads is central to establishing credibility for the government and the coalition.

The Stryker Brigade will have road engineers and intelligence teams on board, and will likely use high-tech surveillance equipment to try to ensure that insurgents don't plant explosives or extort money from passersby, officials say.

For security reasons, allied officers don't want to publicize how many soldiers will be involved in the Kandahar operation. They say their plan will boost the troops encircling Kandahar by 50%, while reducing the area they cover by 90%, making the cordon harder for insurgents to penetrate.

Gen. Carter is wary of inserting large numbers of foreign troops into the center of Kandahar, an ethnically Pashtun city in a Pashtun insurgency. There is a small Canadian security and economic-aid team inside the city and a 150-man U.S. military-police company. Gen. Carter plans to boost that with another small MP unit to bolster the Afghan National Police.

Details Emerge in Obama's Afghanistan Plan

2:09

President Barack Obama is expected to send in 34,000 additional troops -- less than his top commander wants, but more than some of the president's allies want. Video courtesy of Fox News.

The Taliban's influence in the city is so pervasive that the Afghan police are often too frightened of kidnapping and assassination threats to move about the city freely, especially at night. One precinct commander refuses to go downtown from his station house unless accompanied by five armed patrolmen. "The Taliban would kill me," said the commander, Lt. Col. Abdul Qader.

One of Gen. Carter's priorities is to persuade local political authorities to organize a Kandahar council of tribal elders, or shura, to help guide the city and make peace with insurgents amenable to reconciliation. In Afghan culture, such institutions are used to resolve disputes.

The coalition also plans to flood Kandahar and its environs with economic aid, including a $50 million Canadian irrigation system, a U.S. farm-and-jobs project and a new electrical-distribution network expected to cost some $20 million.

The economic surge is intended to generate employment and address festering complaints that the Karzai government and its international backers cannot provide a better life for Kandahar residents.

Mr. Obama met most recently with his war council on Monday to discuss his troop plans, in the first such meeting since just before his nine-day trip to Asia. On Tuesday, he told reporters at the White House: "After eight years -- some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done -- it is my intention to finish the job."

[concentrating forces]
—Jonathan Weisman contributed to this article.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Return of Ayn Rand: Will Economics Spark the Next Culture War?

Dollar, gold, GDP, Fed, housing, Senate Race

How to reinvent China’s growth

How to reinvent China’s growth

By John Gapper

Ingram Pinn illustration

Shooting down the multi-lane highway from Qingdao airport to the centre of the coastal city this week, I had the usual impressions of a visitor to China. The roads were immaculate, the drive into town took a long time because of the sprawl of what is only a medium-sized Chinese city – only 8m or so people in the metropolitan area – and buildings sprouted on all sides.

I also noticed that I, the sole westerner in the Audi cruising in from the airport, was the only passenger wearing a seatbelt.

That is a metaphor for China itself in the week when Barack Obama paid a visit. It is travelling rapidly along the path of development into one of the world’s largest economies, without much room for error.

The US president’s visit this week has focused minds on the tensions in the US-China relationship in the wake of last year’s financial crisis. America relies on China to finance its trade deficit, while China needs the US to buy its goods in order to keep export-led growth on track.

Trade spats between the two, US pressure for China to allow the revaluation of its currency against the dollar and Chinese criticism of US economic policy (as a major holder of US Treasury bonds) led to some frosty body language between President Obama and President Hu Jintao at the summit.

Even if the US had no stake in the outcome, China would still want to reduce its reliance on exports, and perhaps allow its currency to appreciate . Unless it makes its pattern of growth more balanced, it risks being unable to sustain growth at between 8 and 10 per cent.

That involves changing course from relying on export-oriented companies to produce growth and encouraging the private sector to become more capital-efficient, pay workers more and shift from manufacturing into services.

It also means allowing job losses and getting municipalities that control corporate investment in local enterprises to step back and let a liberalised financial sector take over. It is, in short, a risky business.

Qingdao, where the FT Chinese website this week held its annual forum, is a good place from which to see the changes because it is, although prettier than many, a typical export-oriented Chinese city. A former German and Japanese colony, it is home to electronics groups including Haier and Hisense, and to Tsingtao beer. It is the ninth biggest Chinese city ranked by gross domestic product, relies on manufacturing and basic industries such as textiles for wealth creation, and has an ageing population, with 1.6m over-60s and 210,000 over-80s.

Qingdao thus encapsulates both China’s achievement and its future challenge. How does an economy with an average GDP of $3,200 per head, which relies heavily on trade, become more self-sufficient?

Michael Spence, the Nobel prize-winning economist, told the forum that China is in “a very complex and perilous transition phase” as it tries to transform from a middle-income, high-growth, very big developing economy into an advanced economy with a diversified industrial base.

The world is not big enough to keep on absorbing China’s export growth, and it faces the waning of what Arthur Kroeber, a managing director of Dragonomics, the economic consultancy, calls its “demographic dividend”.

The surge in young people eager to move from rural areas to coastal cities to work in textile and manufacturing plants is ending. China needs better-paid citizens to consume more of its output. Many, including the Chinese government itself, have focused on the need for better social and medical benefits to dissuade people from saving as much of their income, but employees also need to earn more in the first place.

The problem with the Chinese economic system is that municipalities such as Qingdao encourage local companies to expand by directing capital towards them. Bureaucrats have incentives to fund growth rather than to ensure companies achieve high margins and pay their workers well.

To ensure the latter, China must cultivate financial institutions and investors that demand higher returns on capital. It could do this by liberalising the financial sector so that decisions pass from state-controlled banks to capital markets. One difficulty with this is that it means loosening the grip of technocrats on how capital flows. The threat is not simply that somebody else gets to make the decisions, but that local jobs will be lost as low-value manufacturing is squeezed or a company from another province acquires a local one.

“This is the hard part of creative destruction – the destruction,” says Prof Spence. In China’s case, it would have an impact not only on people who lost their jobs but on the balance of power between central and local government.

In the long term, however, it would allow higher value enterprises to emerge, and create higher paid jobs. Mr Kroeber compares it to the liberalisation of China’s state-owned enterprises between 1998 and 2003, which led to job losses but then unleashed a wave of wealth creation.

Ultimately, China may not have a choice. Its unequal trade relationship with the US has led to the complaints that soured the atmosphere at this week’s summit and, even if it wanted to keep going down the same road, export-led growth would eventually hit its limits. A better balance is in China’s interests as well as the US. China cannot keep going this fast along its current road, with so little protection against an economic collision.

The Wilding of Sarah Palin

The Wilding of Sarah Palin

By Robin of Berkeley

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and "monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith. She takes no marching orders from messiah-like wannabes like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: by symbolically raping her.

Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body. They undress her with their eyes.

They turn her into a piece of ass.

Liberals do this by calling her a c__t, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like "slutty flight attendant" and "Trailer Park Barbie," and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

And from Atlantic Magazine's Andrew Sullivan: "Sarah Palin's vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy."

Nothing is off-limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard's wish that Palin be gang-raped or the sexualization of Palin's daughters.

As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core '60s leftists were masters of guerrilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged from a punishment of sodomy.

The extreme Left still consider themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause. With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

Palin is not the only intended victim. As Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin's violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men and render them powerless.

The wilding of any woman is reprehensible. But defiling a mother of five with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother to boot, is particularly obscene. It is, of course, Palin's unapologetic motherhood that fuels the leftist fire.

Because as a mother and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets. She is not just politically pro-life. Her whole being emanates life, which is a stark contrast to the darkness of the Left, the life-despoilers.

These "progressives" are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred. And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism. During these many months, I've discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women. Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it's a dangerous place for women, children, and other living things.

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than sheild the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way. Instead of a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Wilding of Sarah Palin

By Robin of Berkeley

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and "monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith. She takes no marching orders from messiah-like wannabes like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: by symbolically raping her.

Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body. They undress her with their eyes.

They turn her into a piece of ass.

Liberals do this by calling her a c__t, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like "slutty flight attendant" and "Trailer Park Barbie," and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

And from Atlantic Magazine's Andrew Sullivan: "Sarah Palin's vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy."

Nothing is off-limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard's wish that Palin be gang-raped or the sexualization of Palin's daughters.

As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core '60s leftists were masters of guerrilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged from a punishment of sodomy.

The extreme Left still consider themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause. With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

Palin is not the only intended victim. As Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin's violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men and render them powerless.

The wilding of any woman is reprehensible. But defiling a mother of five with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother to boot, is particularly obscene. It is, of course, Palin's unapologetic motherhood that fuels the leftist fire.

Because as a mother and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets. She is not just politically pro-life. Her whole being emanates life, which is a stark contrast to the darkness of the Left, the life-despoilers.

These "progressives" are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred. And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism. During these many months, I've discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women. Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it's a dangerous place for women, children, and other living things.

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than sheild the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way. Instead of a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.

Free Speech Silenced at Columbia and Princeton

By Pamela Geller

Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton Universities last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.


Remember, we are talking about Columbia University, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before Darwish was scheduled to speak at Columbia, the groups that had invited her to both universities, the Whig-Clio Student Debate Society and Tigers for Israel, succumbed to demands from student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Tigers for Israel, my eye. Their name mocks them. The Whig-Clio Society is the oldest debating society in the U.S., founded by James Madison in 1765. These are the students who are supposed to be the leaders of the future. What a joke.

Look how the cancellation went down at Princeton. Look at the systematic bullying. This is the state of freedom of speech in the age of jihad. Arab Society president Sami Yabroudi and former president Sarah Mousa issued a joint statement, claiming: "Nonie Darwish is to Arabs and Muslims what Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads, and neo-Nazis are to other minorities, and we decided that the role of her talk in the logical, intellectual discourse espoused by Princeton University needed to be questioned."

KKK? Neo-Nazi? Nonie Darwish was scheduled to speak about Sharia law and Israel, about standing up for human rights against jihad.

But the sponsors of her talk immediately caved. Whig-Clio president Ben Weisman said: "Our decision to co-host the event was based on our belief that by extending an offer to speak to Ms. Darwish, members of TFI deemed her views a legitimate element of the mainstream discourse and in part agreed with her incendiary opinions. By rescinding their offer, TFI indicated their understanding that Darwish's views have no place in the campus community."

Tigers for Israel said in a statement:

On Tuesday evening Tigers for Israel and Whig-Clio rescinded our cosponsorship of today's Nonie Darwish Lecture. Tigers for Israel accepted the opportunity for her to speak based on a misconception about what she actually believes. After her anti-Islam position was brought to my attention on Tuesday afternoon by the Center for Jewish Life director Rabbi Julie Roth and the Muslim Chaplain Imam Sohaib Sultan, I conducted extensive research and discussed the issue with TFI and Whig-Clio leadership, and we decided to rescind our cosponsorship after concluding that Tigers for Israel disagrees with and does not condone Ms. Darwish and her beliefs on Islam. ... As President of TFI I take full responsibility for not vetting Ms. Darwish from the beginning, and I sincerely apologize for offending any person or group on campus, especially the Muslim community. Tigers for Israel deeply regrets the initial sponsorship and we do not in any way endorse her views.

Cowards. Pathetic cowards. Haven't these Ivy-League know-nothings done their homework? Have they studied Islam? Jihad? Have they read Dr. Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad and his Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism? Here is something they don't know: Sohaib Sultan, who helped get the Darwish lecture canceled, wrote the book The Koran for Dummies. In that book, he says that the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir is the "most referred to" authority on Islam "in the Muslim world today." Sultan says that Ibn Kathir offers "an excellent collection of historical analysis on the Koran and his mastery of Islamic law makes his insights especially interesting." Yet Ibn Kathir taught that Muslims should wage jihad against Jews and Christians and impose laws upon them that would make them "disgraced, humiliated and belittled." Ibn Kathir said that "Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah [Jews and Christians] or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated."

So who really resembles the KKK or neo-Nazis? A courageous woman standing up for human rights for Muslim women and ex-Muslims, or a Muslim imam who holds up as an authority someone who says that non-Muslims should be disgraced, humiliated, and belittled?

Darwish told me that she was shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on U.S. soil, the largest such attack in U.S. history, activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.

In another assault on free speech last week, students threw pies at a Robert Spencer event at NYU. What's next? Grenades?

For those of us who are chronicling the advancing Islamization of America, things have gotten decidedly worse since Obama took over. We have entered a dark age.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs web site and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer.

Approval not post-racial

Poll: Obama faces white flight


Poll: Obama faces white flight
President Obama's approval rating has suffered a drop since his inauguration in January. AP Close

Just 39 percent of white Americans now approve of President Obama's job performance, a steep drop-off of support since he was inaugurated in January, according to the latest Gallup Poll.

In his first full week in office, starting Jan. 26, just over six in 10 white people gave him their approval. Now that number is down to under four in 10, indicating a net drop of 22 points.

Black voters, meanwhile, have continued to support Obama to the tune of approximately 90 percent. And Democrats and liberals give Obama approval ratings of above 80 percent.

"Though he maintains widespread loyalty among Democrats, the small loss in support he has seen from his fellow partisans seems to be exclusively from white Democrats," Gallup's finding says.

The most recent survey of 3,611 adults has a 2 percent margin of error.

Obama says he wants to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan

Barack Obama: "We are going to dismantle and degrade" al-Qaeda's capabilities

US President Barack Obama has said it is his intention to "finish the job" in Afghanistan after eight years of conflict there.

Mr Obama said he would announce a long-awaited decision over sending more troops to Afghanistan "shortly".

Some US media reports have suggested that the US president is intending to send 34,000 more troops.

He has been considering a request from his top commander in Afghanistan for 40,000 more US troops.

Mr Obama said a continuing review of US policy in Afghanistan had been "extremely useful", stressing that it was in the US strategic interest to make sure al-Qaeda and its allies could not operate in the area.

'Clear rationale'

"We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks," he said.

"After eight years, some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done, it is my intention to finish the job."

MARK MARDELL
Mark Mardell
If he does decide to increase troop numbers, the reaction from his own party will be all important
Mark Mardell, BBC North America editor

Speaking at a press conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he added that the Afghan people were "going to have to provide ultimately for their own security".

Mr Obama is widely expected to announce his decision on US troop reinforcements in Afghanistan in a prime-time TV address next Tuesday.

"I feel confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said.

BBC North America editor Mark Mardell says that some within the president's own party will not be happy if he does announce a substantial increase in troop numbers.

But there is every sign he will put a great deal of effort into also explaining how and when the Afghan mission will end, he says.

The president has been saying with increasing frequency that a key part of the rethinking of the US Afghanistan strategy involves building an exit strategy into the announcement.

In his comments on Tuesday, Mr Obama said "the whole world" should help with the US-led Afghan mission, and that he would speak in his announcement of "the obligations of our international partners in this process".

The US currently has about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, which contribute to total foreign forces of more than 100,000.

In Britain, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said President Obama's lengthy deliberations over whether or not to send more troops had contributed to falling public support in Britain for the Afghan mission.

The British government later denied that Mr Ainsworth was blaming American delays over sending more troops to Afghanistan for any decline in public support.

U.S. Economy: Less Consumer Spending Reduces Growth

U.S. Economy: Less Consumer Spending Reduces Growth (Update1)

By Timothy R. Homan

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy expanded less than initially estimated last quarter as consumer spending trailed forecasts, raising concerns about the strength of the recovery.

Gross domestic product grew at a 2.8 percent annual pace, the Commerce Department said today in Washington, compared with its prior estimate of 3.5 percent. Consumers surveyed by the New-York based Conference Board were more pessimistic about the outlook for jobs in November and scaled back their buying plans, even as the group’s overall gauge of confidence rose.

Stocks declined around the world on indications that an unemployment rate projected to stay above 10 percent through the middle of next year will curb spending, which makes up 70 percent of the economy, as the holiday shopping season begins. Labor-market weakness is one reason why the Federal Reserve under Chairman Ben S. Bernanke this month repeated its promise to keep interest rates near zero for an “extended period.”

“I would expect consumer spending growth to be relatively limited in the coming quarters,” said Guy LeBas, chief fixed- income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia, who accurately forecast the GDP figure. “The recovery’s not going to be quick, and it’s not going to be painless.”

The Dow Jones Industrial Average retreated from a 13-month high, falling 0.2 percent to close at 10,433.71.

The pace of economic growth matched the median forecast of 78 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Consumer spending rose at a 2.9 percent pace, compared with the 3.2 percent rate forecast by economists and a 0.9 percent decline in the prior quarter.

Home Prices Rise

A separate report today showed home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose in September for a fourth straight month. The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index increased 0.27 percent from the prior month on a seasonally adjusted basis, after a 1.13 percent rise in August. The gauge fell 9.36 percent from September 2008, the smallest year-over-year decline since the end of 2007.

The Conference Board’s confidence index increased to 49.5 from 48.7 in October. The share of consumers who said jobs are plentiful fell to 3.2 percent from 3.5 percent. The proportion who said jobs are hard to get increased to 49.8 percent from 49.4 percent.

Among the retailers expressing concern about the outlook for holiday sales is Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Target Corp., the second-largest U.S. discount chain.

‘Highly Promotional’

Target expects a “highly promotional” holiday season, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gregg Steinhafel said on a Nov. 17 conference call. November sales “provide additional justification for being cautious in this uncertain environment,” he said.

Buying plans for automobiles and real estate dropped this month, the Conference Board report showed. Home-buying expectations decreased to the lowest level since 1982.

The economy has lost 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. The unemployment rate last month reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, up from 7.6 percent from when President Barack Obama took office in January.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg this month forecast the jobless rate will remain above 10 percent through the first half of next year.

Growth in corporate profits and investment may make up for some of the weakness in consumer spending, today’s Commerce Department report indicated.

Equipment Purchases

Third-quarter corporate profits increased 11 percent, the biggest gain since the first three months of 2004. Purchases of equipment and software increased at a 2.3 percent pace, more than the Commerce Department estimated last month.

“Over the next couple of quarters, it won’t be the consumer that will be driving GDP higher, it’ll be corporate spending,” John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics in New York, said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio today.

Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, committed $23 billion to a six-year build out of its high-definition Web and TV service ending next year. Verizon last month reported third-quarter profits that topped analysts’ estimates.

Much of the boost last quarter was provided by the administration’s auto-incentive program known as “cash for clunkers,” which offered buyers payments of as much as $4,500 to trade in older cars and trucks for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The plan ended in August.

Productivity Gains

Productivity, a measure of employee output per hour, surged 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the fastest pace in six years, as companies fired workers.

Higher productivity has helped companies including Campbell Soup Co. turn a profit. The world’s largest soup-maker said yesterday that first-quarter profit climbed 17 percent.

“Increased productivity in our supply chain” contributed to profits, Douglas R. Conant, president and chief executive officer of Campbell, said in a statement.

The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge increased less than forecast. The measure, which is tied to consumer spending and strips out food and energy costs, rose at a 1.3 percent annual pace following a 2 percent increase in the prior quarter, today’s GDP report showed.

Trade subtracted 0.8 percentage point from third-quarter GDP. The gap between exports and imports climbed to $358 billion at an annual pace.

Leaner Inventories

Inventories dropped at a $133.4 billion annual pace, more than first estimated. The decrease was still smaller than the record $160.2 billion decrease in the second quarter. Leaner stockpiles set the stage for recovery in production.

The GDP report is the second for the quarter and will be revised in December as more information becomes available.

The economy shrank 3.8 percent in the 12 months to June, the worst performance in seven decades. The four consecutive decreases through the second quarter marks the longest stretch of declines since quarterly records began in 1947.

The economy will likely expand at a 3 percent annual rate from October through December, the median forecast in a survey earlier this month showed.

THE MARKET TODAY

Fed Officials Said Low Rates May Fuel Speculation

Fed Officials Said Low Rates May Fuel Speculation (Update3)

By Craig Torres

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve officials said record-low interest rates might fuel “excessive” speculation in financial markets and possibly dislodge expectations for low inflation, according to minutes of their meeting released today.

“Members noted the possibility that some negative side effects might result from the maintenance of very low short-term interest rates for an extended period,” minutes of the Nov. 3-4 meeting said, “including the possibility that such a policy stance could lead to excessive risk-taking in financial markets or an unanchoring of inflation expectations.”

While policy makers agreed that the chances of such effects were “relatively low, they would remain alert to these risks,” the minutes showed. Fed officials at their meeting indicated the benchmark lending rate would remain near zero “for an extended period” as long as inflation expectations are stable and unemployment fails to decline.

Gold prices touched an all-time high of $1,174 an ounce in New York yesterday as a slumping dollar boosted the appeal of alternative assets. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index has jumped 63 percent since its 2009 low on March 9, and the U.S. auctioned $44 billion of two-year debt yesterday at a yield of 0.802 percent, the lowest ever.

“They are walking the fine line,” said Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price Group Inc., in a Bloomberg Television interview. “They like the asset inflation now for what it does for consumers’ pocket books and ability to spend.” They need to prevent higher spending from fueling a rise in prices, he said.

Speculative Capital

Financial officials in Japan and China, Asia’s two largest economies, said last week that the Fed’s interest-rate policy risks spurring speculative capital that may inflate asset prices and derail the global economic recovery.

“Participants noted that the recent fall in the foreign exchange value of the dollar had been orderly and appeared to reflect an unwinding of safe-haven demand in light of the recovery in financial market conditions this year,” the minutes said. “Any tendency for dollar depreciation to intensify or to put significant upward pressure on inflation would bear close watching.”

The dollar weakened to the lowest level versus the yen in a month after the minutes were released. The dollar fell 0.5 percent to 88.56 yen at 3:21 p.m. in New York from 88.97 yesterday, after touching 88.36, the lowest level since Oct. 9.

Less Than Estimated

A report today showed the U.S. economy grew less than initially estimated last quarter as consumer spending trailed forecasts. The economy expanded at a 2.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, less than the initial estimate of a 3.5 percent pace of expansion, the Commerce Department report showed.

“Most members projected that over the next couple of years, the unemployment rate would remain quite elevated and the level of inflation would remain below rates consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s objectives,” the minutes said.

Policy makers debated the usefulness of selling assets as part of the so-called exit strategy from the unprecedented expansion of credit to help reduce the central bank’s balance sheet and reserves held by commercial banks.

Several officials said asset sales “could be a useful tool” and “reinforce the effectiveness” of paying interest on reserves held at the Fed by commercial banks. Other policy makers “had reservations about asset sales,” especially before any decision to raise interest rates, and said such sales may increase longer-term rates, the minutes said.

Trimmed Forecasts

Fed officials trimmed their forecasts for the U.S. jobless rate in 2010 and 2011, the minutes showed. Fed governors and regional bank presidents predicted the jobless rate will range from 9.3 percent to 9.7 percent in next year’s fourth quarter, down from their June projection of 9.5 percent to 9.8 percent.

The financial crisis has eased in recent months for banks and large corporations, which have issued a record $1.171 trillion in bonds this year, according to Bloomberg data. The cost of three month loans in dollars between banks was 0.261 percent today, according to the British Bankers Association. That’s down from 1.41 percent at the start of the year.

While large companies are taking advantage of the Fed’s low interest-rate policy in capital markets, consumers face tighter terms and less available credit. Consumer loans held by commercial banks in the U.S. fell to $846.7 billion in October, down 0.7 percent from the same month a year earlier.

‘Tight Conditions’

“Participants noted that the dichotomy between significant easing of conditions in capital markets and continuing tight conditions in the banking sector implied that financing conditions differed for large and small firms,” the minutes said.

The Fed’s mandate for “maximum employment” remains challenged as businesses continue to reorganize and fire staff.

The U.S. economy has lost 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. The unemployment rate last month rose to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent. U.S. payrolls shrank by 190,000 jobs last month, and the average workweek held at a record low.

Where the Consumer Is King

In praise of mail-order catalogs

Thousands of hands have been wrung over the death of newspapers and the threat to democracy that poses. A smaller number of people are no doubt worrying about the death of magazines and the shaky future of perfume strips. No one seems all that concerned that at some point during the next 10 or 20 years, Pottery Barn is going to stop sending us its unsolicited but incredibly informative guides to contemporary middle-class decorating trends. Can America survive without systematic, lavishly illustrated coverage of artisanal wall lanterns and fringed hand-loom rugs?

The 2010 edition of the National Directory of Mail-Order Catalogs is 1900 pages long, and features more than 13,000 consumer and business-to-business 
catalogs. IKEA is printing 198 million copies of its 2010 catalog. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, 17 billion catalogs were mailed in 2008, 
and for companies that rely on direct sales, catalogs still drive more business than the web does. “There will be some paper version for as long as I'm in the business,” Steve Fuller, chief marketing officer for L.L. Bean, told the Journal.

Others, however, are already cutting back. Earlier this year, Macys, Inc. stopped sending out its Bloomingdale’s By Mail catalog in order to concentrate resources on the Bloomingdales.com website. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., which also owns Pottery Barn and West Elm in addition to its own eponymous chain, is reducing its total catalog pages by half in 2011. J. Crew is sending out its catalog to 27 percent fewer households. Over the long term, paper costs and postal rates are only going to increase. A growing number of consumers are choosing to opt out of mailings via services like Catalog Choice.

Certainly online shopping is more efficient. But that’s the problem. Shopping at Amazon is a largely functional experience. You go there to buy stuff, or to check prices, or to learn more about products from other customers rather than copywriters. Leafing through a good print catalog is aspirational. In the final decades of the 19th century, the Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog helped reinforce the notion that America was moving from an age of scarcity to one of abundance and prosperity. The Fall 1900 edition was 1120 dense pages long. It contained more than a hundred makes of shotguns, rifles, and revolvers, the bulk of which were “new” or “improved” or “celebrated.” Clearly it was a great time to be alive, with so many wonderful inventions and contrivances at hand to make your life easier, more interesting, more fun.

Throughout the 20th century, catalogs continued to be the material life’s most engaging ambassadors. TV commercials were noisy and insistent. Magazines like Cosmopolitan and Playboy did a pretty good job of showing their readers how they could create identities, lifestyles, and meaning for themselves largely through the purchase of consumer goods, but they diluted their messages with sex quizzes, short stories, and photographs of naked women.

Catalogs, on the other hand, stay focused. Every inch of every page is devoted to selling a vision of an idealized life where whatever you happen to want—coziness, elegance, quality, tradition, value, usefulness, whatever—can be shipped to you overnight. They present us with an improbable world of cashmere baseball hats and monogrammable doormats, where the spoons are “tarnish-resistant” and “designed by noted Italian architects” and the bomber jackets are “named for the indigenous people of Seattle.” In the catalog world, no shoe is merely lined in leather; it’s “fully lined in soft glove leather.” And even something as mundane and easily attainable as a piece of fruit somehow acquires the aura of a wondrously decadent indulgence.

Critics might claim that catalogs inspire a kind of frantic, mindless hyper-consumerism, but really what they do—the effective ones, anyway—is teach a kind of mindfulness. They encourage us to pay attention, close attention, with no stinting on the adjectives, to the stuff we furnish our lives with. When we need a winter boot, are we willing to settle for whatever the sales guy at Shoe Barn wants to sell us, or are we going to hold out for a “uniquely insulated boot” that features a layer of “durable 24-oz Mackinaw Wool [sandwiched] between an outer layer of rugged oil-tanned leather and a full inner layer of soft water-repellant leather”?

The beauty of the catalog is that while its sales pitch is relentless, it’s a quiet, meditative kind of relentlessness. It’s hard to drift off into reveries about how much better the perfect overnight bag could make your life while shopping at Amazon or Zappos. There’s too much filtering to do, too much waiting for the screen to refresh, too many tiny product shots fighting for your attention at once. Slowly making one’s way through the serene, uncluttered pages of the latest Design Within Reach catalog, however, it’s easy to start thinking that all that really stands between you and true happiness is a sofa that takes advantage of “recent technical advances” and yet nonetheless evokes the “soft, less machined brand of modernism [that] first arose in the United States in the 1930s.” Or hell, maybe even a $60 stainless steel tape dispenser that functions like “desktop architecture” would do the trick. More than any other advertising medium, a catalog enlists you to sell yourself.

At this point, catalogs are also one of the last forms of truly mass media. Outside of the Google home page and maybe a handful of the most frequently broadcast TV commercials, what else reaches as many households as the IKEA catalog does? What else unites us like our shared knowledge of the Pottery Barn catalog which, while bands break up, TV shows get cancelled, and magazine subscriptions lapse, just keeps showing up in our mailboxes, year after year, with the same jute rugs and Manhattan armchairs that were there nearly two decades ago, a beacon of barely noticed familiarity in an ever-changing world? For the last ten years, it went straight into the recycling bin, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to miss it when it's gone.

Reason.tv: UPS vs. FEDEX—Ultimate Whiteboard Remix

You may have heard the UPS is in quite the fight with FEDEX. Though both are package-delivery companies, they're governed by totally different federal labor rules. As a result, UPS's workforce is much more heavily unionized than FEDEX's—and more than twice as expensive.

So now UPS is trying to get FEDEX reclassified under federal law as a way of screwing a competitor. That's horrendous, but it also makes a sick kind of business sense. And it also reveals the real villain: A government that is big enough to absolutely, positively guarantee it can screw any business. Overnight.

Salvia and Salivation

Is this trip worth a warm mouthful of spit?

These would be pretty cool Salvia divinorum visions, but they’re actually wooden Indonesian masks that I bought at World Market. This is my second experiment with Daniel Siebert’s Sage Goddess Emerald Essence ($65 for half an ounce), and the effects are once again a little too subtle for my taste. There is a definite sense that things are different, but exactly how isn’t clear. The most articulable effect is a distortion of time, with an hour flying by in what seems like a few minutes.

The experience is especially disappointing because getting there is so unpleasant. The alcohol-based tincture tastes awful, like chlorophyll mixed with gasoline, and it stings, even when diluted (per the instructions) with a bit of water. Your first impulse upon squirting it into your mouth with the dropper is to spit it out. That is also your second and third impulse. But instead you’re supposed to swish it around to thoroughly coat the inside of your mouth, then let it pool under your tongue for 15 minutes. Unfortunately, this is before the time distortion kicks in.

The “staggered dose method” is slightly less arduous. It involves holding one-third of the dose at a time, four minutes each. That way your mouth gets a brief break before the torture resumes. The directions warn that you don’t want to dilute the tincture too much with your spit, but salivation seems to be an involuntary response to having something this disgusting in your mouth, so you end up with a mouthful of green fluid by the end. “If you prefer,” the instructions say, “you can spit out the tincture, rather than swallowing it.” I prefer.

The smoked method is much easier, especially with a water pipe, and more rewarding. Within a few seconds the world is vibrating, reverberating, echoing. Familiar objects are transformed. Looking down at my bent leg, I see a stoop on a city block lined with brownstones. Beyond the cityscape, the shoes sitting on the floor of my office resemble comical cartoon characters. Looking out the window, I stare at the knot on an oak tree, where I see the head of a human-sized cat wearing a knight’s helmet, a wizard with a flowing beard, and a wolf with glowing eyes. I can make the images shift at will.

On another occasion, I return from a salvia trip with two firm convictions. One is that my bong glows in the dark, which does not seem to be true. The other, which I wrote down immediately afterward so I would not forget it, is this: “Arthbayim roomshalook.” I can’t vouch for the spelling.

I am using Siebert’s “regular strength enhanced leaf” ($65 per gram), which is supposed to be about six times as strong as the natural plant, and I am aware that the visions are drug effects. But it is not hard to see how someone using the “20x,” “40x,” or “60x” leaf sold by Siebert’s competitors (at much lower prices) might lose sight of that fact, especially if he didn’t adjust his dose accordingly.

Even at 6x, the effects are interesting enough that I would try it again, although I’d prefer mushrooms or LSD if they were easier to get. I tend to agree with Rick Doblin, president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, who says salvia can trigger “a peacefulness and an expansiveness,” but the experience is not “as profound or deep” as those offered by other psychedelics. “Its popularity has been increasing because so many other things were banned,” he says. “Very few people would be going to salvia if they had alternatives.”

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Men's Rights

Men's Rights

Feminism should be about equality for males, too.

Joyce's indictment is directed at a loose network of activists seeking to raise awareness and change policy on such issues as false accusations of domestic violence, the plight of divorced fathers denied access to children, and domestic abuse of men. In her view, groups such as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) and individuals like columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks are merely "respectable" and "savvy" faces for what is actually an anti-female backlash from "angry white men."

As proof of this underlying misogyny, Joyce asserts that men who commit "acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo" are routinely lionized in the men's movement. This claim is purportedly backed up with a reference that, in fact, does not in any way support it: an article in Foreign Policy about the decline of male dominance around the globe. Joyce's one specific example is that the diary of George Sodini, a Pittsburgh man who opened fire on women in a gym in retaliation for feeling rejected by women, was reposted online by the blogger "Angry Harry" as a wake-up call to the Western world that "it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it." But does this have anything to do with more mainstream men's rights groups? The original version of the article claimed that Sacks, who called "Harry" an "idiot" in his interview with Joyce, nonetheless "cautiously defends" the blogger; DoubleX later ran a correction on this point.

Sacks himself admits to Joyce that the men's movement has a "not-insubstantial lunatic fringe." Yet in her eyes, even the mainstream men's groups are promoting a dangerous agenda, above all infiltrating mainstream opinion with the view that reports of domestic violence are exaggerated and that a lot of spousal abuse is female-perpetrated. The latter claim, Joyce asserts, comes from "a small group of social scientists" led by "sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, who has written extensively on female violence." (In fact, Straus, founder of the renowned Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, is a pre-eminent scholar on family violence in general and was the first to conduct national surveys on the prevalence of wife-beating.)

Joyce repeats common critiques of Straus' research: For instance, he equates "a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs" or "a single act of female violence with years of male abuse." Yet these charges have been long refuted: Straus' studies measure the frequency of violence and specifically inquire about which partner initiated the physical violence. Furthermore, Joyce fails to mention that virtually all social scientists studying domestic violence, including self-identified feminists such as University of Pittsburgh psychologist Irene Frieze, find high rates of mutual aggression.

Reviews of hundreds of existing studies, such as one conducted by University of Central Lancashire psychologist John Archer in a 2000 article in Psychological Bulletin, have found that at least in Western countries, women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men. While the consequences to women are more severe—they are twice as likely to report injuries and about three times more likely to fear an abusive spouse—these findings also show that men hardly escape unscathed. Joyce claims that "Straus' research is starting to move public opinion," but in fact, some of the strongest recent challenges to the conventional feminist view of domestic violence—as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers—come from female scholars like New York University psychologist Linda Mills.

Contrary to Joyce's claims, these challenges, so far, have made very limited inroads into public opinion. One of her examples of the scary power of men's rights groups is that "a Los Angeles conference this July dedicated to discussing male victims of domestic violence, 'From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention,' received positive mainstream press for its 'inclusive' efforts.'" In fact, the conference—which featured leading researchers on domestic violence from several countries, half of them women, and focused on much more than just male victims—received virtually no mainstream press coverage. One of the very few exceptions was a column I wrote for The Boston Globe, also reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women—for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings, and cancer combined.

These advocacy groups practically designed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and they dominate the state coalitions against domestic violence to which local domestic violence programs must belong in order to qualify for federal funds. As a result of the advocates' influence, federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy).

Against the backdrop of this enforced party line, Joyce is alarmed by the smallest signs that men's rights groups may be gaining even a modest voice in framing domestic violence policy. She points out that in a few states, men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases" (this is apparently meant to be a bad thing) and "winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory" (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).

To bolster her case, Joyce consistently quotes advocates—or scholars explicitly allied with the advocacy movement, such as Edward Gondolf of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute—to discredit the claims of the men's movement. She also repeats uncorroborated allegations that many leaders of the movement are themselves abusers, but offers only one specific example: eccentric British activist Jason Hatch, who once scaled Buckingham Palace in a Batman costume to protest injustices against fathers, and who was taken to court for allegedly threatening one of his ex-wives during a custody dispute.

The article is laced with the presumption that, with regard to both general data and individual cases, any charge of domestic violence made by a woman against a man must be true.

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators—including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University—sided with the father.

More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine and a columnist for RealClearPolitics.com. She is the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. This article originally appeared at Forbes.

Lula treads a fine line with Iran

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has come a long way since his days as a factory worker. The former union leader, who spent his youth churning out sheet metal, has enjoyed more popularity in office than many politicians experience in a lifetime. Since winning the presidency seven years ago, he has lifted a large portion of Brazil’s poor out of poverty, shrunk the country’s income gap more than any other South American country in a decade, and presided over one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

But as he nears the end of his presidency, many wonder what Lula, long known as the man of the people, seeks to gain by entering the minefield that is Middle East politics, and particularly through his support of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The president of the Islamic Republic arrived in Brazil yesterday on a trip that was postponed in May because of protests; Lula called the much-anticipated meeting “an honour”, drawing ire from the United States and its allies.

It is only right that Brazil’s increasing global economic presence should be matched by a diplomatic one, as a South American regional leader. In a sign of this growing influence, Shimon Peres paid a visit to Brazil last week, signing a raft of business agreements. And no sooner had the Israeli president departed than the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas arrived, to engage Lula’s support in defence of his people.

Specifically with regard to Iran, Brazil may have a role to play in encouraging that country’s engagement in the global community as an alternative to its isolationist policies. Building bilateral relations is just one way in which Iran could positively de-escalate its growing tensions with the West. But it hardly needs saying that this is also a time for caution. Entertaining the machinations of Iran’s embattled figurehead and legitimising the current Iranian regime could prove disastrous for Brazil’s credibility, particularly since Mr Ahmedinejad has called for a “new world order” comprising Brazil, Venezuela and Iran.

Engaging Iran is a complex matter; more than just a good reputation is required to get it right.

Dispatch From Israel: Obama and Netanyahu

Dispatch From Israel: Obama and Netanyahu

by Benjamin Kerstein

Netanyahu and Obama

Probably the oddest rivalry in international politics today is that between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is not because of any excess of personal animosity between the two; at worst, there seems to be a cold indifference to each other at work in their relationship; but rather because of how extraordinarily similar the two men actually are.

Obviously, they are not similar in terms of their beliefs or backgrounds. Netanyahu is a scion of the closest thing Israel has to the Kennedy family (unless one counts Moshe Dayan’s profoundly dysfunctional brood). His father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu, besides being one of the most influential historians of Jewish history in the twentieth century, was one of the founding fathers of the rightwing Revisionist faction of Zionism, which later became the opposition Herut Party and then the largest faction of the Likud. (Well into his nineties, the old man is still very much alive, and while I was living in Jerusalem we coincidentally shared a barber. Encounters with history indeed.) Netanyahu’s older brother, Yonatan, was a veteran of two wars and a decorated commander in the Israeli special forces who became a national hero after he was killed in the 1976 raid on Entebbe. Shortly after Yonatan’s death, a series of letters he wrote to family and friends were published in book form, becoming a touchstone for a generation of Israelis.

Obama, on the other hand, was the son of a brief marriage between two college students, one American and one Kenyan. He never really knew his Kenyan father, who rose to small prominence in his native land before disintegrating in a haze of alcohol. His mother took to globetrotting, sometimes with and sometimes without him, and he was raised mostly by his suburban, middle-

In terms of politics and ideology as well, the two men could not be further apart. Netanyahu is a dedicated neoliberal, a believer in military strength and the necessity of the use of force, and thinks that peace can only be attained when there is a balance of force and a balance of fear between nations. Obama is a lifelong social democrat; a skeptic of the free market; a believer in the power of dialogue, disarmament, and good will to achieve peace between nations; and thinks that military force is just as often the problem as it is the solution.

On the surface then, the two men could not seem more different. One is rightwing; born into, if not wealth, at least privilege; and convinced that the world is a dangerous place in which force is usually the only language anyone understands. The other is leftwing, from modest circumstances, and convinced that the world can not only be improved but perhaps perfected by human effort.

On second look, however, there is a surprising kinship between the two men. Both are articulate, intelligent, charismatic, and most of all telegenic politicians. Gifted rhetoricians, both are known for their speechmaking abilities and gift for appearing effortlessly smooth in high-pressure campaign situations. In the case of Obama, this is well-known, as the man’s entire career has been largely based on image and rhetoric; but in the case of Netanyahu it is equally striking. Indeed, in the era before television came to Israel (only about twenty-five years ago) a politician like Netanyahu would not have been possible. For most of its history, Israel’s leaders have been aggressively uncharismatic, plain spoken party officials or military men. Netanyahu is a product of the new, more globalized, Americanized, prosperous, and media-driven Israel; one in which image is just as important as reality, if not more so.

Just as they have enjoyed the benefits of their media-friendly images, however, both Obama and Netanyahu are well acquainted with its drawbacks. Put simply, both men often appear to be decidedly vacuous, empty, and sometimes inept once the cameras are turned off. Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, back in the late ‘90s, was such a disaster that it took him a decade to crawl back to the office, and even then he achieved it only by the skin of his teeth; losing the election to Tzipi Livni and the Kadima party but gaining the prime ministership through the quirks of Israel’s proportional election system. As for Obama’s drawbacks, they have been the primary topic of American political discussion for months, and need not be recounted here.

More significant than this is the kinship between the two men’s relationship to the past. Both of them are deeply influenced by being part of minority groups with long histories of suffering and oppression. Netanyahu’s Judaism is decisive in his view of himself and of history, so much so that it sometimes arouses the ire of those Israelis who think that Zionism’s success ought to have mitigated at least some of this lachrymose attitude toward the past. At least one Israeli columnist recently accused Netanyahu of speaking “like a Jew and not an Israeli,” a dichotomy that those unacquainted with the history of Zionism and Zionist thought may find confusing, but which is unquestionably a part of the current debate over Israeli identity.

Obama’s relationship to his African-American ancestry is just as decisive. Indeed, judging by the frequency with which he invokes it, even on somewhat inappropriate occasions such as the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, his status as the first black president of the United States is something that he does not only consider a personal accomplishment but a transformative moment in human history. Certainly, it is exactly that for his supporters, who see him as the consummation of the struggles of the civil rights movement and, for those with a particularly long view of history, abolitionism and the Civil War itself.

And yet, Obama and Netanyahu share another, paradoxical quality in this regard. The groups to which they belong have had a decisive influence on their identity, and yet neither of the two men are completely of these groups. Indeed, they have both spent large portions of their lives outside them. As mentioned above, Obama was not raised in a black community, but for the most part by white, middle-class suburbanites. It was not until his college years that he began to identity with the black community and eventually chose to become a part of it. In the same way, while Netanyahu’s familial and ideological ties to Israel are profound, he has lived large portions of his life—especially during his childhood—in the United States, and the influence of Anglo-American culture on him is unmistakable. There is no doubt that he is more like an American than an Israeli politician; something that has caused him some serious problems during his political career, with rumors flying that he was born in America (he wasn’t) and a certain derisory attitude toward his excellent English, which strikes some Israelis as irritatingly foreign.

The most important connection between the two men, however, and perhaps the source of the tension between them, is that they are both messianic politicians. In the case of Obama, with his various apocalyptic invocations of waters receding, ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and humanity entering upon a “new world,” this is obvious. Netanyahu’s messianism is more subtle, but no less intense. It appears most prominently in his book A Durable Peace, but it is invoked implicitly and explicitly in his speeches as well. Put simply, beneath his veneer of realism Netanyahu is a believer in the Democratic Peace, the idea that eventually all the nations of the world will become democracies and this will end war and conflict forever. And like Obama, he believes that this can be accomplished by conscious human action, including military force.

In this sense, both Obama and Netanyahu are tragic figures. Neither Obama’s new world nor Netanyahu’s democratic peace are ever going to actually happen; and what the fallout may be from this disillusionment is impossible to predict. In all likelihood, it will go harder for Netanyahu. America likes its leaders to have a bit of tragic messianism to them, but Israelis tend to be more skeptical (or cynical, depending on your point of view) about such things. What is certain, however, is that the current impasse between the two men is less about practical politics or diplomacy and much more about two competing and incompatible messianic visions — both of which, unfortunately, are doomed to failure.

Benjamin Kerstein is Senior Writer for The New Ledger.

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Shakedown 1979

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Shakedown 1979

by Christopher Badeaux

Tourist or President

With President Obama having concluded his trip through one of the fastest-dying regions of the planet, complete with literal prostrations to a symbolic Emperor and metaphorical prostrations to an Emperor in all but name, this is as good a time as any to ask whether his Administration has developed a coherent foreign policy grand strategy yet. The evidence, to date, suggests that Obama foreign policy is like Obama campaign promises: destined to be realized in some shadowy future likely – but not certain – to come, yet already awarded rich accolades merely for promise.

The usual people who don’t understand foreign policy – which is to say, the sorts of people who are well-received, if not employed, by the State Department (which hasn’t understood foreign policy since Kissinger, or perhaps Dulles) – are of course charmed by the President’s playacting on the global stage. This is probably because the kabuki-dance of Metternichian diplomacy, though likely to allow untold millions to die of starvation, rape, genocide, torture, ethnic cleansing, and imprisonment, is more visually appealing than war and open conflict – not least because all of that starvation, rape, genocide, torture, ethnic cleansing, and imprisonment tends to happen in countries that don’t allow cameras near the atrocities.

This terrible conflation of form over substance elides the fact that Baron von Metternich developed the balance of power system he did to avoid a repeat of the devastation of Napoleon, and that ultimately, that very system of diplomatic communiqués, bows, negotiations, dinners, and playacting not only failed to avert the First World War, it positively accelerated and worsened the Second. In other words, the modern system is a shell of a remnant of a means of preventing a disaster that has long-since passed, and that failed miserably both times it was really well-tested. It is, in short, a system intended to devolve larger conflicts into smaller, more manageable ones, and is instead a method for preventing small conflicts by accumulating them into larger ones. Perversely, the whole, nominal point of the modern system of international diplomacy is to provide channels through which substantive foreign policy – that is, the real goals and desires of nations and nation-states – can flow without having more wars than necessary. Its loveliness should be secondary to its effectiveness. Applauding what President Obama has delivered – a foreign policy with better aesthetics than President Bush’s, without President Bush’s substance – is like wanting a faster car always stuck in the driveway: There’s no point if it’s not going anywhere.

This inability to separate substance and appearance – oddly appropriate for a President who has never shown much of an ability to do so since he began putting the finishing touch on his resume in 2004 – is nowhere better on display than in his dealings with China.

One would be hard-pressed to identify anyone who is neither a member of the Administration, a member of the American press corps (insofar as that isn’t the same thing), one of the aforementioned lovers of Metternichian avoidance, or a member of the government of the People’s Republic of China who thinks President Obama’s strolling photo-shoot through Asia was a success. The heretofore-unbroken foreign policy consensus of three decades has been that America wants to control a rising China to bring it into the community of nations – as a free and open society, trading freely with the world and keeping its torture to the bare minimum a quasi-fascist regime can accept as it transitions into something vaguely resembling a democratic empire. Because this requires a delicate dance of threats, cajolings, ingratiations, brute shows of force, and speeches about strategic partnerships while everyone clenches their teeth; and because that sort of thing is beyond the ability of any elected American President since Reagan if not Washington; Sino-American relations tend to look like a bizarrely schizophrenic bumble that extends the length of an Administration.

This is why President Clinton – in that way that only Bubba could – alternated between overlooking Chinese espionage at Los Alamos and sending a carrier battle group to the Taiwan Straits; why President Bush thanked China for capturing an American plane in international airspace on the one hand and met early and often with the Dalai Lama and made clear that America’s future strategic partnership lay with India, as an explicit counterweight to China.

The critical feature to all of this, however ineptly done, is that the carrot and the stick are closely joined. American Presidents praise a free, prosperous China. They speak of strategic partnerships while directing carrier battle groups in the Pacific. They talk about One China while approving arms shipments to Taiwan and hugging the Dalai Lama. They let China know that it faces no threat from the United States, but that it could.

Yet President Obama is home today with nothing to show for it other than some non-committal statements on the importance of an uncensored internet (which statements were largely censored) and a great deal of commentary about a failed trip. He put off any meeting with the Dalai Lama before traveling to China; he spoke not a word about human rights; he let himself be used as a prop at a press conference in which no questions were allowed. In return, he got, perhaps, a lovely set of lacquered chopsticks.

President Obama has been called our first foreign President – a title in which he seems to bask abroad – and though there may be something to that (he came from a corrupt political machine, he seems incapable of connecting with most of his constituents and appears not to care, his wife benefited from targeted government funds, and so on), it is also insulting to any American President, including this one. It is more that he had so little grounding in everyday America before coming to the mainland to attend college that he acquired only half of an American personality: He got that inordinate desire to please others without the attendant refusal to budge when pushed that even Midwesterners display when lectured. The one, without the other, is simply incapable of using the Metternichian system for more than symbolism, because there must always be the threat of force to go with the tea service. The absence of that complete, American personality was fully on display from ASEAN through Korea: Amid all of the ultimately pointless genuflection, there was no demand for anything, of any kind, or even substantive movement, on any goal to advance American interests abroad.

The Asia trip is merely indicative of the norm. I defy anyone reading this to tell me what goals the Obama Administration actually has. An end to the Israeli-Arab conflict? Surely not, for if there is anywhere this team has truly failed, it is in that tiny corner of the world: Israel has told America to pound sand more thoroughly than in decades, and there’s no sign of sanity breaking out in the Palestinians or indeed, any of the neighboring Arab countries. Triumph in Afghanistan? As we sit here, President Obama has promised to move past his initial premise on Afghanistan – that we should focus our efforts on winning that war – and past his subsequent, slightly modified position – that we should focus our efforts on that war – to some indeterminate position (complete with “exit ramps”), to be disclosed soon, though when is a bit up in the air at the moment. Win concessions from Iran to avoid nuclearization? I believe the current status of that effort is pending resolution, although Iran has informed us that if we turn our backs on Israel and side with Iran, it may hold the football still for us to kick, this time. (Doubtless, abandoning Israel to cozy up with Iran will poll well in the heartland.) Get Russia to side with us on anything at all? Concededly, months of reassuring a country dying faster than Japan, South Korea, or China – no mean feat – that it still counts for something hasn’t accomplished much, but surely that’s coming along any day now. Convince Kim Jong Il to … do something, presumably? While I yield to my colleague Josh Stanton on the Hermit Kingdom and its schizophrenic, baby-free neighbor to the South, I’m not certain as we sit here that the President has even identified what he wants from the DPRK, let alone accomplished a first step. Convince China to keep buying our currency so we can run even bigger deficits and debts? What are they going to do, stop?

Perhaps, some might say, President Obama is banking goodwill for future foreign policy endeavors. Certainly, one would only have had to pay attention to Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush on the campaign trail to have some idea about their preferred foreign policy outcomes, while President Obama remains a cipher; but I’m game: What are they? Perhaps something from the American Left’s hobbyhorse closet: Ending carbon dioxide emissions? I’m sure all of the self-important folks gathering in Copenhagen next month will laugh at that. Get China to lower its greenhouse emissions? More laughter. End a genocide? The President has been very clear since before he took office that he embodies the New Left’s strange, unwavering belief in the inviolability of post-Westphalian borders; or if you prefer, how is the Administration dealing with the Sudan? Ending nuclear proliferation? While doubtless on the President’s agenda – he has said as much in yet another well-received speech – the actual work of ending nuclear proliferation appears to be less important to the President than whether he’s given a well-received speech this week. (Ask Pakistan. Or Venezuela. Or North Korea. Or…) Reform the international economic system? In fairness, President Obama has shown a greater willingness to re-enact Smoot-Hawley than any President in decades, though whether this is desirable is a different question. Whether the rest of the world is on board is, thankfully, not yet known.

The Obama Administration’s foreign policy appears premised on the idea that the Carter Administration was not inherently wrong on anything, just well ahead of its time. A left-wing, Latin American dictator is ousted by every other branch of government, following from an attempt to seize power in defiance of his country’s written constitution? Back the status quo ante. The Soviets – pardon, the Russians – are flexing their muscles in Eastern Europe? Give them breathing room. China is asserting its hegemony in Southeast Asia (concededly without invading Vietnam this time)? Let all of the region know that we don’t even understand what that means, and we certainly don’t intend to get in the way. India? At best, a neutral party, and never an ally.

If its foreign policy approach is merely the revenge of the rabbit-stalked, its grand strategy appears to be providing President Obama chances to appear before cheering crowds composed of non-Americans. Concrete effects simply do not matter, because they are not the goal. The President is the message; the President is the medium; the President is the goal. It is not coincidence that the word “I” appears more often than the words “a,” “an,” and “the” combined in the President’s speeches abroad; it is not coincidence that the only things anyone noted of the President’s tour were his bow to a figurehead Emperor and his announcement that he is the first Pacific President.

Taking this in the most charitable way possible, this represents a complete failure of understanding by the President. I say the President and not his foreign policy team, as some of his partisans are wont to do because, as an internet commenter noted the other day, what the Unitary Executive really means is this: When someone in the Executive Branch screws up, there’s only one man to blame.

Whether that man even knows it is, like everything else about his foreign policy, an open question.

Christopher Badeaux is Senior Editor of The New Ledger.

Goldman Sachs: the case for the defence

By William Cohan

Let us now praise Goldman Sachs, for the sole reason that it and it alone among the major, capital-intensive Wall Street institutions – both recently deceased and still living – actually understands something about risk and risk-taking.

By his own admission, Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive, ranks risk management as his number one daily priority, even ahead of doing God’s work. “I’m a risk manager and I’ve been that for a long time, a lot longer than I’ve been CEO,” he said recently at a breakfast in New York sponsored by Fortune magazine. “I live 98 per cent of my time in the world of 2 per cent probabilities. I live always in the worst case.”

Except for Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, what other Wall Street chief executive could have uttered those words with even a shred of credibility? Jimmy Cayne, at Bear Stearns? Dick Fuld, at Lehman Brothers? Stan O’Neal, at Merrill Lynch? Chuck Prince, at Citigroup? Ken Lewis, at Bank of America? Not likely. “If I had to focus on a key failure in this crisis, it was the failure of risk management” at other institutions, Mr Blankfein said.

Not that Mr Blankfein was relaxed about his own bank’s survival during the weeks after Lehman collapsed and the government fashioned an $85bn rescue of AIG (with Goldman benefiting as an AIG counterparty to the tune of $12.9bn). This was a moment when the 2 per cent probability had come to pass. Mr Blankfein and his colleagues quickly arranged for a $5bn investment from Warren Buffett and then $5bn more from the public. “That was an endorsement,” Mr Blankfein said, with some understatement. “At the same time, the world was riskier than I was comfortable having it be. And so I was very, very damn uncomfortable. It was scary. But you know something? There’s no doubt in my mind that we were as well capitalised as anybody else in the market. Probably better than anybody else in the market.”

A few weeks later, then-Treasury secretary Hank Paulson – Blankfein’s predecessor – force-fed Goldman $10bn from the troubled asset relief programme (Tarp). Eight other large financial institutions received another $115bn. Slowly but surely the acute phase of the crisis passed. In June 2009, Goldman paid back its $10bn, along with $318m in dividends and an above-market $1.1bn for the government’s warrants in the bank. In all, American taxpayers got a cool annualised return of 23 per cent on their Goldman investment.

To be sure, there is much to criticise Goldman Sachs for. It is still not crystalline whether Goldman’s special relationship with Mr Paulson and others in government allowed it to benefit unjustifiably from the eleventh-hour decision to save AIG, which had foolishly decided to insure much of the risk in the financial markets. Had Goldman hedged itself perfectly against its AIG exposure – as Goldman contends – or would the bank have suffered severely from the collapse of AIG, as suggested pointedly by Neil Barofsky, the Tarp inspector-general, in a recent report to Congress? “Had AIG collapsed,” Mr Barofsky wrote, “the systemic implications on other market participants might have made it difficult for Goldman Sachs to collect on the credit protection it had purchased against an AIG default.” In other words, did Mr Paulson save AIG to save Goldman?

There are also those who argue that Goldman’s efforts after December 2006 to hedge its long exposure to the mortgage market loaded AIG up with even more risk and drove up the cost of insuring against an AIG default. These people believe Goldman’s hedging strategy helped to cause AIG’s ultimate demise. (There are plenty of people who also believe Goldman exacerbated the collapses of Bear Stearns and Lehman, too.)

Then there is ongoing criticism of the bank for its uncanny ability to take advantage of the financial crisis – including the demise of competitors and the reluctance of those still around to take risks, even prudent ones – to make billions in profits and then to set aside $16.7bn (so far) for bonuses, pay and benefits. This strikes many people outside 85 Broad Street as piggish and unfair, since the American taxpayer helped rescue the system from which Goldman is now benefiting. At the same time, beyond the Hudson, unemployment is rising and capital is scarce – and pricey – for thousands of small businesses that need it desperately and that are generally responsible for creating most new jobs in a well-functioning economy.

To his credit, though, Mr Blankfein alone among Wall Street chief executives has had the decency to say sorry – albeit belatedly – for the role his bank played in exacerbating the financial crisis. “We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret,” he said last week. “We apologise.” What took so long is not clear. Why his brethren have not also done so is equally baffling.

Despite all the criticism, Goldman’s risk-taking prowess and judgment should be applauded. Goldman’s top executives think more like owners than do those at any other bank. Thankfully, they actually lose sleep over the possibility of losing their shareholders’ and creditors’ money. For us to have even a prayer of avoiding another financial calamity, the rest of Wall Street will need to follow their example.

The writer is a contributing editor at Fortune and is the author of ‘House of Cards: a Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street’

Goldman/AIG Conspiracy Theories: There’s a Reason They Won’t Go Away

Note: this post is by Thomas Adams, at Paykin Krieg and Adams, LLP, and a former managing director at Ambac and FGIC, with some minor additions by yours truly. This is a significant piece of some puzzles he, some other experts who prefer to remain anonymous, and I have been pushing on for several months.

As we have been reading the latest coverage on the AIG bailout from the SIGTARP report and the Treasury Secretary Geithner’s Congressional testimony, a nagging question remains unresolved: why did AIG get bailed out but the monoline bond insurers did not?

The business that caused AIG to blow up was the same that caused the bond insurers to blow up – collateralized debt obligations backed by sub-prime mortgage bonds (ABS CDOs). This was actually one of the few business that AIG Financial Products had in common with the monolines. AIG didn’t participate in municipal insurance, MBS or other ABS deals, which were all important for the monolines.

Certainly, AIG was larger than any of the bond insurers, but in aggregate, the bond insurers had a tremendous amount of ABS CDO exposure, which at the peak was probably over $300 billion. Despite AIG’s claims to have withdrawn from subprime at the end of 2005, we have identified particular 2006 deals with substantial subprime content that AIG most assuredly did guarantee.

In addition, the monolines had exposure to many other assets classes that AIG did not which created chaos for the holders of those bonds when the monolines were downgraded. The chain reaction risk of the bond insurers was arguably greater, when you throw in the damage to the aucton rate securities market, which was rooted in the muni market. In 2007, MBIA had over $650 billion of par insured, Ambac had about $500 billion, FSA had about $380 billion and FGIC had about $300 billion. Throwing in CIFG and XLCA, the total insured par of the monolines was about $2 trillion – this amount certainly would qualify as large enough to be “systemic risk” if the insurers were allowed to fail.

In contrast, while AIG’s aggregate insured par was greater, the only portion that really presented a systemic risk exposure was the CDS and structured finance exposures, which had an aggregate par exposure of about $400-500 billion. a persuasive argument could be made that the monolines were just as intertwined in the financial system as AIG and, thanks to their municipal exposure, presented as great or greater a systemic risk to the financial markets and the economy.

Yet AIG was bailed out and the monolines were not.

So what happened? How did the monolines get dropped and AIG get rescued? The popular reason given has been that AIG was so big that they affected all segments of the economy, whereas the monolines were only midsized and not critical to the economy. i believe that SIGTARP repeated this version of events last week. I understand that Treasury Secretary Geithner last week repeated this notion and added new information – that he was concerned about the cascading risk of AIG’s non CDS exposure.

While this produces a bigger par exposure for AIG, these other areas did not have the huge risks of loss, have largely remained functional, and did not have the issue of collateral posting. The risk were at the parent level, at AIG FP; the bulk of AIG’s business was written by regulated subsidiaries whose claims-paying ability would not be impaired by an AIG FP failure. So, in my view, this is a fairly weak, after the fact argument. A more plausible case might be made that AIG also had a securities lending business that had sprung a $20 billion leak, but that wee problem hasn’t gotten much mention in the official defenses.

I have a different interpretation. I should note that I am a former employee of a bond insurer, so I admit to a bias. However, I my general perspective had been, until recently, that neither AIG or the bond insurers should have been rescued.

When I was at FGIC, Deutsche Bank, Lehman, Bear and UBS were all over my company with sales coverage for CDO deals. But we never heard much from Goldman. I was actually surprised to see that they were so big with John Paulson’s CDO adventures (as recently disclosed in “The Best Trade Ever”), because I never thought they were that big in the CDO market.

One big reason I didn’t know Goldman was so big in CDOs – they didn’t work with the monolines.

Goldman wanted their counterparties to post collateral so they would have protection against corporate downgrades. The monolines refused to have collateral posting requirements in their CDS contracts. The rating agencies supported them in this position on the argument that maintaining their AAA rating was “fundamental to their business”.

AIG, on the other hand, agreed to collateral posting requirements. in fact, they used this as a competitive advantage – they got more business because of it and marketed their flexibility on this issue to the banks. There were two the key distinctions between the monolines and AIG – first, AIG had other businesses, whose losses could threaten AIG’s financial guarantee business while monolines promised to pay claims first, to protect investors. Second, AIG had a history of negotiating before they paid claims (there is an interesting history with a ABS film receivables deal where AIG refused to pay, while the monolines covered similar deals and did not have the same “out” in their policies. this deal did serious damage to AIG’s reputation in the ABS market and shut them out of many deals). So despite their AAA rating, AIG was not as trusted by the structured finance and CDS market – there was a fear that AIG would wiggle out of their obligations in a way that the monolines would not.

All of the other banks got comfortable with the monolines not having to post collateral for CDS trades because of their AAA ratings. Goldman never did.

Of course, Goldman was one of the few banks that clearly set out to profit from shorting CDOs. They obviously realized that if their CDS counterparty was on the hook for a lot of ABS CDOs that were going to blow up, the insurance provider would likely get downgraded. If the downgrade of the insurer was very likely, the only way the short-CDO strategy worked was if the insurer would post collateral.

So Goldman only used AIG, who would provide protection against their downgrade, which Goldman knew would happen because they were stuffing AIG with toxic ABS CDOs.

The banks that used the monolines for their ABS CDOs were making a major error by taking on the monoline downgrade risk without protection, especially if they knew that the ABS CDOs were toxic. So I suspect that most of the banks did not really know that the ABS CDOs would be as toxic as they turned out to be.

This is, of course, what happened. The ABS CDOs blew up, the bond insurers got downgraded, the banks that used them got crushed because their hedges against their CDO risks were now in jeopardy. A death spiral between the monolines and the banks ensued (the ARS meltdown added to the troubles). Goldman didn’t care, because they had collateral posted by AIG once AIG got downgraded..

All of the banks who faced the monolines had to start considering commutation deals with the monolines because it was obvious the monolines did not have enough capital to cover all of the CDO losses. in these commutations, the banks accepted payments as low as 40 cents on the dollar.

Most of the monoline ratings roubles had unfolded earlier in 2008 – many of them had been downgraded, several commutations had already occurred by the time of the AIG bailout. AIG managed to put off the threat of serious downgrade for a long time, despite the junk in their portfolio (as 2008 progressed, it was a mystery to me and many others why the onolines were being downgraded but AIG was not). While AIG had been downgraded to AA some time earlier, this hadn’t caused much of a disruption because the real trigger for collateral posting was if they went below AA. For a variety of reasons, this wasn’t a threat until September of 2008.

I hate to get sucked into the vampire squid line of thinking about Goldman, but the only explanation i can think of for why AIG got rescued and the monolines did not is because Goldman had significant exposure to AIG and did not have exposure to the monolines.

When it became clear that AIG could face bankruptcy, Goldman’s plan to profit by shorting ABS CDOs was threatened. While they had the collateral posted, thanks to the downgrades, this collateral could be tied up or lost if AIG went bankrupt. This was a real crisis for Goldman – they thought they had outsmarted the subprime market with their ABS CDOs and outsmarted all of the other banks by getting collateral posting from AIG when they got downgraded. But if AIG went away, this strategy would have blown up and cost Goldman billions.

All of this is essentially factual and based, for the most part, on public information.

As a matter of speculation, i believe that Goldman and their helpers deliberately pumped up the media with the threats that the subprime market posed in order to hasten the collapse of the subprime market. this allowed them to realize their gains sooner from shorting ABS CDOs – they had become impatient waiting for it to blow up.

In addition, I believe that Goldman and their helpers – including their many connections with the White House and the Fed – pumped up concerns about the systemic risk that the market was facing from a Lehman and AIG failure, so that they could force the government to step in and bail out AIG. This would also explain why Lehman was not bailed out. Lehman didn’t really matter to Goldman. But the fear created by Lehman’s failure served as a good excuse for why they should rescue AIG.

I have been wondering why the sub-prime market blow up led to such a massive crisis when subprime and structured finance had experienced big problems before without the issue of systemic risk and financial market collapse.
Certainly, the ABS CDOs were toxic and caused big holes, but not so big that it couldn’t be addressed by an RTC type of clearing system. Various analyst reports of the bad subprime deals (and ABS CDOs) makes it pretty clear that the 2006-2007 vintages were the worst and will probably only create about $500-700 million of aggregate losses. Terrible, but not insurmountable.

This leads me to conclude that the bailout was prompted by fear mongering and deliberate strategies and manipulation on the part of Goldman and a few select others, to make sure that AIG would be bailed out to protect their trades in shorting ABS CDOs.

i believe that John Paulson benefited from this bailout, on his $5 billon or so of ABS CDOs with AIG. But not as much as Goldman benefited themselves, via Abacus and, perhaps, other deals.

AIG, Goldman and ABS CDOs were tied together at the center of the crisis. From Goldman’s perspective, all of the other participants were secondary – they had no exposure to the monolines and they were probably hedged against the other banks. The only loose end was the collateral posted by AIG.

The final question that this raises for me: would it have been cheaper for the government and the taxpayer to have bailed out the bond insurers instead of AIG? The total amount of CDOs and credit default swaps that would have needed to be guaranteed would have been smaller. In the number of investors across the market that would have benefited would probably have been larger. The auction rate securities market, the muni market, the investors that held bond insurer exposure to MBS and ABS would have all benefited. None of these markets were aided by AIG’s bailout.

But a bond insurer bailout would not have helped Goldman much and the AIG bailout did.

Yves here. Note I differ with Tom on how much Goldman could or did pump up subprime fears. A lot of people focused on Jan Hatzius’ bearish calls on financial system losses, but quite a few people in a position to know claim that Hatzius is not the sort to take commercially expedient views. But once the asset-backed commercial paper started imploding in August 2007, the officialdom was very much engaged. So if one can connect the dots between Goldman and the fear and loathing that hit the ABCP market (recall all paper was repudiated as in being possibly tainted by subprime), the story becomes very tidy.

Obama's Failing: Too Much Head, Too Little Gut

By David Paul Kuhn

Liberals have long sought the professorial president. But Barack Obama is starting to betray some of the vices of that virtue.

This president appears too much brain and too little gut. Prof-in-chief has his drawbacks. The decision to send the confessed Sept. 11 mastermind to the civilian criminal court system was defensible in the academy. But it should have failed any seasoned pol's gut check. This crime was, after all, taken as an act of war.

Originally, thoughtfulness on the Afghan-war was welcomed and justified. But there have been nine major meetings of Obama's war-council. It's been nearly three months. Even as the decision nears, the deliberation has begun to feel like indecision.

It's also how this president speaks to the public. "Most folks believe that we've now turned the corner," Obama said of the recession in September. "Jobs tend to be a lagging indicator."

Obama's never had that gene, visible in other politicians, that allows him to convey the public's pain. Not in the deft sense of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. Last month, it was telling that Joe Biden, not Obama, took up Reagan's line that, "when you're out of work, it's a depression."

During the campaign, there were clues that this professor carried some of the baggage common to his breed. That reference to Whole Foods arugula prices to Iowa farmers. Obama's remark to a group of liberal donors in San Francisco that small town folks in places like Pennsylvania "cling to guns or religion."

Pundits did reach for adjectives like "aloof" or "professorial" to describe Obama. And even The New York Times took up the discussion post-market collapse. "In a Time of Crisis, Is Obama Too Cool?" read the Times' headline. But running in the wake of George W. Bush's presidency, against John McCain's mercurial campaign and amid the financial crisis, Obama needed only to appear steady to be just cool enough.

W. was the polar archetype of the professor. He used too much gut, from gauging the Russian leader to his "bring 'em on" bravado that permeated even his approach to war. But distance from W. allows more perspective on the professorial presidency, including its negatives.

Those negatives consumed Teddy Roosevelt. The Harvard-man, who wielded a photographic memory, was obsessed with seizing the "strenuous life" to avoid what he saw as the pitfalls of zealous intellectualism.

No modern administration has had more Ivy Leaguers than Gerald Ford, roughly half of his team. But Ford's most important decisions came from breaking with top advisors and going with his instincts: the pardon of Richard Nixon and the use of those famous words, "America's long national nightmare is over." A decade later, Ronald Reagan would similarly disregard learned advisors and stick with the line, "Tear down this wall!"

Obama's intellect has been understandably celebrated. He was the only major candidate who refused to float a gas-tax holiday. From his race speech to his first public comments on the financial crisis to his speech in Cairo, his eloquence is a visible asset.

And yet, even that asset has been exaggerated. Obama's inaugural address did not ring or read like John Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt's. Obama lacks Roosevelt's touch with the jobless and hopeless, perhaps because Obama lacks so-humbling an experience as FDR had with Polio.

This financial crisis' strongest speech came in an address to Congress. But it came not from Obama but an impassioned British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, when he spoke of the "irrepressible nation" in his March call to action.

The advantage of Obama's command of the complex earns outsized notice, however, because his predecessor was unusually inarticulate--for a president that is.

But there remains a tendency for those smart-guy dumb mistakes. Obama's recent bow to Japan's emperor was a powerful cultural gesture to the Japanese. But that bow came in the context of earlier controversies over Obama's smiling handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah.

Politics 101 teaches that creating jobs can also create votes. Yet Democrats decided not to create a new-New Deal. It would have visibly and proportionally focused job creation where unemployment is highest, among laborers. But the obvious move is often not the professor's move.

Democrats have, indeed, moved towards the professional class for decades. Obama was always the personification of two of the most important legs of the Democratic coalition, blacks and highly educated whites. Republicans won post-graduates by 2 percentage points in 1988. Two decades later, Democrats won the bloc by 18 points.

The political left came to, in Al Gore and John Kerry, realize the disadvantages of the overly brainy candidate. But Democrats still cherished the cerebral president. In the Bush era, many liberals found relief in "The West Wing" fictionalized presidency of Jed Bartlet, an Economics Nobel Laureate who spoke four languages.

But ever since one columnist branded Adlai Stevenson an "egghead" in 1952 it seems, many Democrats have proven unable to fully consider the substance of the charge.

Last year, the Daily Telegraph obtained a confidential letter from the British ambassador to the prime minister. It described Obama as someone who "can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons," with a demeanor that "does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset," a man who "can talk too dispassionately."

It was the sort of frank appraisal that thoughtful men should consider.

David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter. He can be reached at david@realclearpolitics.com and his writing followed via RSS

The United States -- Decline and Fall?

The United States -- Decline and Fall?

By Richard Reeves

LOS ANGELES -- It has become fashionable on both the left and the right to compare the United States to ancient Rome. Decline and fall: We are a militaristic power trying to make everyone else in the known world submit to our way, or we are an irreligious, hedonistic bunch going the way of all flesh. Or maybe both.

Not true, according to two interesting recent books.

Thomas F. Madden, a professor of ancient history at St. Louis University, begins his book, "Empires of Trust," by denouncing "political screeds that yank bloody bits of Roman history out of context in order to make hackneyed partisan points." Then he adds: "The Rome that fell, it should be remembered, was over two thousand years old. We should be so lucky. No, the young United States has nothing at all in common with the aged imperial Rome, but it has important things in common with the youthful Roman Republic."

Rome actually fell three times, argues Madden. In 27 B.C., the Roman Republic, the regime he compares with the United States, evolved into the one-man rule of an emperor in Italy and beyond. That Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians in A.D. 476. But the eastern empire with its capital in Constantinople, continued to thrive into the Middle Ages, finally falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

It is that Eastern Roman Empire, also called Byzantium, that is the focus of "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire," by the often controversial national security intellectual Edward Luttwak. While Madden sees the Roman Republic and the United States as empires of trust -- nations with allies, some once conquered, who trust them as military and economic powers -- Luttwak advocates that the "American Empire" would do well to emulate the strategies of Byzantium.

"Economic crisis, mounting national debt, excessive foreign commitments," says Luttwak, speaking of the middle period of Roman emperors, "this is no way to run an empire. America ... has never been Rome, and to adopt its strategies now -- in ruthless expansion of empire by domination of foreign peoples, and a bone-crushing brand of total war -- would only hasten America's decline."

Luttwak, who says he has studied Byzantine documents and other writings for two decades, advises Americans to learn seven lessons from Byzantium. They are:

"1. Avoid war by every possible means ... but always act as if war might start at anytime. ... Train intensively and be ready for battle at all times.

"2. Gather intelligence on the enemy and his mentality, and monitor his actions continuously.

"3. Campaign vigorously, both offensively and defensively, but avoid battles, especially large-scale battles.

"4. Replace the battle of attrition and occupation of countries with maneuver warfare -- lightning strikes and offensive raids to disrupt enemies.

"5. Strive to end wars successfully by recruiting allies to change the balance of power. Diplomacy is even more important during war than peace.

"6. Subversion is the cheapest path to victory. So cheap, in fact, as compared with the risks and costs of battle that it must always be attempted. ... Remember: Even religious fanatics can be bribed.

"7. When diplomacy and subversion are not enough and fighting is unavoidable, use methods and tactics that exploit enemy weaknesses, avoid consuming combat forces, and patiently whittle down the enemy's strength."

As for Madden, he concludes with a rush of optimism:

"America is a young country and an even younger empire. ... Americans remain optimistic about the future and confident in their abilities. They have reason to be. ... Americans have almost secured their horizon. That is what an Empire of Trust is driven to do. We may not be able to see the end of America's road, but its direction seems clear enough. And, for both Americans and the world, it is a good road to follow."

Thanks, we needed that. There is some confusion and contradiction in what Madden and Luttwak have to say, but clearly they believe the sky is not falling yet. Thoughts and reflections like theirs might even cause a president to take his time in making decisions about trying to exercise great and lethal power beyond the horizon.

The parable of the sower

Monsanto

The parable of the sower

The debate over whether Monsanto is a corporate sinner or saint

FEW companies excite such extreme emotions as Monsanto. To its critics, the agricultural giant is a corporate hybrid of Victor Frankenstein and Ebenezer Scrooge, using science to create foods that threaten the health of both people and the planet, and intellectual-property laws to squeeze every last penny out of the world’s poor. The list of Monsanto’s sins dates back to when (with other firms) it produced Agent Orange, a herbicide notorious for its use by American forces in Vietnam. Recently “Food Inc”, a documentary film, lambasted the company.

To its admirers, the innovations in seeds pioneered by Monsanto are the world’s best hope of tackling a looming global food crisis. Hugh Grant, the firm’s boss since 2003, says that without the sort of technological breakthroughs Monsanto has achieved the world has no chance of doubling agricultural output by 2050 while using less land and water, as many believe it must. Mr Grant, of course, would say that. But he is not alone. Bill Gates sees Monsanto’s innovations as essential to the agricultural revolution in Africa to which his charitable foundation is committed. Josette Sheeran, the head of the United Nations World Food Programme, is also a fan.

Monsanto has come a long way from its roots in pharmaceuticals and chemicals (in which capacity it made Agent Orange). The original company was formed in 1901 to make saccharine. In 2000 it merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn, a drugmaker. Two years later the group’s agricultural activities were spun off into a new Monsanto. At that time the company was best known for Roundup, a herbicide popular with farmers. Roundup is still a leading brand, but margins have been eroded by competition from Chinese producers of other forms of glyphosate weedkiller. Roundup’s share of Monsanto’s revenue is shrinking towards 10%. There is talk that it might be sold. “It is no sacred cow. We look at it every year,” says Mr Grant.

Today most of Monsanto’s $11.7 billion of annual sales come from seeds, increasingly of genetically modified (GM), or transgenic, varieties (see chart), and from licensing genetic traits. Indeed, it is now best known, for better or worse, for applying biotechnology to seed production, winning a string of the sort of patents on living organisms that became legal in America only after a Supreme Court decision in 1980. In July it gave its GM seed a new master brand: Genuity, a name that evokes “being genuine, authentic and original”, according to a company spokesman. It will denote a “family of innovative products that will enable farmers to do what they do best, even better.”

In the 13 years since GM seed was first farmed commercially, agriculture—and Monsanto with it—has become increasingly central to several of the world’s most pressing policy debates, says Mr Grant, a Scot who joined the company in 1981. Nowadays he spends a good deal of his time taking part in those debates, which range from concerns about higher prices and shortages of supply to the use of land for growing biofuels rather than food, climate change and water. Arguments over water, thinks Mr Grant, “will dwarf the discussion that has taken place so far over food.” Monsanto is also getting caught up in the debate over intellectual-property rights in food and their implications for antitrust policy, on which Barack Obama’s administration sounds less friendly than that of George Bush. It has already marked agriculture for attention.

How successful Monsanto and rival makers of GM seed, such as DuPont and Syngenta, are in winning round a sceptical public and policymakers will play a big part in determining how lucrative their innovations prove to be. In public attitudes to GM food, Mr Grant believes “there’s been progress everywhere compared with 15 years ago.” Still, Europe remains “slow, a real slouch. European farmers have been denied the right to choose.” Although the European Union is slowly becoming open to imports of GM food, it is still largely opposed to growing the stuff. Monsanto has still to complete a test of any GM seed in Britain because protesters have destroyed its experiments. In Latin America, by contrast, Argentina and Brazil are both growing GM corn (maize) and soyabeans. In some ways, rising awareness of the food crisis has helped people to see “GM as something with potential benefits other than just boosting the profits of Big Food,” says Mr Grant—to Monsanto’s benefit. Well, maybe.

Turbo-charging Mendel

Monsanto’s innovations fall into two categories. The first is breeding, which seedmakers have been doing with increasing sophistication for decades. Monsanto is able to accelerate the process of selective breeding through better mapping of a seed’s genetic qualities and its suitability to grow in a particular place.

At Monsanto’s research laboratory in St Louis, the company’s home city, farmers on one of the many tours that are part of its marketing efforts are clearly fascinated by a piece of technology known as the corn chipper. A machine picks up an individual seed, rotates it to the right position, then chips off a sample, which has its genetic material analysed. (Getting the seed in the right position is the hardest step, because each one has a different shape and it is crucial that the chipper does not damage the embryo and thus stop the seed from growing properly.) The likely attributes of the plant that would grow from each seed are predicted from its DNA, the most promising seeds are planted, and the process is repeated with the seeds that those plants go on to produce.

The tour guide refers to the operation as “CSI: St Louis”, although testing now goes on all year, at centres around the world. In the past three years this technology has helped speed up dramatically Monsanto’s ability to identify and grow the most productive seed for any given location. “It is the mother and father of all dating agencies: we can analyse every single seed we harvest, do a health check, guess what its grandchildren will be like, send it anywhere in the world,” says Mr Grant.

The second category of innovation, in which Monsanto is becoming increasingly adventurous, is genetic modification: identifying genetic traits with particular qualities and transplanting those traits into seeds to improve their performance. In essence, the goal is to pack as much technology into a seed as possible.

The biggest breakthroughs so far have been in weed and bug control. Perhaps the most common feature of Monsanto’s range of seeds is that they are Roundup Ready, meaning that they are guaranteed to survive spraying with Roundup that will take out any surrounding weeds. Some plants have been bioengineered to deter pests from eating their leaves and roots, which reduces or even eliminates the need for insecticides. Farmers on their tours cannot fail to miss the display cases in which a healthy Monsanto plant grows next to a seriously ailing traditional specimen of the same variety.

Monsanto has just launched two new varieties of seed that have been engineered to be far more productive: Genuity SmartStax corn, which company trials suggest can increase yields by 5-10%; and Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soyabeans, which in trials have shown yields 7-11% higher than the first generation of Roundup Ready soyabeans. Over the past couple of decades, soyabean yields have risen at an annual rate of barely 1%.

In around 2012 or 2013 Monsanto expects to launch a soyabean whose processing will result in fewer transfats. It will also offer an “omega-3 soyabean”, genetically enhanced to give consumers the many proven health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids. Until now, omega-3 has been harvested from fish and so, in Mr Grant’s words, “products with omega-3 in them taste a bit fishy.” Fish derive omega-3 from algae, so Monsanto has done likewise, extracting the relevant genetic material from the algae and putting it into soyabeans. Now, he says, without the fishy taste, omega-3 will go well in yogurts, health bars and so forth.

The company is also aiming to engineer seed to use nitrogen more efficiently—and hence to require less fertiliser. This would reduce farmers’ exposure to the price of oil, from which fertilisers are made, and the damage done when nitrogen leaches into the water supply.

In about three years’ time Monsanto expects to launch its first “drought tolerant” products. It is examining several ways of making plants more tolerant of drought. One is to improve the roots’ take-up of water. Another is to reduce water loss through the leaves. A third is to alter plants’ reaction to lack of water. When stressed, a plant shuts down growth in order to conserve what it has. They often over-react, and use a lot of energy when they restart. Genetic modification can help it interpret water conditions more accurately and avoid unnecessary stops and starts.

Because water shortages are predicted for many parts of the world, Monsanto expects these drought-tolerant plants to be a huge commercial success. The first of them will be corn, intended for a dry strip of America running from northern Texas to the Dakotas. Drought-tolerant technology has also prompted Monsanto to start focusing on dry-land wheat. Wheat acres have declined in recent years, contributing to shortages. In July the company paid $45m for WestBred, a wheat-seed firm.

Trust and antitrust

Acquisitions have been a key part of Monsanto’s strategy, giving it access to new seed markets. In 2005, it began to apply biotech to vegetables after buying Seminis, the world’s largest vegetable-seed company, for $1.4 billion. Since it was spun off, Monsanto has made more than 20 acquisitions (as well as several disposals). Those purchases are one reason why it was singled out as an appropriate target for the antitrust authorities in a paper published in October by the American Antitrust Institute, an independent competition watchdog. The paper laments the “impaired state of competition in transgenic seed”—which it blames on Monsanto above all.

The company’s acquisitions have been crucial in creating the horizontal and vertical integration that support its platforms in cotton, corn and soyabeans. Last year its share of the markets for GM corn and soyabeans was about 65% and that for GM cotton about 45%. The institute’s paper argues that, thanks to its dominance, Monsanto is actually harming innovation in seed. Monsanto had to make concessions to win the antitrust authorities’ approval for two of its biggest purchases, of DeKalb in 1998 and of Delta and Pine Land in 2007.

eyevine The next generation in the greenhouse

True, for the past 13 years Monsanto has been licensing its technology broadly, to hundreds of firms, including some of its main competitors. This, the paper concedes, has ensured that Monsanto has not ended up in “control of large, totally closed platforms in transgenic seed that could be challenged only by the unlikely emergence of rival platforms.” However, it cites Monsanto’s reputation for defending its intellectual property fiercely through the courts as another reason why the antitrust authorities should take a look at the firm.

Monsanto’s terms of business require farmers to buy fresh seed every year. Its new Violator Exclusion Policy denies farmers who break the terms of its licences access to all its technology for ever. This summer it achieved its latest success in enforcing its stern line when it won a case against some Canadian farmers who had held on to seed.

Agricultural markets have been mentioned as an area under review by officials in the antitrust division of the Department of Justice. The DoJ is expected to make Google its main target, but it will be no surprise if Monsanto comes a close second. Already, the DoJ is looking into complaints by DuPont, perhaps Monsanto’s fiercest rival. In May Monsanto sued DuPont, alleging that Pioneer, DuPont’s seed arm, had broken licensing terms for herbicide-resistant technology in corn and soyabeans. After an ugly war of words, DuPont countersued and complained to the DoJ.

“We are in a hyper-competitive business. Farmers have no shortage of choice,” insists the unapologetic Mr Grant. “Our goal is to be competitive every spring at the farmer’s table. A farmer may be willing to abdicate the decision on what chemicals to use, but not on what seed to plant. We aim to win one field at a time, one spring at a time.” Enforcing licences is crucial to that strategy. Just as in the drug industry, innovation is expensive: Monsanto has a research and development budget of nearly $1 billion a year, and reckons it costs $100m to bring a new GM seed to market. If there is to be innovation, the firm insists, intellectual property must be protected.

However, Monsanto is using different language—and a different approach from that of big drugmakers—when it comes to dealing with the millions of poor people in Africa. Mr Grant says that he is determined not to repeat the mistakes of the pharmaceutical industry in holding back on making valuable innovations available to the developing world. He believes that “in a perfect world, on the same day you launch [a drought-resistant seed] in Kansas, you would launch it similarly in Nairobi”—although in practice Africa and other poor places that are short of water will have to wait a while longer.

Over the past three years, the firm has started to play a leading role in efforts collectively described as an attempt to create a “green revolution in Africa”. Mr Grant talks enthusiastically about his friendship with Norman Borlaug, the driving force behind the Green Revolution, first in Mexico, then in Asia, in the second half of the past century, which is generally reckoned to have saved at least 1 billion lives. Shortly before his death this year, aged 95, Borlaug reportedly expressed regret that he would not live to see the “gene revolution”.

In white corn, a staple in Africa and Mexico, Monsanto has donated all its intellectual property, seed and know-how for developing drought-tolerant genes to Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), a public-private partnership that has received grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the foundation of Howard Buffett, an Illinois farmer (and son of Warren Buffett). The five countries to benefit are Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. Mr Grant expects to launch drought-tolerant corn in Africa within two or three years of the launch in America. The company is also working with Millennium Villages, an anti-poverty project led by Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University.

Big Pharma versus Big Farma

In contrast to the anti-retroviral drugs that pharmaceutical companies sell in Africa, this product will generate no royalties for Monsanto, says Mr Grant. “The buzzword is the ‘democratisation of technology’ and we have learnt from Big Pharma the dangers of being too slow,” says Mr Grant. The fact that seeds suited to one place do not necessarily grow well elsewhere greatly reduces the risk of parallel imports that affected the drugmakers. They feared that drugs given away in Africa would be shipped back to rich countries, undermining their business there.

That said, he does not believe that Monsanto could or should be expected to solve this problem on its own. “We studied what Borlaug did, which was work with local NGOs, tapped research institutes, brought disparate groups together. The new piece today is getting big companies involved, which hopefully means we can get this done much faster than Borlaug did.”

Mr Grant nonetheless regards this approach as “good business”, not least because the developing world will be a huge source of future growth for the firm. Monsanto sells more GM cotton in India than in America. Already, most of the countries where GM seed is sown are emerging ones. Around 90% of the world’s 12m farmers with at least a hectare planted with GM seed are smallholders in developing countries. America has 250,000-300,000 active farmers; India has 15m cotton farmers alone, several million of whom Monsanto says it has reached already.

This reinforces the firm’s fundamental message, that it is a driving force for higher farm productivity—and that higher productivity, not a return to the methods of the past, is likely to be the true source of agricultural sustainability. In America, GM seed has already brought about huge increases in productivity, says Mr Grant. He has no time for the “Malthusian thing about running out of food. This is eminently solvable.” He sees huge potential in merely raising yields in the rest of the world to levels already achieved in America thanks to better farming practices, Roundup and improved seed productivity. American farmers average about 160 bushels (of 56lb, or 25.5kg) of corn per acre per year, against 60 in Brazil and 27 in sub-Saharan Africa (22 excluding South Africa).

Moreover, even in America there is the potential to double yields again. Already, farmers in Iowa are producing as many as 200 bushels an acre. Mr Grant believes that 300 bushels are achievable by 2030. “We have just scratched the surface,” he says, pointing out that after the first GM crops came on the market in 1996, it took ten years for 1 billion acres to be planted. But the second billion took only another three years. “We are where transistors were in the 1970s.”

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Schumpeter

Remembering Drucker

Four years after his death, Peter Drucker remains the king of the management gurus

IN THE normal run of things the management world is divided into dozens of mutually suspicious tribes—theoreticians versus practitioners, publicity-hogging gurus versus retiring academics, supporters of “scientific” management versus advocates of the “humanistic” sort. But this month has seen unusual comity: the leaders of all the management tribes came together to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Peter Drucker, a man who is often described as “the father of modern management” and “the world’s greatest management thinker”.

The celebrations took place all around the world, most notably in Vienna, where Drucker was born, in southern California, where he spent his golden years, and in China, where he is exercising growing influence. The speakers were not limited to luminaries of management: they also included Rick Warren, the spiritual guru of the moment in America, Frances Hesselbein, a former head of the American Girl Scouts, and David Gergen, an adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents.

To mark the centennial, the Harvard Business Review put a photograph of Drucker on its cover along with the headline: “What Would Peter Do? How his wisdom can help you navigate turbulent times”. Claremont Graduate University in California, where Drucker taught, boasts not one but two institutions that are dedicated to keeping the flame alive: the Peter Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management and the Drucker Institute. The institute acts as the hub of a global network of Drucker societies that are trying to apply his principles to everything from schools to refuse collection. It also produces a “do-it-yourself workshop-in-a-box” called “Drucker Unpacked”.

Why does Drucker continue to enjoy such a high reputation? Part of the answer lies in people’s mixed emotions about management. The management-advice business is one of the most successful industries of the past century. When Drucker first turned his mind to the subject in the 1940s it was a backwater. Business schools were treated as poor relations by other professional schools. McKinsey had been in the management-consulting business for only a decade and the Boston Consulting Group did not yet exist. Officials at General Motors doubted if Drucker could find a publisher for his great study of the company, “Concept of the Corporation”, on the grounds that, as one of them put it, “I don’t see anyone interested in a book on management.”

Today the backwater has turned into Niagara Falls. The world’s great business schools have replaced Oxbridge as the nurseries of the global elite. The management-consulting industry will earn revenues of $300 billion this year. Management books regularly top the bestseller lists. Management gurus can command $60,000 a speech.

Yet the practitioners of this great industry continue to suffer from a severe case of status anxiety. This is partly because the management business has always been prey to fads and fraudsters. But it is also because the respectable end of the business seems to lack what Yorkshire folk call “bottom”. Consultants and business-school professors are forever discovering great ideas, like re-engineering, that turn to dust, and wonderful companies, like Enron, that burst into flames.

Peter Drucker is the perfect antidote to such anxiety. He was a genuine intellectual who, during his early years, rubbed shoulders with the likes of Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter. He illustrated his arguments with examples from medieval history or 18th-century English literature. He remained at the top of his game for more than 60 years, advising generations of bosses and avoiding being ensnared by fashion. He constantly tried to relate the day-to-day challenges of business to huge social and economic trends such as the rise of “knowledge workers” and the resurgence of Asia.

But Drucker was more than just an antidote to status anxiety. He was also an apostle for management. He argued that management is one of the most important engines of human progress: “the organ that converts a mob into an organisation and human effort into performance”. He even described scientific management as “the most powerful as well as the most lasting contribution America has made to Western thought since the ‘Federalist Papers’.” He relentlessly extended management’s empire. From the 1950s onwards he offered advice to Japanese companies as well as American ones. He insisted that good management was just as important for the social sector as the business sector. He acted as an informal adviser to the Girl Scouts. He helped inspire the mega-church movement. The management school that bears his name recruits about a third of its students from outside the business world.

Scout’s honour

The most important reason why people continue to revere Drucker, though, is that his writing remains startlingly relevant. Reading “Concept of the Corporation”, which was published in 1946, you are struck not just by how accurately he saw the future but also by how similar today’s management problems are to those of yesteryear. This is partly because, whatever the theorists like to think, management is not a progressive science: the same dilemmas and difficult trade-offs crop up time and again. And it is partly because Drucker discovered a creative middle ground between rival schools of management. He treated companies as human organisations rather than just as sources for economic data. But he also insisted that all human organisations, whether in business or the voluntary sector, need clear objectives and hard measurements to keep them efficient. Drucker liked to say that people used the word guru because the word charlatan was so hard to spell. A century after his birth Drucker remains one of the few management thinkers to whom the word “guru” can be applied without a hint of embarrassment.

Europe's public finances

Europe's public finances

Weighed down

The recession has left a fiscal burden that many countries will struggle to shed

THE BAD thing for politicians about good news on the economy is that they can no longer avert their eyes from the state of public finances. Figures released on November 13th showed that the euro-area economy crawled out of recession in the three months to the end of September. GDP rose by 0.4%, the first quarterly increase for more than a year. Given the scale of the downturn, the recovery is modest: GDP was still 4.1% lower than a year earlier.

Such a deep slump has wrecked public finances. The average budget deficit in the 16-country euro area will be 6.4% of GDP this year, rising to 6.9% in 2010, according to the European Commission’s forecast. If no action is taken to tame deficits, public debt will rise to 88% of GDP by 2011, a third higher than it was before the crisis (see chart).

This mix of fragile economies and weak public finances creates a policy dilemma. There is a risk that public debt will eventually spiral out of control unless taxes are raised or spending cut. But if fiscal support is withdrawn too quickly, the economy could tip back into recession. To address this, European Union countries have agreed in principle to an “ambitious” tightening of fiscal policy, but only from 2011. By then, it is hoped, the economy will be strong enough to withstand it.

The commission will play the role of co-ordinator and monitor, though it remains to be seen how binding its prescriptions will be. On November 11th it proposed that 13 EU countries with big deficits should get them below 3% of GDP by 2014 at the latest. EU ministers will consider those plans on December 2nd. Countries in the worst fiscal shape have most to do. Ireland, for instance, will need to raise taxes or cut spending worth 2% of GDP each year for five years to meet the targets, says the commission. Germany, by contrast, will need to tighten by an average of only 0.5% of GDP for three years.

A repair job on public finances stands a better chance of being durable if it relies on spending cuts rather than tax increases. But this remedy will be hard to apply too strictly, especially in the worst-hit countries such as Ireland and Spain. Ireland’s tax receipts have declined by a third since 2007, far more than the 13% fall in nominal GDP. As in Spain, revenues stemming from the housing boom—value-added taxes (VAT) on new homes, capital-gains tax, and transaction levies—have dried up and will not return.

A shift in both economies away from domestic spending has also hurt. Export-led growth has its appeal but offers less help for public finances where expenditure taxes are a big share of total revenues (see article). Burst housing bubbles have revealed how thin the tax base is.

Ireland has already tightened fiscal policy by some 5% of GDP since July 2008, in the midst of a savage recession. The government will set out its budget plans for 2010 on December 9th, and is expected to find €4 billion of savings or extra taxes to stabilise the deficit. Its pre-budget report drew attention to the big increases in public-sector wages and jobs over the past decade. That is a strong hint that pay cuts are among options being considered. Spain plans to trim its deficit by raising the main VAT rate from 16% to 18% next July, phasing out tax rebates and cutting back on the small investment schemes that were part of the fiscal stimulus.

What’s French for retrenchment?

Such actions to address budgetary problems owe more to fears of retribution from bond markets than lectures from Brussels. The euro-zone’s largest members will need to stick with the commission’s programme if it is to carry any weight. Joaquín Almunia, the EU’s economics commissioner, seems relaxed about the new German government’s plans for tax cuts, though they were not part of his reckoning. Germany has enough capacity and credibility to tighten its policy a bit later than others. Italy has been remarkably disciplined. With investors so skittish during the crisis, Italy could ill afford to add much to its huge public debt. It eschewed any meaningful fiscal stimulus in recession so now has less to do to control the deficit.

The commission’s strictures may chafe far more with France. Brussels wants a cumulative fiscal tightening of 5% of GDP by 2013. France may want the deadline extended. Even if granted that, it will still struggle. The share of public spending in the economy is the highest in the euro area. Cuts in entitlements, not tax increases, would be the best remedy for the budget gap. But it is hard to imagine an assault on social spending with a general election due in 2012. France has so little practice at fiscal retrenchment that a 3% deficit seems a distant prospect.

A more immediate problem is what to do about Greece (see article). Its new government now says that the budget deficit would be 12.7% of GDP this year, far higher than its previous forecasts. What is worse, last year’s shortfall was revised up to almost 8% of GDP—partly, it seems, because of unpaid bills to medical suppliers. Fitch, a ratings agency, immediately cut Greece’s bond rating from A to A- and gave warning of a further downgrade if the government does not spell out how it will right its public finances.

The commission has judged that “no effective action” has been taken by Greece to tackle its deficit, a rebuke which it expects to be endorsed by EU ministers next month. It will set a new action plan for Greece by February. Without remedial action, public debt is expected to reach an alarming 135% of GDP in 2011. Yet investors seem sanguine: Greece’s ten-year bond yield is comfortably below 5%. That may reflect an assumption that its euro-zone partners will save Greece should it run into trouble. The anger about its persistent laxity means that cannot be relied upon.

The countries with the deeper pockets have enough troubles of their own. The money sprayed around to make recession less painful—in wage supplements, make-work schemes and subsidies for car purchases—has to be financed. Cutting back fiscal support will weigh on a recovery that has started quite slowly. Given the scale of the adjustment needed in some countries, it is hard to be too optimistic about the euro-zone’s growth prospects.

The week ahead

The coming days

The week ahead

Retailers hope that Thanksgiving will mark the start of an intense, festive shopping season

• AFTER the frugality of the economic slump, America's retailers are hoping for a stampede of eager shoppers on “Black Friday”, a traditional day of buying frenzy after the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday November 26th. Sales figures should give some indication of consumers’ confidence in the tentative economic recovery on one of America's busiest days for retailers, which marks the beginning of the Christmas shopping season. Will consumers forget about the recent recession or will they stay away, hoping to pick up better bargains on the internet on “cyber Monday” after window shopping over the weekend?

• A DEAL to exchange hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israel for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held captive in the Gaza strip may be concluded soon. German intermediaries have been attempting to hammer out a deal between Israel and Hamas that would see Mr Shalit, captured in a raid on an Israeli border post in 2006, win his freedom. In early October, 20 Palestinian women were freed from Israeli jails in return for a video proving that Mr Shalit was still alive. Some sources suggest that Mr Shalit could be released by Friday November 27th to coincide with Eid al-Adha an important Muslim festival that marks the end of the haj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.

• MONTHS of political crisis in Honduras, sparked by a military coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya in June, may not be resolved by a presidential election on Sunday November 29th. An American-backed deal to end the troubles stipulated that Honduras’s Congress should vote on Mr Zelaya’s reinstatement but it will not do so until after the election. Roberto Micheletti has been the de facto president since the coup. Mr Zelaya, who is living in the Brazilian embassy since sneaking back into the country, has told his supporters to boycott the poll. Brazil and Argentina say they will not recognise the results of the election unless Mr Zelaya is first returned to power.

• VOTERS in Equatorial Guinea, a tiny oil-rich country in West Africa, go to the polls on Sunday November 29th to re-elect Teodoro Obiang Nguema as president. Mr Nguema has ruled Equatorial Guinea since coming to power in a coup in 1979. He will doubtless deploy some of these talents to avoid the humiliation he suffered in legislative elections 2008, when his party won just 99 seats out of the 100 in the country’s parliament. He may be hoping to strengthen his mandate by increasing his share of the vote above the 97.1% he won in 2002. Polling information is hard to come by but opposition parties should prepare themselves for disappointment.

Peter Schiff on why government intervention causes high college tuition prices

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Peter Schiff speaks at the WRTC meeting Nov. 19

peter schiff marc faber jim rogers gerald celente max keiser ron paul

Saturday, November 21, 2009

China Three Gorges dam in trouble - 20 Nov 09

A new government report says that China's Three Gorges Dam project has doubled in cost.

It will now require $25bn more than the initial cost of $25bn to resettle people displaced by the project and to fill the reservoir with enough water.

A lack of rain and other problems are delaying the opening of the dam - designed to be the world's biggest flood control and hydropower facility.

Al Jazeera's Melissa Chan reports.

US - China relations -Tact and diplomacy 18 Nov 09

Tact and diplomacy, a sign of mutual respect, and cautious optimism between an established superpower, and an emerging giant. They're two of the world's biggest economies and the world's two biggest polluters...

Is China hoping to grow to match the United States' economic and military might? And can Washington succeed in gaining its biggest creditor, as an ally.

The Death of the Cool

The Death of the Cool

Cool was once associated with reticence, savoir-faire, and irony, none of which is much practiced or regarded these days.

Whether or not it is true that you can’t go home again, as Thomas Wolfe claimed—and the claim is just a special case of the more general observation of Heraclitus that you cannot step into the same river twice—it seems that when we find we can’t, nostalgia is the place we go instead. Nostalgia has a mixed reputation. Outfits like Time-Life happily sell, and many of us happily buy, compilations of old photos or music that allow us to escape the present moment and all its cares and return to a vision of a past whose cares are omitted or at least denatured. It is those words “escape” and “vision” that critics rightly fasten upon. So if the following remarks seem strained or just wrong, put it down to nostalgia run riot.

Right now I am listening to one of the great jazz recordings, “Stolen Moments,” from a 1961 album by the saxophonist Oliver Nelson, accompanied by Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, Eric Dolphy on flute and alto, Bill Evans on piano, and others. It is a thoughtful, bluesy eight or nine minutes during which, it seems to me, as I drift into the music, that the group pretty well summarize an America at the tipping point of a deeply unsettling change. Yes, that probably overstates the case just a tad, but in nostalgia you can do that. You can remember visiting the Big Rock Candy Mountain if you want to.

What it seems to me that I am remembering is a time when we admired people who were cool. Some movie stars were cool, a few television personalities were cool, some writers were cool, even one or two politicians may secretly have been cool (there was certainly talk about Stu Symington). There were cool people we never heard of. Here I am using the term “cool” in an expansive sense. Narrower senses of cool mostly point to styles of behavior that are, in fact, distinctly not-cool. They are more like codes of conduct and appearance for wannabes: goatee, beret, and a sneer for poets; all black and a blank look for dancers or art students; full beard, rimless glasses, army jacket, and a defiant glare for revolutionaries or sociology grad students; and so on. We’ve all learned to decode the game.

It may simply be that some are born cool, or at least with the requisite quanta of intelligence and temperament, and the rest of us are not.

No, true cool is both easier to describe and far harder to achieve, if in fact it is achievable at all. It may simply be that some are born cool, or at least with the requisite quanta of intelligence and temperament, and the rest of us are not. (There is no record of anyone’s ever having had cool thrust upon them.) But that’s fine. We don’t all have to be cool. What is important is how the rest of us respond to the ones who are.

Who and what was cool? Cary Grant was cool, and of course Steve McQueen. Thelonious S. Monk (anybody remember when Time captioned a picture of him “Melodious Thunk”?) and Horace Silver, Fairfield Porter, E.E. Cummings (bear in mind that that “e.e.” business was the bright idea of his publisher), Bob Cousy, P.G. Wodehouse, Philip Marlowe, Gus Grissom … a list is pointless except to suggest the breadth of the concept. For contrast, here are some more or less parallel non-cool types: James Dean, Chet Baker, Andy Warhol, Allen Ginsberg, Kobe Bryant, Norman Mailer, Howard Roark, Frank Borman.

Cool is not dependent on achievement, or vice versa. Cool is how you get there. Cool is just doing the job; not-cool is making sure, while you’re at it, that everyone sees just how tough the job is and thus how cool you are to be doing it. Cool is self-direction, self-possession, self-sufficiency, capability, discretion, and a bit of wit. Not-cool is angst, conspicuous display, disdain, tropisms toward bright lights, crowds, and media—in short, all those adolescent traits that so many people fail to grow out of.

Cool is self-direction, self-possession, self-sufficiency, capability, discretion, and a bit of wit. Not-cool is angst, conspicuous display, disdain, tropisms toward bright lights, crowds, and media.

I’m looking at my copy of the June 1959 issue of Playboy. Here’s an ad for a Lord West summer dinner jacket. Well, score one for the olden days to begin with. Our contemporary dress code, if there were one, would doubtless recommend for a summer dinner party a nice tee in preference to a muscle shirt, and might go so far as to plump for your newest pair of flipflops. Anyway, the illustration shows a tall, slim fellow who is entirely at home in his clothes—relaxed but not slouched, one hand casually in a pocket, and the smile on is face is one of genuine good cheer, no smirk, no leer, no vacuous stare back at the viewer. Easy, manly elegance is the theme, and more than a suggestion of cool.

But the reason to have the magazine, as we all understand, is the articles. On page 31 begins a piece by Jack Kerouac on the origins of the Beat Generation. “Beat,” for Kerouac, was a deep and rather elusive concept, but he insisted upon its spiritual content against those who saw in it only an attitude to strike and a style to be bought at the Salvation Army store. He begins by writing about a publicity photo taken of him wearing a crucifix on a chain around his neck. He is dismayed that it was reproduced in several publications with the crucifix airbrushed out; only the New York Times left it alone.

“Therefore the New York Times is as beat as I am, and I’m glad I’ve got a friend. I mean it sincerely. God bless the New York Times for not erasing the crucifix from my picture as though it was something distasteful … I am not ashamed to wear the crucifix of my Lord. It is because I am beat, that is, I believe in beatitude … So you people don’t believe in God. So you’re all big smart know-it-all Marxists and Freudians, hey? Why don’t you come back in a million years and tell me all about it, angels?”

Cool outlasted beat as a word but devolved into a general term of approbation that your clergyman uses as easily as your drug dealer.

Of course it was some big smart know-it-alls who took over the job of deciding who was truly beat, and it turned out to be the big smart know-it-alls who enjoyed playing at hipster, plus Maynard G. Krebs for the rest of us.

I do not mean to suggest that cool and beat are synonyms. But they are complementary, hence their frequent confusion. Nor do I claim that cool is a virtue. Styles change, but virtue abides. I only point out that the sort of cool I am talking about was once associated with such virtues as reticence, savoir-faire, and irony, none of which is much practiced or regarded these days. Cool outlasted beat as a word but devolved into a general term of approbation that your clergyman uses as easily as your drug dealer. As a term denoting a certain admirable way of being in the world, not so much.

The problem was that admiration bred imitation, and imitation lives on exaggeration. Thus reticence was exaggerated, transformed from a quality of character into a mere tic, that produced, among others, Clint Eastwood’s “thousand-yard stare” characters; savoir-faire became the faux sophistication of a James “shaken, not stirred” Bond; irony became the mugging knowingness of Dave Letterman.

What replaced cool? Nothing did, not in the sense of a one-for-one substitution. But what we seem to have been left with instead is sour. Sour is what you get when irony gets into the hands of poseurs, the professionally not-cool. Instead of the needle-sharp barbs of Mort Sahl—“Are there any groups I haven’t offended yet?”—you get the ramblings of a Lenny Bruce throwing cow pies blindly until someone tells him the set is over and he can stumble off. Instead of Sid Caesar you get “Laugh-In.” Over Clark Gable’s wry worldliness, paint in George Clooney’s slightly imbecile simper.

What replaced cool? Nothing did, not in the sense of a one-for-one substitution. Instead of Sid Caesar you get ‘Laugh-In.’ Over Clark Gable’s wry worldliness, paint in George Clooney’s slightly imbecile simper.

The thing is, not-cool is so much easier to get than cool. The masses get it; agents seek it out and hone their protégés to empty perfection; cultural entrepreneurs publish it like so much salt pork in barrels. And so it becomes the national standard.

Where literature once gave us models to emulate in creating lives for ourselves, media now give us merely images to ape. Of one of his characters Raymond Chandler wrote, “his voice was the elaborately casual voice of the tough guy in pictures. Pictures have made them all like that.” That was in 1939.

And media have taught us a self-subverting double consciousness about achievement. Not more than three or four years after Roger Bannister’s sublime conquest of the four-minute mile in England in 1954, a cartoon by the acute Giles, late of the Daily Express, showed an obviously American press photographer shouting to a runner straining across the finish line: “Let’s have it again, Bud; not enough agony for a winner.”

Oliver Nelson must have been a seer. “Stolen Moments” is a blue celebration of true cool, and at the same time it is an elegy anticipating a wake that won’t get under way in earnest for another couple of years. It’s one of those pieces I’m careful not to play too often. Nostalgia can really hang you up the most.

Robert McHenry is the former editor of Encyclopædia Britannica.

State of the Stimulus

One reason unemployment continues to rise may be that stimulus funds did not target high-unemployment states.

On Friday, the Labor Department announced that the national unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage points to 10.2 percent. This increase is larger than expected for October and represents the highest unemployment level in 26 years. However, this is probably not the end of the unemployment rate’s upward trend. One reason may be that the stimulus funds did not target high unemployment states.

Using numbers from the administration’s website Recovery.gov and September 2009 labor force data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the chart below plots the number of jobs created for each 100,000 people in every state’s labor force and the corresponding unemployment rate in that state.

deRugy chart 11.9.09

The solid green line estimates what the number of jobs created or saved should look like if the administration were allocating relatively more money to the states with higher unemployment rates and if that money, in turn, created more jobs.

However, the data show that this is not the case. The chart shows that many higher-unemployment states (the states on the right) saw similar numbers of jobs created as lower-unemployment states (the states on the left), or even worse, saw relatively fewer jobs created.

Michigan is a good case in point. The state has a 15.3 percent unemployment rate, the highest in the country. So far, the Obama administration claims to have created or saved some 466 jobs per 100,000 members of the labor force in Michigan. That’s roughly the same number of jobs created by states with lower unemployment, such as New Jersey. And there were fewer jobs saved or created in Michigan than in California, Washington, or Montana—all states with relatively lower unemployment.

The data show that much of the money has been allocated randomly among states without regard for the level of unemployment in those states.

Now let’s look at North Dakota. With a 4.2 percent unemployment rate, there were roughly 356 jobs saved or created—more jobs than many states with much higher unemployment.

This suggests that there is no real correlation between unemployment rates in the states and the number of jobs “created or saved” with stimulus money.

This lack of correlation could be explained in several ways. First, perhaps the causes of Michigan’s high unemployment rate cannot be countered just by spending money. In other words, structural factors (such as tax rates, regulations, or labor laws) in the state could mean that more money is needed to create a job in Michigan than it takes to create a job in, say, Montana (if so the best way to create jobs in that state would be to address these underlying factors of unemployment).

Another reason could be that stimulus funds are being allocated without any connection to the level of unemployment within states. If government spending could in fact create jobs, then the problem of unemployment could have been mitigated by distributing funds to states based on their relative unemployment levels.

Reports have shown that the stimulus funds have been used to pay for employees whose jobs were never in danger.

Finally, the money could be properly allocated but states are wasting it, hence not creating enough jobs.

The reality is likely at the crossroad of these three explanations. First, the data show that much of the money has been allocated randomly among states without regard for the level of unemployment in those states.

Second, much of the money has been spent to close budget gaps in the states, which often means keeping union-protected school teachers in their jobs and paying for public-sector jobs rather than creating jobs in the private sector. For instance, according to Recovery.gov data, so far a little over 13,000 contracts went to independent contractors and over 116,000 grants went to public agencies. Also, reports have shown that the stimulus funds have been used to pay for employees whose jobs were never in danger (see California for instance).

Finally, the data on Recovery.gov reveals that many private-sector jobs were created at very high cost to taxpayers. For instance, $437,675,000 was awarded to CH2M WG IDAHO, LLC, in Washington to create 496 jobs. That’s $882,409 per job. That’s not as bad as the $257,613,800 awarded to the Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC, in New York to create 25 jobs. That’s over $10.3 million per job.

It’s worth noting that due to over-reporting issues, the White House’s claim of 640,329 jobs created or saved is likely inaccurate. USA Today noted that “the federal government sent Bob Bray $26,174 in stimulus aid to fix a fence and replace the roofs on public apartments in Blooming Grove, Texas, a town of fewer than 900 people outside Dallas. He hired five roofers and an inspector to do the job. But the number of jobs he reported to the government looked very different—450 jobs.”

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at The Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Economic Prosperity: A Step of Faith

There is a strong relationship between economic prosperity and religious liberty.

Several years ago a group of Arab intellectuals came together to study the economic malaise—fueled by high unemployment, massive illiteracy, and anemic GDPs—that grips much of the Muslim and Arab world. Their 2002 study, “The Arab Human Development Report: Creating Opportunities for Future Generations,” remains one of the most sober self-assessments of what has gone wrong with Arab economies and why. The report’s authors lament the “bridled minds” and “shackled potential” of nations which deny their citizens basic civil liberties.

Their candor, however, cannot disguise a fundamental evasion: There is no admission of the cultural hostility toward religious freedom and pluralism that infects Arab societies. This mental state of denial prevents Muslim leaders from recognizing the strong relationship between economic prosperity and religious liberty.

Christian reformers of the seventeenth century, in fact, were among the first to grasp the importance of freedom of conscience to the stability and economic well-being of the state. Thomas Helwys (1550-1616), an early leader of the English Baptists, produced the most principled defense of religious liberty in his day. His Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity (1612) insisted that a man’s religion was no business of the king, and that people of all faiths—“let them be heretiks, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever”—should be left alone. If every sect were granted freedom of worship, he reasoned, there would be far less strife and contention. “Behold the Nations where freedome of Religion is permitted,” he wrote, “and you may see there are not more florishinge and prosperous Nations under the heavens then they are.”

Muslim intellectuals complain about the ‘deprivation of human capability’ in the Arab world, but exonerate regimes that deprive people of their inalienable rights.

Some of the most provocative pro-toleration statements came from lay people whose vocations exposed them to the benefits of pluralism. Henry Robinson (1605-1664), a merchant and son of a wealthy London tradesman, traveled widely on the Continent. In works such as Liberty of Conscience (1643), Robinson regarded the right of private judgment in matters of faith as essential to human flourishing, akin to the right to private property or private enterprise. These rights were connected, and the repression of religious freedom produced blowback in the economic realm. A persecuting state, he wrote, forced Puritans to leave England and “carry with them their gifts, arts, and manufacturers into other countries, to the greatest detreiment of this commonwealth.” Economic ruin, he predicted, would be the fate of nations that seized their citizens’ property or drove them into exile over religion.

These were radical ideas in Europe in the seventeenth century. The Treaty of Westphalia had ended the religious wars on the Continent, but only by creating a system of national church establishments, which were free to harass and penalize religious minorities within their borders. Catholics were the first to develop both the theory and machinery of religious persecution; Protestants, though not as brutally systematic, followed the same dreary pattern. Both traditions predicated political and social stability on religious conformity: dissent was viewed as an incubator of sedition.

England experienced a commercial revolution alongside the rapid growth of religious sects, undercutting the fear that spiritual disunity and heresy invited divine judgment.

Many factors help explain the triumph of religious toleration in Europe. Yet historians such as John Coffey believe that rising prosperity “probably made a significant impact on religious mentalities.” In his book, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, Coffey notes that the last decades of the seventeenth century—when debates about religious freedom reached a crescendo—saw an economic boom. England experienced a commercial revolution just prior to its Glorious Revolution, as trade flourished and living standards improved. This occurred alongside the rapid growth of religious sects, undercutting the fear that spiritual disunity and heresy invited divine judgment. Meanwhile, the economic dynamism of the Dutch Republic—the most religiously tolerant state in Europe—helped create a new narrative. “Prosperity and toleration were now seen as twins,” writes Coffey, “rather than as mortal enemies.”

That may overstate the case, but several prominent reformers argued in just these terms. Peter Pett (1630-1699), a lawyer and politician, said the best way to attract entrepreneurs to England and advance trade was to create an open, welcoming society—“which cannot be done without the giving them a due Liberty of Conscience.” The tireless Quaker agitator, William Penn, blended theological, moral, and practical reasons for toleration in his Great Case of Liberty of Conscience (1670). His treatise included an economic critique of religious establishments and their legal regimes. Penal laws against religious dissenters, Penn observed, often plunged families into poverty, thus robbing society of productive economic activity. “Such Laws are so far from benefiting the Country, that the Execution of them will be the assured ruin of it, in the Revenues, and consequently in the Power of it,” he wrote. “For where there is a decay of Families, there will be of Trade; so of Wealth, and in the end of Strength and Power.”

‘Prosperity and toleration were now seen as twins, rather than as mortal enemies.’

Though they represented a minority view, these voices of toleration would find powerful advocates among classical liberal political thinkers such as John Locke. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Locke explained that sectarian rulers, by authorizing the economic impoverishment of dissenters, permanently unsettled governments and societies. As long as governments demanded religious conformity, there would be “no peace and security, no, not so much as common friendship” among the members of civil society. “Nobody therefore … neither single persons, nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other, upon pretence of religion.”

The insights of these religious thinkers are finally receiving support from the secular social sciences. Brian Grim, a quantitative sociologist with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, has compared various socio-economic indicators with measures of religious freedom in over 100 countries. Grim is careful not to infer a causal relationship between religious liberty and economic prosperity. Yet his research reveals a correlation, prompting a frank suspicion: “A regulated and restrictive religious economy does not benefit all God’s children.”

Even the libertarian Cato Institute, not usually attentive to religion, has begun to explore the issue. Writing in the Cato Journal, scholars Ilan Alon and Gregory Chase argue that international businesses should be concerned about the problem because “it affects the general business environment, political relationships among countries, and consumer sentiment of companies doing business in countries that suppress religious freedom.” Their findings—based on indicators of economic and religious liberty in 75 countries—seem to vindicate the Christian reformers of Locke’s generation. “Although our results are preliminary, they suggest that religious freedom has a positive impact on a country’s prosperity.”

These facts still seem to be lost on many Muslim intellectuals. They complain about the “deprivation of human capability” in the Arab world, but exonerate regimes that deprive people of their inalienable rights. They link economic growth to new forms of “social cohesion,” but tolerate political arrangements that guarantee social strife. They even call for a “fundamental rethinking” of how Arab states should approach cultural and religious diversity—yet refuse to rethink their assumptions about the nature of religious belief or the moral demands of human dignity.

It requires no leap of faith—just, perhaps, a little historical memory—to realize this is not the road to economic development. It is the long and fractious and familiar detour to permanent stagnation.

Joseph Loconte is a lecturer in politics at the King’s College in New York City and a contributing editor to The American.

Limited Utility

What happens when populist politicians try to micromanage public utilities?

What happens when populist politicians try to micromanage public utilities? Venezuelans found out recently when President Hugo Chavez unveiled his blueprint for dealing with water and electricity shortages: No singing in the shower, the comandante ordered. The firebrand strongman used a live broadcast earlier this month to insist that his countrymen cut their showers short. “Three minutes is more than enough,” Chavez lectured. “I’ve counted—three minutes—and I don’t stink.”

Well, as an economic manager, Chavez is all wet. He tried to blame the lack of rain for depleting the nation’s hydroelectric dams. The truth is that Venezuela’s infrastructure is crumbling under the weight of an incompetent, interventionist regime run by cronies picked for their loyalty to the president rather than their technical know-how.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Floridians may wonder if they are getting a taste of this caudillo management style from Governor Charlie Crist’s campaign against a rate hike that the state’s energy companies say they need to make a $1.5 billion investment in power generation.

It appears that Governor Crist intends to pack the state’s regulatory board with people he thinks will vote his way on proposed rate hikes.

In most market economies, private power companies amass capital to make timely investments in the infrastructure that is required to generate sufficient power to meet ever-growing demand. Before making costly improvements, they must be able to reassure potential investors who are putting up these massive sums that they will be able to recover their costs and turn a fair profit by charging equitable fees. In most jurisdictions in the United States, those fees are set by public utility regulators, who are called upon to strike a balance between fairness to the consumer and to the power company. If politicians disrupt that delicate balance, they undermine the market forces and may have the rest of us taking cold showers.

It is one thing for the chief executive to jawbone against price increases. Other prominent politicians have opposed pending rate hikes for their impact on the Sunshine State’s beleaguered consumers, and populist attacks on public utilities is something of a tradition in Florida. However, it appears that Crist intends to pack the state’s regulatory board with people he is convinced will vote his way on proposed rate hikes. One of his nominees is a former editorial writer (who was given a one-sentence interview by the governor’s staff), and the other runs a nightclub. Skeptics are wondering if Crist really expects these newcomers to master the arcane issues and make independent judgments.

Here’s the mark of a caudillo (Spanish for “strongman”): In 2003, Chavez sacked more than 5,000 able technocrats at the nation’s once mighty petroleum company and turned it over to inexperienced political loyalists who have since run the company into the ground—forfeiting about a third of the country’s oil production to gross incompetence and underinvestment. Because of Chavez’s unpredictable, populist policies, from 2007 to 2008, Venezuela attracted about one-fifth the foreign investment it garnered in the two years just before the leftist president took office in 1999. Investment in oil production, power plants, and other basic infrastructure is in steep decline.

No one is served—least of all consumers or their governor—if Florida’s reputation as a good place to do business is tarred by populist politics.

No one is saying that Governor Crist is Florida’s Hugo Chavez. However, by attempting to intervene so transparently in a regulatory case, he risks crossing a line. The delicate balance between the interests of the state’s power companies and consumers requires a bona fide process where regulators—in this case, the appointed members of Florida’s Public Services Commission—are able to make decisions based on a fair consideration of the complicated facts presented by all sides. Devouring reams of data and economic modeling in a pending rate case is the job of duly-sworn commissioners, not the governor.

Industry analysts have noted that replacing experienced regulators and stalling consideration of rate cases until new commissioners take office has further undermined confidence in the process, which could drive up the cost that Florida’s power companies pay to borrow money. Last month, Moody’s Investors Service cited what it called “political intervention in the utility regulatory process” and noted the lack of experience of new commissioners. In a report to investors issued in mid-October, Barclays Capital reported the threats to replace commissioners.

If the state’s regulatory board is under a cloud, Governor Crist should work with the legislature to make systemic changes to improve transparency and accountability. He is not alone in demanding reform of the panel and its procedures.

But no one is served—least of all consumers or their governor—if Florida’s reputation as a good place to do business is tarred by populist politics.

Roger F. Noriega, a senior State Department official from 2001 to 2005, is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign companies.

Wherefore Art Thou, Green Obama

Those hoping for a green jolt to the economy must come to grips with three serious misconceptions.

China is proving to be a major challenge to President Obama’s ambitious environmental agenda. Designed to reinvigorate flagging hopes for the Copenhagen climate summit, his recent trip yielded no commitments that the Chinese are willing to significantly curb carbon emissions. He also returned home to the dismal news that China may be benefiting more than the United States from his job creation policy, which he has tied in significant measure to promised investments in green technology. While the employment market at home continues to falter, China’s recovery is gaining steam—bolstered in part by American-based companies investing in green projects.

Consider Boston-Power, a New England-based battery manufacturer. In June, it announced it would build a new manufacturing plant to produce environmentally sustainable lithium-ion batteries, creating 600 green jobs. “Our goal is to make Massachusetts a manufacturing hub for the advanced batteries that will power the nation’s clean energy future, and Boston-Power’s plan to create this facility in Auburn is a big step toward that goal,” said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. It was exactly the kind of initiative Obama had anticipated when he began shoveling money into green projects, one of the centerpieces of the jobs recovery act. The Massachusetts plant was hailed as a sign that the green jobs renaissance was indeed materializing.

Earlier this month, the company quietly scrapped its plans after it couldn’t get stimulus money or an investment commitment from banks to build the plant. Boston-Power is now looking to build in China, where green investment dollars are more readily available.

The president made a grievous tactical mistake by hyping green jobs as a recession palliative.

With the chorus of politicians calling for increased government investments to create “green collar” jobs, it brings to mind the bellowing Wizard of Oz overseeing the Emerald City—an all-powerful disembodied figure formed out of steam from a giant cauldron. Then Dorothy’s Toto pulls back the green curtain, revealing that the verbally awe-inspiring Wizard is a tiny man furiously spinning dials in a frantic attempt to keep the fantasy alive.

Green Shell Game

Mr. Wizard, meet President Obama. Throughout this dismal year, President Obama has promised that upwards of 5 million jobs would result from a huge injection of investment in alternative energy technology. The green jobs proposal was also the lynchpin of the European Union’s alternative energy legislation, dubbed the “Community Strategy and Action Plan: Energy for the Future.” Its goal: create a job boom by funding massive new investments in renewable energy.

So far, we’re left with sizable handouts, no coherent vision, few concrete results, and lots of speeches: there’s “room for debate” on how we do it, there’s “no silver bullet,” blah, blah, blah. Obama is doling out $80 billion as part of his energy policy, but it’s going out in a helter-skelter manner, and green job creation is meager at best.

Those hoping for a green jolt to the economy must come to grips with three serious misconceptions:

First, green stimulus works slowly. New York State illustrates the problem. Of the $25 billion allocated for energy efficiency in the U.S. package, it collected $394 million. By October, the government estimated, it had produced 43 New York jobs. It doesn’t mean the money has been wasted; it does mean the green investment strategy must be understood as a long-term commitment, and not mis-marketed, as the administration is doing, as a quick fix. Retrofitting an aging energy infrastructure takes time and planning (and, ironically, is being brought to a crawl because it is embedded in a bureaucracy created by activists determined to vet every detail against preservation rules and bureaucratic environmental regulations).

Most of the new wind and energy manufacturing jobs created by the European and American stimulus grants are going to overseas manufacturers.

Second, most of these anxiously anticipated green jobs won’t pay much. The biggest engine of job creation over the past two decades was the technology industry. But let’s face it: the majority of those jobs consist of manipulating tiny chips into circuit boards. They’re low wage jobs, which is why they’re concentrated in Thailand, Bangladesh, and elsewhere. Although the term “green jobs” may conjure up images of dazzling high-tech solar panels and glass-sheathed new buildings, the nuts and bolts of turning the world green is making nuts and bolts, but in an energy conscious way. That’s not a solution to the Great Jobs Depression in the U.S. or any industrialized country.

Third, the green jobs that we do get, whatever they might pay, cost a lot to create. As a candidate, Obama estimated each green job would cost $30,000 to create. Even his political allies mocked that total. A study sponsored by the left-leaning Center for American Progress, released in 2008, estimated that each job would cost $50,000. That estimated the number of jobs that might be added if the government spent more money on clean energy. It didn't count jobs that might be lost elsewhere in the economy if the country shifted to alternative energy, which is costlier than traditional sources. Alternative energy projects will clearly lead to higher energy prices in the short to medium term and put a drag on the economy. But those numbers were pies in the sky. There are some hard figures on green-job creation in Europe, and the story is sobering.

The Obama administration has pointed to Spain and other European countries as a “reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy” to create jobs, but the experience there suggests caution at best. According to estimates in a study by economists at Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, the Spanish green job program cost $43 billion in recent years, creating green jobs at an astounding cost per worker of $854,000. Why the high figure? These economists factored in the number of jobs that were not created by force-feeding investments into alternative energy. By diverting investments from other sectors, the study estimates that for every green job created upwards of 2.2 jobs were lost.

While there remains a bubble in investment money available to finance green projects, the demand for alternative energy technology is just not there yet.

While “it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude,” reads the report, the United States could lose “at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million ‘green jobs’ as [President Obama has] promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy).”

In other words, Spain’s hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) green employment policy generated far fewer jobs than expected, and only about one-tenth of those were the permanent high-paying operational and maintenance positions necessary to shake the economy out of its doldrums.

China Syndrome

The story, sadly, gets worse. Over the past two years, there have been numerous announcements of high-profile, technology-intensive projects in alternative energy funded in part by government money. In 2008, the Democratic Governor of Massachusetts backed an $58 million incentive package for Evergreen Solar, an energy panel maker promising 350 new jobs and promoted as the centerpiece of the state’s efforts to make itself a green energy and job hub. At about the same time, General Electric was sweeping up subsidies for its solar-panel manufacturing facility in Delaware that employed 82 workers.

The Spanish green job program cost an estimated $43 billion in recent years, creating green jobs at an astounding cost per worker of $854,000.

Both have turned into job-creating busts. GE announced this fall that it is shutting down production. While there remains a bubble in investment money available to finance green projects, the demand for alternative energy technology is just not there yet. Evergreen Solar did temporarily add workers, but the expectations (read: green hype) far exceeded sales, and the company, which lost $167 million this past year, is now shuttering capacity and shifting what’s left to China. Hope does not yet equal business.

Then there’s the Texas Green Jobs Massacre. There was a burst of excitement in late October accompanying the announcement that a large-scale $1.5 billion wind farm would be developed in West Texas using federal dollars. But any anticipation of the 330 American jobs that would be created was quickly overshadowed by the sobering reality that the most important components to be manufactured, 240 wind turbines, would be made in China. That’s a 2,000-job windfall, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Even Democratic Senator Charles Schumer was angry: “I’m all for investing in clean energy, but we should be investing in the United States, not China,” he said. “The goal of the stimulus was to spur job creation here, not overseas. This project should not receive a dime of stimulus funds unless it relies on U.S.-manufactured products.”

Retrofitting an aging energy infrastructure takes time and planning, and, ironically, is being brought to a crawl because it is embedded in a bureaucracy created by activists determined to vet every detail against preservation rules and bureaucratic environmental regulations.

But here’s the rub: Most of the new wind and energy manufacturing jobs created by the European and American stimulus grants are going to overseas manufacturers because there is not enough demand yet for a green U.S. manufacturing infrastructure to have developed. “Socialized” Europe and centrally controlled China don’t have to deal with those economic realities. Forced by public authorities to invest in alternative energy and even in carbon-free nuclear energy, European and Asian companies are now poised to take advantage of the green-energy dollars flowing in the United States. They also get most of their seed capital not from U.S. banks, but from overseas financial institutions with years of familiarity with these kinds of projects and therefore a much higher comfort level about dispensing green risk capital. The U.S. partners in the West Texas wind farm couldn’t get financing in the United States, which forced them to seek out a partner in China, where commercial banks readily came up with the financing.

Despite the stimulus package’s dismal track record for creating sustainable green American jobs, there are arguments to support the alternative energy boondoggle of 2009—really, truly. One of the main reasons there is not enough green manufacturing capacity is because the United States has had an appalling track record in supporting nascent industries. It takes years to develop an alternative energy infrastructure, and the United States is way behind Europe and Asian countries. Over the past two decades, the United States probably made the better bet. As Geoffrey Styles of Energy Tribune notes, because of generous tax benefits to inefficient alternative energy producers and hidden tariffs, “European taxpayers and consumers have borne much of the pain of driving down the costs of wind power to a point at which it can begin to compete with power generated from natural gas (and to a much lesser extent from coal) with only the modest subsidies U.S. taxpayers have been willing to provide.”

As U.S. production acumen in the green sector matures, opportunities will open up. Money flows both ways. Europe provides generous tariffs for infrastructure investment available to manufacturers from around the world, including American players. Last month, Duke Energy struck a deal with ENN Group in China to develop commercial solar projects in the United States. This bodes well for the dream of a greener economy in the United States over the long term. And as alternative energy costs come down, private money will start flowing.

As a candidate, Obama estimated each green job would cost $30,000 to create. Even his political allies mocked that total.

But swallow hard: to achieve its long-range goals, in the short term, to stoke demand, Washington may need to continue backing select green projects, even though some of the money will go into foreign company coffers willing to do business in the United States despite the dismal economy. This is not an argument for reflexive massive subsidies. Rather, the United States needs to establish a stable regulatory framework and a long-term policy for its green sector. To create sustainable employment, we need long-term commitments to build new business infrastructures, not just short-term money dumps. To soften the trade-off, there is an argument for consideration of local content laws—the crude name is “Buy American”—to justify the short-term subsidizing of foreign companies.

The Vision Thing

The wild card in all this is the president. Where is Obama’s Great Green Narrative to focus the nation? In a recent speech promoting a “smart grid,” Obama compared the U.S. electrical system to American highways before President Eisenhower launched the blacktop-building boom of the 1950s. But energy reform is a bigger project than the Interstate Highway System, bigger than the great water projects of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and faces more domestic opposition than did the space program.

The key to Americans meeting the challenges of the past has been their willingness to believe in a vision of change, hope, and growth to justify the risk and sacrifice. The president made a grievous tactical mistake by hyping green jobs as a recession palliative. We all know that Obama can play the tiny man behind the green curtain spinning a story with the help of a teleprompter, but it remains to be seen whether he has the fortitude and indeed the real vision of a leader to define and carry forward a transformative Great Green Narrative.

Jon Entine is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of AEI projects Global Governance Watch and NGOWatch.

Peter Schiff For Senate 2010

Goddess of the Market Author Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand

WELCOME TO THE DEBT ECONOMY


WELCOME TO THE DEBT ECONOMY

It's a Debt Economy World, and we're just living in it. James Surowiecki writes in the upcoming New Yorker:
"John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that all financial crises are the result of “debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale.” The recent financial crisis was no exception, with everyone—homeowners, private-equity investors, our biggest banks—taking on enormous amounts of debt. If it’s frustrating that the government is footing the bill to clean up the mess, it’s even worse that the government helped pay for the debt binge that created the mess in the first place, thanks to a tax system that actually subsidizes borrowing. Debt didn’t get dangerously out of scale because the system was broken. It got out of scale, in part, because the system worked.
The government doesn’t make people go into debt, of course. It just nudges them in that direction. Individuals are able to write off all their mortgage interest, up to a million dollars, and companies can write off all the interest on their debt, but not things like dividend payments. This gives the system what economists call a “debt bias.” It encourages people to make smaller down payments and to borrow more money than they otherwise would, and to tie up more of their wealth in housing than in other investments. Likewise, the system skews the decisions that companies make about how to fund themselves. Companies can raise money by reinvesting profits, raising equity (selling shares), or borrowing. But only when they borrow do they get the benefit of a “tax shield.” Jason Furman, of the National Economic Council, has estimated that tax breaks make corporate debt as much as forty-two per cent cheaper than corporate equity. So it’s not surprising that many companies prefer to pile on the leverage." (Read more...)

Friday, November 20, 2009

A Pro-Free-Market Program for Economic Recovery

A Pro-Free-Market Program for Economic Recovery

Mises Daily: by

George Reisman

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen:

As you all know, we are in a severe economic downturn. The official unemployment rate now exceeds 10 percent and according to many observers is actually substantially higher. Within the last year or so, our financial system has been rocked to its foundations. The collapse of the housing bubble and the numerous defaults and bankruptcies connected with it brought down major financial institutions, such as Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch. It also brought down numerous small and medium-sized banks and threatened to bring down even such banking giants as Citigroup and Bank of America. The Dow Jones stock average fell from a high of 14,000 to about 6,500. Important retailers such as CompUSA, Circuit City, Mervyns, and Linens 'N Things went under, as did countless small businesses throughout the country. Practically every shopping mall gives testimony to the severity of the downturn in the form of vacant stores.

The collapse of the housing bubble and the massive losses and mounting unemployment that have resulted from it have unleashed a veritable firestorm of hostility against capitalism, in the conviction that it is capitalism and its economic freedom that are responsible. It is now generally taken for granted that any solution for the downturn requires massive new government intervention, to curb, control, or abolish this or that aspect of capitalism and its alleged evil.

Reflecting this view, in an effort to avoid financial collapse, the government's response was the enactment of an $800 billion "stimulus package" designed to boost spending throughout the economic system, and the pouring of more than $1.1 trillion of new and additional reserves into the banking system, along with the direct investment of capital in the country's most important banks and in major automobile firms, in order to prevent them from failing.

As a result of its so-called "investments," the government now owns a majority interest in the common stock of General Motors, once the flagship company of capitalism. There have been important extensions of government control over the economic system in other areas as well. For example, the stimulus package contains substantial funding for new bureaucracies to control healthcare and energy production.

The new and additional bank reserves, moreover, are not only massive, but almost all of them are excess reserves. Excess reserves are the reserves available to the banks for the making of new and additional loans, i.e., for new and additional credit expansion. They are the difference between the reserves the banks actually hold and the reserves they are required to hold by law or government regulation.

To gauge the significance of today's excess reserves, one should consider that total bank reserves as recently as July of 2008 were on the order of just $45 billion, and excess reserves were less than $2 billion. Those $45 billion of reserves supported a total of checking deposits in one form or another on the order of $6 trillion (a sum that included traditional checking deposits, so-called "sweep accounts," money-market mutual-fund accounts, and money-market deposit accounts insofar as checks could be written against them). That was a ratio of checking deposits to reserves in excess of 100 to 1, or equivalently, a fractional reserve of less than 1 percent.

Today, of the $1.1 trillion-plus of total reserves, all but approximately $62 billion of required reserves, are excess reserves. As of the week of November 4, excess reserves were $1.06 trillion.

Fortunately, for the time being at least, the banks are afraid to lend very much of this sum, but the potential is clearly there for a massive new credit expansion and corresponding increase in the quantity of money. Recognition of this potential is reflected in the current surge in the price of precious metals. Indeed, since $1.06 trillion of new and additional excess reserves are more than 22 times as large as the $45 billion of reserves that were sufficient not so long ago to support $6 trillion of checking deposits, they might potentially support checking deposits in excess of $132 trillion. In effect, what has happened is that our recent brush with massive deflation has turned out to be an occasion for a massive inflationary fueling period in the effort to avoid that deflation.

Inflation and Deflation: Credit Expansion and Malinvestment

The title of my talk, of course, is "A Pro-Free-Market Program for Economic Recovery." What this entails changes as the government adds new and additional measures that create new and additional problems. If I were giving this talk a year ago, my discussion would have been weighted somewhat more heavily toward deflation and somewhat less heavily toward inflation than is the case today.

A fundamental fact is that our present monetary system is characterized both by irredeemable paper money, i.e., fiat money, and by credit expansion. There is no limit to the quantity of fiat money that can be created. This is the foundation for potentially limitless inflation and the ultimate destruction of the paper money, when the point is reached that it loses value so fast that no one will accept it any longer.

The fact that our monetary system is also characterized by credit expansion is what creates the potential for massive deflation — for deflation to the point of wiping out the far greater part of the money supply, which in the conditions of the last centuries has been brought into existence through the mechanism of credit expansion.

Credit expansion is what underlay the housing bubble, and before that, the stock market bubble, and before that a long series of other booms and busts, running through the Great Depression of 1929 that followed the stock market boom of the 1920s, through the 19th and 18th Centuries all the way back to the Mississippi Bubble of 1719, and perhaps even further back.

Credit expansion is the lending out of money created virtually out of thin air. It is money manufactured by the banking system, always with at least the implicit sanction of the government, which chooses not to outlaw the practice. Since 1913, credit expansion in this country has proceeded not only with the sanction but also with the approval, and active encouragement of the Federal Reserve System, which, as I've shown, is now desperately trying to reignite the process as the means of recovering from the current downturn.

The new and additional money is created by the banking system through the lending out of funds placed on deposit with it by its customers and still held by those customers in the form of checking accounts of one kind or another. The customers can continue to spend those checking deposits themselves, simply by writing checks or using other, similar methods of transferring their balances to others.

But now, at the same time, those to whom the banks have lent in this way also have money. To illustrate the process, imagine that Mr. X deposits $1,000 of currency in his checking account. He retains the ability to spend his $1,000 by means of writing checks. From his point of view, he has not reduced the money he owns any more than if he had exchanged $1,000 in hundred-dollar bills for $1,000 in fifty-dollar bills, or vice versa. He has merely changed the form in which he continues to hold the exact same quantity of money.

But now imagine that Mr. X's bank takes, say, $900 of the currency that he has deposited and lends it to Mr. Y. Mr. Y now possess $900 of spendable money in addition to the $1,000 that Mr. X continues to possess. In other words, the quantity of money in the economic system has been increased by $900. Mr. Y's loan has been financed by the creation of new and additional money virtually out of thin air. This is the nature and meaning of credit expansion.

Now, nothing of substance is changed, if instead of lending currency to Mr. Y, Mr. X's bank creates a new and additional checking deposit for Mr. Y in the amount of $900. (This, in fact, is the way credit expansion usually occurs in present-day conditions.) There will once again be $900 of new and additional money. There will be altogether $1,900 of money resting on a foundation merely of the $1,000 of currency deposited by Mr. X.

The $1,000 of currency that Mr. X's bank holds is its reserve. If Mr. Y deposits his currency or check in another bank, it is the banking system that now has $1,000 of reserves and $1,900 of checking deposits. On the foundation of these reserves, it can create still more money and use it in the further expansion of credit. Indeed, as we have seen, the process of credit expansion is capable of creating checking deposits more than 100 times as large as the reserves that support them.

Credit expansion makes it possible to understand what caused the housing bubble and its collapse. From January of 2001 to December of 2007, credit expansion took place in excess of $2 trillion. This new and additional money made available in the loan market drove down interest rates, including, very prominently, interest rates on home mortgages. Since the interest rate on a mortgage is a major factor determining the cost of homeownership, lower mortgage interest rates greatly encouraged buying houses.

This artificially increased demand for houses, made possible by credit expansion, soon began to raise the prices of houses, and as the new and additional money kept pouring into the housing market, home prices continued to rise. This went on long enough to convince many people that the mere buying and selling of houses was a way to make a good living. On this basis, the demand for houses increased yet further, and finally a point was reached where the median-priced home was no longer affordable by anyone whose income was not far in excess of the median income, i.e., only by a relatively few percent of families.

In the middle of 2004, the Federal Reserve became alarmed about the situation and its implications for rising prices in general, and over the next two years progressively increased its Federal Funds interest rate from 1 percent to 5.25 percent. This rise in the Federal Funds rate signified a reduction in the flow of new and additional excess reserves into the banking system and thus its ability to make new and additional loans. This served to prick the housing bubble.

But before its end, perhaps as much as a trillion and a half dollars or more of credit expansion and its newly created money had been channeled into the housing market. Once the basis of high and rising home prices had been removed, home prices began to fall, leaving large numbers of borrowers with homes worth less than they had paid for them and with mortgages they could not meet.

The investments in housing represented a classic case of what Mises calls "malinvestment," i.e., the wasteful investment of capital in inherently uneconomic ventures. The malinvestment in housing was on a scale comparable to the credit expansion that had created it, i.e., about $2 trillion or more. That's about how much was lost in the housing market. When the money capital created by credit expansion was wiped out, the lending, investment spending, employment, and consumer spending that depended on that capital were also wiped out.

And, particularly important, as vast numbers of home buyers defaulted on their mortgages, the mounting losses on mortgage loans increasingly wiped out the capital of banks and other financial institutions, setting the stage for their failure.

The current plight of the economic system is the result of credit expansion and the malinvestment it engenders. Capital in physical terms is the physical assets of business firms. It is their plant and equipment and inventories and work in progress. As Mises never tired of pointing out, capital goods cannot be created by credit expansion. All that credit expansion can do is change their employment and shift them into lines where their employment results in losses. The empty stores and idle factories around the country are very much the result of the loss of the capital squandered in malinvestment in housing.

Other Consequences of Credit Expansion

The plight of the economic system is also the result of other consequences of credit expansion, namely, the encouragement it gives to high debt and dangerous leverage. This is the result of the fact that while credit expansion drives down market interest rates, the spending of the new and additional funds it represents serves to drive up business sales revenues and what the old classical economists called the rate of profit. This combination makes borrowing appear highly profitable and greatly encourages it. Individuals and business firms take on more and more debt relative to their equity. They expect borrowing to multiply their gains.

In addition, credit expansion is responsible for many business firms operating with lower cash holdings relative to the scale of their economic activity, in many cases, dangerously low cash holdings. Many businessmen develop the attitude, why hold cash when credit expansion makes it possible to borrow easily and profitably? Instead, invest the money.

"Why hold cash when credit expansion makes it possible to borrow easily and profitably? Instead, invest the money."

Thus, when credit expansion finally gives way to the recognition of vast malinvestments and the accompanying loss of huge sums of capital, the economic system is also mired in debt and deficient in cash. Thus, it is poised to fall like a house of cards, in a vast cascade of failures and bankruptcies, first and foremost, bank failures.

The Road to Recovery

The road to recovery from our economic downturn can be understood only in the light of knowledge of credit expansion and its consequences. The nature of credit expansion and its consequences imply the nature of the cure.

The prevailing — Keynesian — view on how to recover from our downturn totally ignores credit expansion and its effects. It believes that all that counts is "spending," practically any kind of spending. Just get the spending going and economic activity will follow, the Keynesians believe.

This conception of things, which underlies the support for "stimulus packages" and anything else that will increase consumer spending, is mistaken. It rests on a fundamental misconception. It ignores the fact that the fundamental problem is not insufficient spending, but insufficient capital due to the losses caused by malinvestment. It ignores the further facts that credit expansion has brought about excessive debt and, however counterintuitive this may seem, insufficient cash. Too little capital, too much debt, and not enough cash are the problems that countless business firms are facing today as a result of the credit expansion that generated the housing bubble.

Just as a reminder: the way that credit expansion brings about a situation of too little cash while itself constituting a flood of cash is that it makes it appear profitable to invest every last dollar of cash in the expectation of being able easily and profitably to borrow whatever cash may be needed.

What this discussion implies is that an essential requirement of economic recovery is that the widespread problems in the balance sheets of business firms must be fixed. Business firms need more capital, less debt, and more cash. When they achieve that, business confidence will be restored.

Ironically what could achieve at least less debt and more cash in the hands of business, and thus actually do some significant good is if when people received government "stimulus" money, they did not spend very much of it, or, better still, any of it at all. To the extent that all people did with money coming from the government was pay down debt and hold more cash, they would be engaged in a process of undoing some of the major damage done by credit expansion. They would be reducing their burden of debt and increasing their liquidity, thereby increasing their security against the threat of insolvency. Such behavior, of course, would be regarded by Keynesians as constituting a failure of their policies, because in their eyes, all that counts is consumer spending.

The 100-Percent Reserve

The most important single step on the road to economic recovery is the establishment of a 100-percent reserve system against checking deposits. Ideally, the 100-percent reserve would be in gold. And that's ultimately what we should aim at, for all of the reasons Rothbard explained. But even a 100-percent reserve in paper would do the job of totally preventing all future credit expansion and, equally important, all declines in the money supply.

(Because the 100-percent gold reserve standard is the long-run ideal of advocates of sound money, I cannot help but feel a sense of great satisfaction in the fact that a major step toward its achievement is what turns out to be urgently needed as a matter of sound current economic policy.)

In the simplest terms, to establish a 100-percent-reserve system in terms of paper, the government would simply print up enough additional paper currency so that when added to the paper currency the banks already have, every last dollar of their checking deposits would be covered by such currency. (Strictly speaking, a significant part, and for some months now the far greater part, of the reserves of the banks are not in actual currency but in checking deposits with the Federal Reserve. For the sake of simplicity, however, we can think of the checking deposits held by the banks with the Federal Reserve as a denomination of currency, since, for the banks, they are fully as interchangeable with currency as $50 bills are with $100 bills and vice versa.)

To illustrate the process of achieving a 100-percent reserve, imagine that total checking deposits are $3 trillion. In that case, the Fed would give the banks new and additional reserves that when added to their existing reserves would bring them up to $3 trillion. Through various programs, such as purchasing bad assets, the Fed has in fact already brought the total reserves of the banks up to over a trillion dollars, but almost all of those reserves, as we've seen, are excess reserves, a ready foundation for a massive new credit expansion, since excess reserves can be lent out.

What my example implies is adding to the $1.1 trillion of reserves the banking system now has, a further $1.9 trillion and making all $3 trillion of reserves required reserves. This would mean that the banks could not engage in any lending of these reserves and thus would be unable to finance credit expansion or any increase in the supply of checking deposits on the strength of them. The money supply in the hands of the public and spendable in the economic system would thus not be increased. That would happen only if and to the extent that the 100-percent reserve principle were breached.

Under a 100-percent reserve, checking depositors could simultaneously all demand their full balances in cash and the banks would be able to pay them all. Depositors' demand for cash would not create a problem and no amount of losses by the banks on their loans and investments would prevent them from honoring their checking deposits immediately and in full. Thus the checking deposit component of the money supply could not fall and nor, of course could its other component, which is the paper money in the hands of the public, usually described as the currency component. Thus, there could simply be no deflation of the money supply. And, as I've said, because all reserves would be required reserves, there would simply be no reserves whatever available for lending out, and thus no credit expansion whatever. The expression "killing two birds with one stone" could not have a better application.

"The most important single step on the road to economic recovery is the establishment of a 100-percent reserve system against checking deposits."

In a addition, a significant byproduct of a 100-percent reserve system would be that the FDIC would no longer serve any purpose and thus could be abolished.

Now an essential prerequisite of the 100-percent reserve is knowing the size of checking deposits, so that it will be known how much the 100-percent reserve needs to cover. At present, when one allows for such things as "sweep accounts," money-market mutual funds, and money-market deposit accounts, the magnitude to which the 100-percent reserve would apply can plausibly be argued to range from about $1.5 trillion to $8 trillion. It is very solidly $1.5 trillion, but does in fact range up to $8 trillion in that checks can be written on the additional sums involved, at least from time to time and for some large minimum amount.

To clearly establish the magnitude of checking deposits, bank depositors should be asked if their intention is to hold money in the bank, ready for their immediate use and transfer to others, or to lend money to the bank. In the first case, their funds would be in a checking account, against which the bank would have to hold a 100-percent reserve. In the second case, their funds would be in a savings account, against which the bank could hold whatever lesser reserve it considered necessary. In this case, the bank's customers could not spend the funds they had deposited until they withdrew them from the bank.

As I've said, the long-run goal in connection with the 100-percent reserve would be ultimately to convert it to a 100-percent gold reserve system. At that time, following the ideas of Rothbard further, the gold reserve of the Fed would be priced high enough to equal the currency and checking deposits of the country and be physically turned over to the individual citizens and the banks in exchange for all outstanding Federal Reserve money. The Fed would then be abolished. But this is a distinct and much later step in pro-free-market reform.

The 100-Percent Reserve and New Bank Capital

It should be realized that a major consequence of the establishment of a 100-percent-reserve system could be a corresponding enlargement of the capital of the banking system and thus an ability to cover even very great losses and thereby avoid such things as government bank bailouts and takeovers.

Consider the balance sheet of an imaginary bank. It's got checking deposit liabilities of $100. Initially, it has assets of $105, which implies that on the liabilities side of its balance sheet it has capital of $5 in addition to its checking deposit liabilities of $100.

Now unfortunately, malinvestment has resulted in a loss of $20 in the banks' assets, in the part of its assets consisting of loans and investments. As a result, its total assets are reduced from $105 to $85 and its capital is completely wiped out and becomes negative in the amount of $15.

However, on its asset side the bank still has some cash reserve, say, $10. If $90 of new and additional reserves were added to these $10, to bring the bank's reserves up to 100-percent equality with its checking deposits, the bank's asset total would also be increased by $90. This $90 increase on the bank's asset side would have to be matched by a $90 increase on its liabilities side, specifically by a $90 increase in its capital. Its capital would go from minus $15 to plus $75.

Applying this to the banking system as a whole in transitioning to a 100-percent reserve, we can see that the creation of such a vast amount of new bank capital would be entailed as easily to overcome whatever losses the banks might have suffered in their loans and investments.

As explained, if checking deposits were $3 trillion, the Fed would give the banks new and additional reserves that when added to their existing reserves would bring them up to $3 trillion. If this had been done in September of 2008, bringing reserves up to $3 trillion would have required adding $2.955 trillion of new and additional reserves to the $45 billion or so of reserves the banks already had. This vast addition on the asset side of the banks' balance sheets would have implied an equivalent addition to the banks' capital on the liabilities side. No matter how bad the banks' assets were, I think it's virtually certain that an additional sum of this size would have been far more than sufficient to cover all the losses that the banks had incurred in their bad loans and investments. Their capital would have ended up being increased to the extent that the additional reserves exceeded the losses in assets under the head of loans and investments.

The government's bailout program of stock purchases in the banks would have been avoided, along with all of its subsequent interference in matters of bank management.

Now, as we've seen, in fact the Fed has already supplied a vast amount of reserves, about $1.1 trillion, to the banks through various programs, such as purchasing bad assets. If the 100-percent reserve principle were adopted now, many or most of those assets could be taken back, and the programs that created them cancelled.

Thus, what I've shown here is how transitioning to a 100-percent reserve would guarantee the prevention both of new credit expansion and of deflation of the money supply. It could also provide additional capital to the banking system on a scale almost certainly far more than sufficient to place it on a financially sound footing. To avoid what would otherwise likely be an excessive windfall to the banks, it would be possible to match a more or less considerable part of the increase in their assets provided by the creation of additional reserves, with the creation of a liability of the banks to their depositors, perhaps in the form of some kind of mutual-fund accounts. Thus, the newly created reserves might provide a financial benefit to the banks' depositors as well as to the banks.

Toward Gold

Of course, a 100-percent reserve system in which the reserves are fiat money does not address the problem of preventing inflation of the fiat money. It would still be possible for the government to inflate the fiat money without restraint. That is why it is necessary to have gold in the monetary system, serving as a restraint on the amount of currency and reserves.

Thus, an important ancillary measure in connection with the transition to a 100-percent paper-reserve system would be for the government to demonstrate a serious intent to move to a gold standard. Obliging the Federal Reserve to carry out a program of regular and substantial gold bullion purchases might accomplish this. In any event, it would be an essential prerequisite for someday achieving gold reserves sufficient to make possible the establishment of a 100-percent-reserve gold system. Along the way, this measure should lead to the day when purchases of gold bullion were the only source of increases in the supply of currency and reserves.

Establishing the Freedom of Wage Rates to Fall

Along with stabilizing the financial system through the adoption of a 100-pecent reserve, it's absolutely essential to establish the freedom of wage rates and prices to fall. This is what is required to eliminate mass unemployment. Whatever the level of spending in the economic system may be, it is sufficient to buy as much additional labor and products as is required for everyone to be employed and producing as much as he can.

Nothing could be more obvious if one thinks about it. Assume, as is the case today, that there is 10 percent unemployment, with only 9 workers working for every 10 who are able and willing to work. The same total expenditure of money that today employs only 9 workers would be able to employ 10 workers, if the average wage per worker were 10 percent less. At nine-tenths the wage, the same total amount of wages is sufficient to employ ten-ninths the number of workers. It's a question of simple arithmetic: 1 divided by 9/10 equals 10/9.

(Obviously, this is an overall, average result. In reality, some wage rates would need to fall by less than 10 percent and others by more than 10 percent.)

Of course, total wage payments are not fixed in stone. They can change. And in response to a fall in wage rates to their equilibrium level, to eliminate mass unemployment, they would increase. This is because prior to their fall, investment expenditures have been postponed, awaiting their fall. Once that fall occurs, those investment expenditures take place.

Finally, with debt levels sufficiently reduced and cash holdings sufficiently high, and thus business confidence restored, there is no reason to believe that a fall in wage rates could abort the process of recovery as the result of already employed workers earning less and thus spending less before new and additional workers were hired. The cash reserves and financial strength of business firms would enable them easily to ride out any such situation. And thus mass unemployment would simply be eliminated.

What stops wage rates from falling, what makes it actually illegal for them to fall, and which thus perpetuates mass unemployment, is the underlying pervasive influence of the Marxian exploitation theory. That doctrine is responsible for the existence of such things as minimum-wage laws and coercive labor unions and their above-market wage scales.

The most important fundamental requirement for achieving a free market in labor is the total refutation of the exploitation theory and its complete discrediting in public opinion. Such a refutation will show that it is not government and labor unions that raise real wages but businessmen and capitalists, and that essentially, all that unions do is cause unemployment and a lower productivity of labor and thus prices that are higher relative to wage rates. This knowledge is what is required to make possible the repeal of minimum-wage and pro-union legislation and thus achieve the fall in wage rates that will eliminate mass unemployment

Summary

In summation, my pro-free-market program for economic recovery is a provisional 100-percent-paper-money-reserve system applied to checking deposits, accompanied by a demonstrable commitment to ultimately achieving a 100-percent-gold reserve system. The 100-percent reserve in paper would put an end to all further credit expansion and at the same time make the money supply incapable of being deflated. Its establishment would also greatly increase the capital of the banking system. It would do so by more than enough to cover all the losses on loans and investments incurred in the aftermath of the collapse of the housing bubble and thus make possible the elimination of government ownership of common stock in banks and its interference in bank management. What it would not do is control the increase in paper currency and paper-currency reserves. That will require a 100-percent gold reserve system.

Finally, the freedom of wage rates and prices to fall must be established through the repeal of pro-union and minimum-wage legislation, and more fundamentally, the education of the public concerning the errors of the Marxian exploitation theory and their replacement with actual knowledge of what determines wages and the general standard of living. To say the least, this will certainly not be an easy agenda to follow, inasmuch as it must begin in the midst of a Marxist occupation of our nation's capital.

Thank you.

11/17/09 John Stossel on Imaginary Jobs in Imaginary Places

Mexico's economy

Mexico's economy

A different kind of recession

In some ways the pain is less bad than the statistics suggest. But recovery will be harder than in the past unless complacency gives way to reform

THE last time Mexico suffered an economic slump, in 1995, it turned to its northern neighbour for help. The United States organised a $50 billion bail-out. Together with the boost provided by the enactment of the North American Free-Trade Agreement shortly before, that helped Mexico to rebound smartly from devaluation and recession.

This time the United States is the problem, rather than the solution. The impact of the recession triggered by the bursting of America’s housing bubble has been even more severe south of the Rio Grande: although data for the third quarter, due to be released on November 20th, should confirm that Mexico has finally pulled out of recession, its GDP shrank by 9.7% in the year to June. That is a shocking number, far worse than the performance of countries like Canada or the Dominican Republic whose economies have similarly close links to the United States.

Yet in other ways too, this recession is very different from 1995 (see chart). The impact on daily life is much less apparent. In Mexico City restaurants remain full and rush-hour traffic as snarling as ever. That is because those in jobs have been relatively unaffected, while in 1995 the purchasing power of their wages was crushed by inflation. The rise in unemployment has been temporarily blunted by a government subsidy that helps companies postpone lay-offs. Those that lose their jobs can tap their retirement accounts, or draw on less formal savings. Samuel Sánchez, a bricklayer waiting at a day labourer’s market in Mexico City, says his wife has been selling off farm animals every fortnight to feed their family. The poorest Mexicans have been largely unaffected, since they are concentrated in the south and mainly work in farming, where output has held up.

Yet all this is cold comfort. The recession has exposed structural weaknesses in Mexico’s economy. NAFTA brought a torrent of American investment as manufacturers set up plants south of the border to take advantage of lower labour costs. This influx brought modernisation and new technology, and underpinned rapid economic growth in the late-1990s.

But NAFTA has left Mexico highly dependent on the health of the American economy, and on a few lines of cross-border business in particular. These include car manufacturing, the construction industry and tourism. They have been among the hardest hit by this recession. Scarcer credit and shredded confidence have caused American consumers to delay as many purchases as possible, particularly those of the pricier durable goods Mexico produces. With exports plummeting, unemployment in northern industrial cities such as Saltillo has leapt into double digits.

Had the decline been limited to manufacturing, the effect on the economy as a whole would have been modest. But many services, such as transport and logistics, are tied to trade flows. Another misfortune was the outbreak of swine flu in April, which shut down Mexico City for a week and scared off tourists for months. Unlike Canada, Mexico’s banking system is largely foreign-owned; credit was squeezed a year ago when head offices ordered their subsidiaries abroad to retrench. As a result of all this, output of services dropped by 6% in the second quarter compared with the same period last year.

Just as this recession differs sharply from 1995, so will the recovery. Mexico’s GDP growth tends to correlate closely to industrial production north of the border. And this is set to rise by only 3-4% next year, even though the American economy is already recovering. So Mexico must look elsewhere to boost its growth.

Although it has signed trade agreements with other countries, Mexico’s preferential access to the world’s largest market caused it to neglect them. “We didn’t have to learn how to deal with other business cultures,” says Alejandro Werner, a deputy finance minister. “It was too easy to just export to the United States.”

NAFTA’s benefits were largely confined to export industry in northern Mexico, in part because transport links farther south are poor. It brought little change to the domestic economy, which has not been a motor of growth for decades, and where cumbersome regulation, protected monopolies and oligopolies and intransigent trade unions carry on much as before.

The government, rather than contributing to a rebound, is making matters worse. Thanks to revenue from the nationalised oil industry, Mexico’s governments have traditionally collected little tax. Despite recent fiscal reforms, federal tax revenue amounts to only 11% of GDP, among the lowest in the world (see article). But oil output is falling rapidly, mainly because of a constitutional ban on private investment in energy. The finance ministry cleverly hedged much of Mexico’s oil output this year back in 2008, when prices were near their peak. But oil income will fall in 2010. As a result, Mexico may see its credit rating downgraded, even though the public debt is only 43% of GDP.

To try to prevent that, the budget for next year tightens the belt, raising taxes by 1% of GDP and cutting spending. That will be a further brake on recovery. Mr Werner estimates that income per head will not recover its level of 2008 until 2012.

Unlike in 1995, Mexico was an innocent bystander in the genesis of this recession. But its politicians will only have themselves to blame if they fail to undertake the structural reforms—of energy, labour markets and competition policy—required to speed recovery.

The deficit problem

The deficit problem

Dealing with America's fiscal hole

Don’t cut the deficit now—but explain how, eventually, you will

FOR years America’s fiscal problems had a surreal quality. No one disputed that an ageing population and health-care inflation could bust the budget, but that prospect was decades away and procrastination seemed painless. No longer. A giant hole has opened in the budget because of stimulus, bail-outs and a recession that has savaged economic growth and tax revenue. On current policies the publicly held federal debt, 41% of GDP last year, will double in the next decade (see article). Total government debt will move well above the G20 average. In a few years the AAA rating of Treasury bonds, the world’s most important security, could be in jeopardy.

A sudden crisis is unlikely. Other rich countries with far bigger debts relative to the size of their economies, from Italy to Japan, have soldiered on without hitting a wall. Stable politics, transparent laws and economic dominance give America unequalled credibility with lenders. For all the anxiety the declining dollar drew from China this week (see article), it has no serious rival as the world’s reserve currency. America has sensibly used this fiscal freedom to enact an aggressive stimulus programme. This should be maintained for as long as it is needed

Yet ignoring the future is also costly. The problem is not the deficits in the next couple of years, but in the years that follow. Uncertainty over how taxes may be raised to shrink deficits may already be weighing on business confidence. Worries about inflation or default could start to push up interest rates. Eventually, private investment will be crowded out.

Barack Obama and Congress can pre-empt such corrosive uncertainty with a plan to reduce the deficit now. Far from requiring immediate spending cuts or tax increases, a credible plan would reassure markets and allow an orderly exit from fiscal stimulus. The Federal Reserve provides a model: it does not plan to tighten monetary policy in the near future, but has signalled its willingness to do so when inflation threatens.

Where the cutting should begin

America’s deficit problem is in essence a spending problem, so spending must bear the brunt of adjustment. An ageing population and health-care inflation are inexorably driving up the cost of the country’s three big entitlements: Social Security (pensions), Medicare and Medicaid (health care for the elderly and the poor, respectively). Mr Obama has long promised that health reform would cover the uninsured without adding to the deficit, while reining in long-term costs. Unfortunately, the prospects for controlling costs are tenuous. Achieving large savings will require action on many fronts. Raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare would save money while encouraging Americans to work longer, thereby expanding economic potential. Medicaid could be converted to block grants, compelling states to assume more of the burden of cost control. Other spending should also be vigorously squeezed, to stop federal funds being wasted on highways of dubious value or trade-distorting farm subsidies.

Still, cold arithmetic suggests that spending cuts alone cannot deliver enough. Changes to entitlements take effect only gradually. And the scope for slashing non-defence discretionary spending is limited, since it makes up merely one-sixth of total outlays. So Americans are stuck with a budgetary conundrum: they seem to be opting for more government, at least in health care, yet they do not seem prepared to pay for it. Their leaders have indulged this fantasy. Mr Obama has foolishly sworn off higher taxes on 95% of households, and Republicans will not countenance them for anybody. This newspaper strongly prefers small government and low taxes, but if Americans are to have bigger government and a sustainable budget, tax revenues will have to rise.

Taxing politics

Raising tax revenue will hurt less if the tax system becomes more supportive of economic growth in the process. Compared with other countries, America taxes consumption too little and income too much (see article). Redressing this imbalance could, with time, help economic growth. First, broaden the income-tax base by eliminating exemptions, and if possible cutting rates. Second, introduce a carbon tax, the least distorting way to slow the growth in emissions. If that is not possible, sell rather than give away carbon-emission permits, or raise the federal fuel tax. A last resort is a broad consumption tax, such as a value-added tax. This is economically efficient, but could too easily become a politically convenient way to vacuum up more money and expand government.

The economics of fiscal reform are straightforward; it’s the politics that are tough. Mr Obama should start the process with a budget early next year that aims to stabilise, and preferably reduce, the debt-to-GDP ratio in the coming decade. The problem is getting Congress to pass the necessary laws. The polarisation of American politics has left Democrats more set on defending entitlements and Republicans determined to hold down taxes. With mid-term elections a year away, the incentive to compromise is shrivelling.

One way to finesse these toxic politics would be to establish a bipartisan commission to fix entitlements and taxes, as proposed by Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, respectively the most senior Democrat and Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Its membership would be drawn from both parties, both chambers of Congress and the White House. Democrats and Republicans alike would have to make sacrifices. To preserve this grand bargain, Congress would be allowed only to approve or reject the commission’s proposal, not amend it.

This is no magic bullet. Although similar processes have been used to negotiate trade deals, the stakes in this case would be far higher, as would the chances of failure. Republicans in particular may balk at co-operating. The commission could deadlock, or see its proposal voted down, precipitating the sort of market disruption the scheme was meant to avoid. But that actually may be an advantage: politicians may conclude that failure is not an option. The best defence against a crisis is to act as though you are facing one.

If Government Pays Us to Spend, Then Spend We Will

If Government Pays Us to Spend, Then Spend We Will: Caroline Baum

Commentary by Caroline Baum

-- The recession is over. Yea verily yea, as the knights of old might say with chalice raised.

The Commerce Department is expected to validate that premise later this week when it reports that the U.S. economy expanded at a 3 percent annualized rate or thereabouts in the third quarter, according to economic forecasters. It will be the first positive reading in five quarters and a sign the slump that started in December 2007 is over.

The official arbiter of such things -- the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee -- isn’t about to bless the recovery just yet. The BCDC waited until July 2003 to declare an end to the March-to-November 2001 recession.

Of the four coincident indicators the committee uses to determine the onset of expansions and contractions, two have turned up -- industrial production and inflation-adjusted business sales -- and two are still falling, albeit at a slower rate.

The declines in employment and real personal income less transfer payments are one reason Main Street won’t be celebrating Thursday’s news on gross domestic product. The unemployment rate, currently 9.8 percent, is expected to top 10 percent in the next few months and remain elevated into next year, according to both Obama administration economists and private forecasters.

Permanent Separation

After that, it will be a slow slog for the out-of-work. The number of people who have been laid off permanently accounted for 56 percent of the unemployed in September, according to David Altig, senior vice president and research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. The share of permanent job losers (see Table A-8 in the monthly employment report) never rose above 45 percent in the six previous recessions, Altig writes on his blog, another piece of evidence supporting the forecast of a jobless recovery.

High unemployment isn’t the only reason the GDP celebration will be muted. Much of the third-quarter growth was manufactured.

This may sound whacky, but the federal government has been paying people to spend. Honest. You can’t make this stuff up.

Uncle Sam handed out your hard-earned tax dollars to prod people to scrap their old cars for more fuel-efficient models. The “Cash for Clunkers” program sent auto sales on a roller coaster ride -- first up, then down -- in August and September. Some of those buyers would have purchased a new car or truck anyway. Others used the $4,500 rebate as an inducement to strike while the iron was hot.

Pay to Spend

Just to recap: The government is paying people to do what they would have done at some point anyway.

Then there’s the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, a program that failed to heed the lessons of the no- questions-asked-mortgage lend-o-rama earlier this decade. Some 74,000 claims may have been ineligible for the credit, including one from a 4-year-old boy, according to a report from the Treasury’s inspector general.

No one would dispute the idea that people respond to incentives: A temporary, one-time tax credit brings demand forward.

But it will take an increasingly large tax credit to get the same bang for the buck, according to Andy Laperriere, a managing director at the ISI Group in Washington.

Using estimates from the National Association of Realtors on the number of home sales that were borrowed from the future, Laperriere calculates that home sales will drop 11.5 percent next year even with an extension of the $8,000 tax credit. That’s better than the 29 percent decline he predicts if the credit expires, but the sign is still negative.

Expanding the eligibility beyond first-time homebuyers -- no toddlers allowed -- would alleviate some of the decline, Laperriere says.

Less with Less

Between the spending on houses and cars, the third quarter won’t look too shabby. The problem is that all these government actions designed to create a short-term economic boost have long-term implications.

For example, not all spending is created equal. Investment in the future, whether it’s the government improving roads or the private sector building a plant, is a plus for future growth.

“If increased government spending on retiree health care comes at the expense of business spending on capital equipment and R&D, then the productivity of the current labor force and long-run growth rate will be adversely affected,” says Paul Kasriel, chief economist at the Northern Trust Corp. in Chicago in his October economic outlook.

Secular Shadow

That’s one reason there’s a secular shadow hanging over the upbeat cyclical indicators, starting with the Index of Leading Economic Indicators itself. The LEI bottomed in March before soaring in the last six months. The six-month annualized change of 11.8 is heralding a rebound, as is the spread between the federal funds rate and 10-year Treasury note yield -- the leadingest of the 10 leading indicators, according to the Conference Board, the keeper of the LEI.

The spread was even steeper in the early 1990s, another period when an impaired banking system depressed the monetary transmission mechanism. Until banks stop hoarding excess reserves and start lending -- they’re buying Treasuries but not making many loans -- the spread is an incentive waiting to happen.

Like all incentives, this one will work in time. I’m just worried it will run smack into some disincentives elsewhere.

California Was Among States With Record Unemployment

California Was Among States With Record Unemployment (Update2)

By Courtney Schlisserman

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- California, Delaware, South Carolina and Florida registered record rates of unemployment in October as weakness in the labor market stretches from coast to coast and limits the economic recovery.

Joblessness rose in 29 U.S. states last month compared with 22 in September, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Michigan had the highest jobless rate at 15.1 percent, followed by Nevada at 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.9 percent.

The national rate last month reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, weighing on consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Nov. 17 that joblessness “likely will decline only slowly,” a reason policy makers will keep interest rates near zero to ensure growth is sustained.

“We’ve had a surprisingly sharp jump in the jobless rate,” said Richard DeKaser, president of Woodley Park Research in Washington. “Businesses have truly been doing an extraordinary job of wringing out productivity from the labor force.”

Stocks fell for a third day, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declining 0.6 percent to 1,088.03 at 12:32 a.m. in New York. Dell Inc., the third-largest maker of personal computers, declined 9.5 percent after reporting a 54 percent drop in profit.

Declines in 13 States

The unemployment rate fell in 13 states, including Massachusetts, where it declined to 8.9 percent from 9.3 percent; New Hampshire, with a drop to 6.8 percent from 7.2 percent; and West Virginia, which fell to 8.5 percent from 8.9 percent.

The number of states with at least 10 percent unemployment held at 14 last month, the Labor Department’s report showed. The states reporting a record jobless rate were California at 12.5 percent, South Carolina at 12.1 percent, Florida at 11.2 percent and Delaware at 8.7 percent. The District of Columbia also set a high with an 11.9 percent rate.

“Virtually every sector aside from the health-care sector is losing jobs,” said Sean Snaith, University of Central Florida economist in Orlando. “Housing has been central to Florida’s economic story throughout the entire cycle. Unfortunately, it has spread well beyond the sectors directly involved in the housing market.”

President Barack Obama on Nov. 6 signed into law a plan to extend jobless benefits, expand a tax credit for first-time homebuyers and provide tax refunds to money-losing companies. The measure gives jobless people as many as 20 additional weeks of unemployment assistance.

The president has also announced plans to convene a jobs summit at the White House next month.

State Payrolls

Payrolls declined last month in 21 states, today’s report showed. New York showed the biggest drop, with a loss of 15,300. Florida had 8,500 job losses, followed by Georgia with 7,500 and Virginia with 7,100.

“When you apply for a job, because there are so many other people looking for jobs, you have to be the absolute perfect candidate and lucky, or be someone’s brother-in-law, to get a job,” said Mary Kough of Tellico Plains, Tennessee. “In this economy there are very few jobs for which to even apply.”

Kough has been looking for work for four months, applying for as many as 25 positions. She’s been interviewed once. The 47-year-old said she has about 20 years of experience, including jobs as a customer service manager, supervisor and purchasing agent. Tennessee’s unemployment rate held at 10.5 percent in October, the Labor Department’s report showed.

Taking Comfort

“I try not to get discouraged,” Kough said. “I know that you will get a certain percentage of what you apply for, and since there are less jobs to apply for, I know it will just take a little longer. I take comfort in knowing that. I have faith.”

Applied Materials Inc. is among companies still planning to cut jobs. The world’s biggest maker of chip equipment, based in Santa Clara, California, said Nov. 11 it plans to eliminate as many as 1,500 positions within 18 months.

Over the last year, California showed the biggest loss of jobs, with payrolls falling by 687,700 workers, today’s report showed.

Nationally, payrolls fell by 190,000 in October, the Labor Department said Nov. 6. The U.S. has lost 7.3 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007, the most of any downturn since the Great Depression.

Other measures corroborate that while firms are firing fewer workers, it is harder for the unemployed to find work. The number of people getting extended payments jumped in the week ended Oct. 31 even as the number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits held at a 10-month low last week, according to government data released yesterday.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Debt is Destroying the Dollar

By George Will

WASHINGTON -- One of the many television commercials exhorting viewers to buy gold says solemnly that it is an asset whose value "has never dropped to zero," a boast that surely sets a record for minimalism. Still, the world's appetite for gold as an investment option is intensifying. Last month, India purchased 200 tons of gold at $1,045 an ounce, before the price topped $1,108 on Monday. China, too, may increasingly diversify from paper -- i.e., bonds -- into gold, the price of which, some experienced investors believe, could soar to $2,500 an ounce in three to five years. One reason for all this is U.S. behavior.

India's 2008 GDP was $1.2 trillion, so its $6.7 billion purchase was small beer. It may, however, be a large portent: Gold increasingly looks to investors to be a more reliable store of value than governments' bonds are, especially U.S. bonds as the U.S. government threatens to pile a mammoth health care entitlement onto the nation's Ponzi welfare state, increasing the nation's debt and borrowing.

The fiscal year 2009 budget deficit, triple that of 2008, was 10 percent of GDP and, Lawrence Lindsey says, probable policies will produce deficits of 7 percent of GDP for a decade. Ronald Reagan's worst deficit was 6 percent of GDP, and for only one year.

Lindsey -- former member of the Federal Reserve board of governors and director of George W. Bush's National Economic Council (2001-02) -- says Americans' net worth has dropped at least $13 trillion since the recession began in December 2007. What is to be done?

Americans could suddenly begin saving substantially more, but this would deepen and prolong the recession. Alternatively, America could reflate the value of its assets by printing money. Lindsey says it is already doing that -- printing bonds promiscuously and lending money to banks at negligible rates, money banks can use to buy the bonds. This sharply increases the money supply, which sets the stage either for inflation -- too much money chasing too few goods. Or for recovery-snuffing higher interest rates to try to prevent inflation. Or for something like Japan's lost decade -- banks pouring money into government bonds rather than the real economy.

America, says Lindsey, will not become Weimar Germany, where hyperinflation caused people to rush to stores with satchels of rapidly depreciating currency. But, he adds, no country has successfully behaved the way the United States is behaving.

Suppose, he says, you owned some U.S. Treasury bonds or other dollar-denominated assets, and you were sitting in front of two buttons, one marked Buy More, the other marked Sell. Which button would you push? Obviously, Sell.

Fortunately, Lindsey says, there is so much U.S. paper circulating, every owner cannot hit Sell at the same time. But if enough people, institutions or nations sell, others will not buy unless U.S. interest rates rise substantially, which can ignite a vicious cycle -- killing economic growth, thereby depressing revenues and increasing the deficit and borrowing.

Irwin Stelzer of the Hudson Institute notes that China, America's largest creditor, has increased its dollar holdings 20 percent this year, so China has increased its interest in not having the dollar devalued by mass selling. But, Stelzer adds, China thinks geopolitically as well as economically, and might have noneconomic reasons for encouraging a controlled flight from the dollar.

A cataclysmic event -- say, an interruption of the flow of Middle Eastern oil -- could, Stelzer says, cause the world to flee to the safety of even a depreciating dollar. But absent such an event, the world will be carefully watching a U.S. government that has a powerful incentive to try to use controlled inflation for the slow-motion repudiation of some of its mountain of new debt.

It is, however, hubris -- something abundant in Washington -- to think inflation can be precisely controlled, like an oven's temperature. It is hubris cubed to think inflation can be unleashed just short of provoking a flight from the dollar.

Perhaps Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke knows how to sop up the trillions of new dollars before inflation ignites. But will he? He knows about "the recession within the Depression" that occurred in 1937, perhaps as a result of premature confidence in a recovery.

Furthermore, he may feel duty-bound to try to use loose money to help reduce unemployment. But although the Fed has suddenly assumed stupendous powers, it still has one sovereign duty -- to preserve the currency as a store of value.

Fighting a Coercion Clause

Fighting a Coercion Clause

By George Will

PHOENIX -- In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea. The institute, America's most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack's idea for protecting Arizonans from health care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack's proposed amendment to the state's Constitution:

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

Proponents were outspent 5-1 by opponents who argued, meretriciously, that it would destroy Arizona's Medicaid program, with which many insurance companies have lucrative contracts. Nevertheless, the proposition lost by only 8,687 votes out of 2.1 million cast, and Arizonans will vote on essentially the same language next November.

But does not federal law trump state laws? Not necessarily. Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney, says, "It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the federal Constitution established a floor for the protection of individual liberties; state constitutions may provide additional protections."

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Constitution's system of "dual sovereignty," states' "retained sovereignty" empowers them to "remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority." The court has been critical of the "federalism costs" of intrusive federal policies, and recently has twice vindicated state sovereignty in ways pertinent to Novack's plan.

In 2006, the court overturned an interpretation of federal law that would have nullified Oregon's "right to die" statute. The court said states have considerable latitude in regulating medical standards, which historically have been primarily state responsibilities.

In 2000, Arizona voters' endorsed an English immersion policy for students for whom English is a second language. Federal courts had issued an injunction against such policies because they conflicted with federal requirements of bilingual education. This year, however, the Supreme Court mandated reconsideration of the injunctions because they affect "areas of core state responsibility."

The court says the constitutional privacy right protects personal "autonomy" regarding "the most intimate and personal choices." The right was enunciated largely at the behest of liberals eager to establish abortion rights. Liberals may think, but the court has never held, that the privacy right protects only doctor-patient transactions pertaining to abortion. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department officials under the Reagan and first Bush administrations, ask: If government cannot proscribe or even "unduly burden" -- the court's formulation -- access to abortion, how can government limit other important medical choices?

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., says Congress can tax -- i.e., punish -- people who do not buy insurance because the Constitution empowers Congress to tax for "the general welfare." So, could Congress tax persons who do not exercise or eat their spinach?

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

America's fiscal deficit

America's fiscal deficit

Stemming the tide

Unprecedented levels of government debt may require radical solutions

STUDENTS at National Defence University in Washington, DC, were recently given a model of the economy and told to fix the budget. To get the federal debt down, they jacked up taxes and slashed spending. The economy promptly tanked, sending the debt to higher levels than before. The lesson: “You’ll never get re-elected and you may do more harm than good,” concluded Eric Bee, an air-force colonel who took part in the exercise.

This is the ugly arithmetic of America’s public finances. Recession and aggressive fiscal stimulus have hugely swollen the federal deficit. Stimulus was essential to cushion a collapse in private demand. In spite of that, the economy has barely emerged from recession and unemployment is still rising, feeding speculation that more stimulus is needed. Yet at the same time voters are growing alarmed at the tide of red ink, and it may be only a matter of time before markets do, too.

On current policies the federal deficit, which hit a post-war high of 10% of GDP in the fiscal year that has just ended, will fall to 4.2% by 2014 and will then head steadily higher. Aides to Barack Obama know this is unacceptable. With a new budget due in February, government departments are said to be preparing to tighten their belts. Meanwhile an advisory committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, who used to head the Federal Reserve, will report to the president in early December on options for tweaking the tax system, though not how to raise much more revenue from it.

But the administration has resisted being pinned down on concrete deficit reduction. The post-crisis experience of other countries suggests that America’s recovery will be muted and fragile. As the students found, premature tightening of fiscal policy could strangle the recovery in its cradle and worsen future deficits. “Doing the prudent thing about deficits now would be an extremely foolish thing,” observes Paul Krugman, a Nobel-winning economist.

However, persistent deficits could eventually drive up interest rates, and uncertainty over when or how taxes will rise could dampen business confidence. Higher interest charges will take money from other public services, and limit the flexibility to respond to future economic shocks. “While it is premature to begin exiting from fiscal support, governments should not hesitate to announce a credible exit strategy now,” said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on November 3rd.

Such an announcement, even without immediate spending cuts or tax increases, could help steady nerves. And actual deficit reduction, if done right, could enhance economic growth. For example, fixing entitlement programmes for the elderly could extend Americans’ working lives and expand the labour force; shifting the burden of taxes to consumption could boost saving and investment. But it will not be easy.

Early last year the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) thought federal debt held by the public, then about 40% of GDP, would fall to 28% in a decade’s time. It now sees it reaching 82%. As William Gale and Alan Auerbach, two prominent fiscal experts, put it: “The future is now.”

Using the CBO’s economic-growth and interest-rate assumptions, and assuming that Mr Obama’s last budget is implemented (for example, that his payroll-tax credit is made permanent and that George Bush’s tax cuts remain except for the wealthiest), a deficit of 3% of GDP in 2014 (instead of 4.2%) would stabilise debt at about 70% of GDP. That would require trimming more than 200 billion from the 2014 deficit and more than 500 billion from the 2019 shortfall. This amounts to a cumulative 1.2% fiscal contraction over three years, and about double that over seven. The specific timeline is not important; stretching it over more years means a higher debt. Either way there are risks: it may hobble a still-weak economy. And it may not be enough.

The spending bonanza

Further efforts after 2019 would be needed because of growing pressure on the debt from entitlement spending. This will go on relentlessly rising as the baby-boomers continue to reach retirement age, and then become infirm.

Most of the growth in the deficit comes from spending, which averaged 21% of GDP from 1980 to 2007 but will approach 25% by 2019, according to the CBO (see chart 1). Some of that comes from interest charges on the debt, expected to more than triple from their current 5% of total spending. But entitlements are the elephant in the budget. On current policies, pensions and health care for the retired (Social Security and Medicare, respectively) and health care for the poor (Medicaid) will grow from 10% of GDP in 2011 to 18% by 2050.

Mr Obama had long planned that his health reform would not just cover the uninsured but also stop the long-term growth in health costs. In the bills currently in Congress, that second goal may be out of reach. Although Mr Obama insists that the reform will not raise the deficit, it will still absorb some of the revenue that could have been used to reduce it.

Social Security is more straightforward. First, because Americans live longer and healthier lives than a generation ago, the age of eligibility, which will rise to 67 in 2027, could be raised to 70 and be linked to life expectancy thereafter. Medicare’s eligible age, now 65, could also be raised. Second, starting benefits could be based on how much prices, rather than wages, have risen during a beneficiary’s working life, except for the lowest-paid workers. Third, benefits could be linked to an inflation index with less upward bias than the one now used. Fourth, while married retirees are both alive, the spousal benefit could be reduced. Overall, a worker’s benefits would be lower than currently projected, but not in real terms. Lower-income workers and anyone now nearing retirement would be spared.

Currently the federal government pays 50-83% of Medicaid; states pay the rest. This encourages states to expand coverage and benefits because they pay only a portion of the extra cost. Switching Medicaid to a block grant, indexed to inflation and population, and requiring wealthy states to pay most of their share, would encourage states to control costs. The model would be the 1996 welfare reform, which shifted funding to block grants; in exchange, states gained flexibility in designing their programmes.

States and their congressional delegations will complain that this simply shifts costs from federal to state budgets. Still, states that really want more generous programmes could raise their own taxes to fund them. Because most are required to run balanced budgets and have less-than-AAA credit ratings, they would be less likely than the federal government to fund cost overruns by borrowing.

Because entitlement changes have to be phased in slowly, they offer only limited savings in the short term. Other programmes such as highway funding and farm assistance could be trimmed, and perhaps handed over to the states. Defence and discretionary items represent just a third of spending, and Mr Obama has already planned to shrink both in nominal dollars by 2014, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (with luck) wind down and the stimulus expires. Thereafter, they would grow only slightly faster than inflation. Freezing both at 2014 levels would shrink them in real terms. Still, it would save only $160 billion a year by 2019. Even elimination of the notorious “earmarks”, favoured projects slid into the federal budget by individual congressmen, would save little; they add up to less than $20 billion a year, and in any case they only rearrange, rather than expand, the budget.

Taxation’s maze

The measures outlined above could generate perhaps half the savings needed to get the deficit down to 3% of GDP (see table). Without more drastic cuts, achieving the other half requires higher tax revenue. George Bush’s tax cuts expire at the end of next year. This could provide a catalyst for more fundamental tax reform.

America depends inordinately on payroll and income taxes, on both people and corporations (see chart 2 and article). This penalises work and investment, and encourages borrowing and spending. Exemptions, credits and loopholes worth $1 trillion a year riddle the system and distort behaviour. The deduction for employer-provided health insurance encourages richer plans and more spending. The mortgage-interest deduction fosters borrowing and leverage. The largest loopholes also favour the rich, making the tax system less progressive, and encourage rampant tax avoidance. The tax code is now several million words long and changes, on average, more than once a day. Compliance costs Americans the equivalent of $200 billion annually. That complexity is magnified by the “alternative minimum tax” (AMT), a parallel income tax aimed at the wealthy that must be fixed each year to avoid ensnaring more of the middle class.

Economists generally see two goals for tax reform: less complexity and more bias towards taxing consumption. There are two broad ways to achieve that. The first would broaden the income-tax base by eliminating loopholes while lowering rates, as occurred with the last big reform in 1986. Some exemptions, such as the one for retirement saving, would be kept. Abolishing deductions for employer-provided health care, mortgage interest, capital gains on homes and state and local taxes would raise over $500 billion in 2014. Some of that could be used to reduce the deficit, and the rest to shrink or scrap the AMT.

Junking these deductions entirely may be politically impossible. But much the same result could be achieved by capping the exclusion for employer-provided health care (exempting most lower-cost plans) and replacing the mortgage-interest deduction with a tax credit. Some conservatives go further, advocating a single “flat” tax bracket above a basic personal exemption. But that would make the system much less progressive.

The second type of tax reform would replace or supplement the income tax with a broad tax on consumption. There are many ways to do this. One would allow an unlimited exemption for saving, in effect turning the current income tax into a consumption tax. Another would be a national sales tax, similar to state sales taxes but charged federally. An alternative is a value-added tax, which all other OECD countries have (see article). VAT is levied at each stage of production. For example, a baker might pay five cents VAT on flour and collect 25 cents VAT on the bread he sells, remitting 20 cents to the government.

An analysis for The Economist by the Tax Policy Centre estimates that a 5% VAT that exempted education, housing, and religious and charitable services would raise a net $324 billion in 2014 and $411 billion in 2019. Some of that could be used to reduce the impact on the poor, for example by expanding Mr Obama’s payroll-tax credit. The rest could be used to lower corporate and personal rates and reduce the deficit.

An alternative or complement to either of those reforms would be a tax on carbon emissions. This would raise revenue, penalise consumption and encourage energy efficiency. The most economically efficient method would be a carbon tax. Mr Obama and Congress are instead pursuing a cap-and-trade system; that could do the same thing, provided permits to emit carbon dioxide are sold rather than given away. Raising the current federal fuel tax would have similar benefits with fewer complications: a 50-cent boost, to 68 cents a gallon, would raise some $60 billion a year.

Whether America adopts a broader-based income tax with lower rates, or a VAT, or any serious tax reform, depends more on politics than economics. Each of the tax code’s loopholes has fierce defenders. Yet it might be even harder to persuade almost everyone to pay a new federal tax where none has existed.

Join hands and jump

Historically, politicians are most likely to tackle deficits when prodded by markets. Denmark in 1982, Ireland in 1987 and Canada in 1995 all embarked on ambitious programmes after spiralling debts had driven up interest rates. In the same way, American deficit-reduction deals in 1985, 1990 and 1993 were nudged along by nervous markets. Such concerns are notably absent now. “Until the bond-market vigilantes form a posse again, it’s just too easy to ignore this issue,” says Alan Blinder, a Princeton University professor and former adviser to Bill Clinton.

One way to moderate the political resistance to cutting entitlements and raising taxes is to bypass regular legislative procedures. Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the Democratic chairman and top Republican respectively on the Senate Budget Committee, have proposed a bipartisan commission, probably composed of legislators and administration officials. They would produce a single proposal which Congress must approve or reject, but cannot amend. “The only way you do this is if everyone joins hands and jumps off the cliff together,” says Mr Gregg. It is “institutional insurrection”, admits Evan Bayh, an Indiana senator. He means that in a good way.

At least three other, similar proposals are before Congress now. A dozen senators have said they will support a higher national debt limit—scheduled for a vote in the next couple of months—only if it is tied to the creation of such a commission. Mr Obama has previously expressed interest in the idea. But many congressmen think it would usurp their responsibilities. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, is adamantly opposed.

A similar commission was set up to restore solvency to Social Security in 1982-83. It succeeded because the problem was imminent, the consequences of failure were unacceptable to both parties, and its members were trusted and pragmatic dealmakers, according to a joint analysis by the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. Entitlements and tax reform today are a far larger, more amorphous problem, the threat of catastrophe is absent so far, and politics is more polarised. But “the alternative—political paralysis—is far worse,” the analysis concluded.

Of course, if the commission failed, it “would be a very damaging moment in the eyes of our international creditors,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director. “To raise the political stakes so high in this environment has some real risks.” Yet that could also put pressure on the commission to succeed, and on Congress to approve its recommendations.

Back at National Defence University, Mr Bee, the student, did eventually find a way to reduce the deficit without sending the economy into a tailspin. Unfortunately, it required America to keep borrowing from abroad. Mr Bee asked the students representing China in a similar exercise if they would advance the money. “They said, ‘We’ll think about it’.”

How to feed the world

Food and agriculture

How to feed the world

Business as usual will not do it

IN 1974 Henry Kissinger, then America’s secretary of state, told the first world food conference in Rome that no child would go to bed hungry within ten years. Just over 35 years later, in the week of another United Nations food summit in Rome, 1 billion people will go to bed hungry.

This failure, already dreadful, may soon get worse. None of the underlying agricultural problems which produced a spike in food prices in 2007-08 and increased the number of hungry people has gone away. Between now and 2050 the world’s population will rise by a third, but demand for agricultural goods will rise by 70% and demand for meat will double. These increases are in a sense good news in that they are a result of rising wealth in poor and middle-income countries. But they will have to happen without farmers clearing large amounts of new land (there is some scope for expansion, but not much) or using up lots more water (in parts of the world, water supplies are stretched to their limit or beyond). Moreover, they will take place while farmers also wrestle with the consequences of climate change, which, on balance, will do more harm than good to farmland round the world.

It may be too late to avoid another bout of price rises. Despite a global recession and the largest grain harvest on record in 2008, food prices are heading up again. Still, countries have a brief window of opportunity in which to set long-term policy goals without being distracted by panic measures. They need to do two things: invest in the productive capacity of agriculture and improve the operation of food markets.

Governments have done one but not the other. Over the past year investment has risen faster than anyone expected. But distrust of markets and a reaction against farm trade are growing. Unless governments restrain those impulses, they will undermine the gains from rising investment.

The quarter-century slumber

For most of the past 25 years, investment in agriculture has declined relentlessly. In 2005 most developing countries were investing only around 5% of public revenues in farming. The share of Western aid going to agriculture fell by around three-quarters between 1980 and 2006. This disinvestment laid waste to productivity. During the Green Revolution of the 1960s, staple-crop yields were rising by 3-6% a year. Now they are rising by only 1-2% a year; in poor countries, yields are flat.

Fortunately, the food-price spike of 2007-08 shocked governments out of their quarter-century of neglect. The World Bank and many rich countries have doubled the money they put into poor countries’ farming. In the poor countries themselves, agriculture has gone from being a sideshow for the government—something the minister of agriculture does—into its main event, which everyone needs to worry about. This is as it should be: farming is far and away the single most important economic activity in most poor places.

Some of the new splurge of public money is going on safety-net programmes for poor farmers, which are justified on anti-poverty grounds: three-quarters of the world’s poorest live in rural areas. But the money will pay dividends in the long run only if it improves farmers’ access to market. Lack of reliable markets is the biggest barrier to rural development, since without them farmers have little incentive to grow more. So the increase in rural road-building is welcome, as are measures to improve the operations of local markets by (for instance) spreading price information and building grain stores. There is also a case for temporarily subsidising better seeds and fertilisers in places where local markets are failing to provide them: this is an example of correcting market failure.

Boosting world food production without gobbling up land and water will also require technology to play a larger role in the next 40 years than it has in the past 40, when people have been more or less living off the gains of the Green Revolution. Technology means a lot of things: drip irrigation, no-till farming, more efficient ways to use fertilisers and kill pests. But one way of raising yields stands out: developing genetically modified (GM) crops that, for example, use less water. Here, too, public bodies can overcome resistance. GM crops may be more acceptable if they come from government institutes than big companies or if the seeds are given away, rather than sold (which may be why Monsanto is doing that; see article).

I’m not all right, Jack

There is, however, a danger inherent in all this government activity: the temptation of self-reliance. The food-price rise of 2007-08 made all countries worry about “food security”—quite rightly. But over the past year “food security” (ensuring everyone has enough to eat) has shaded into “food self-sufficiency” (growing it all yourself). Self-sufficiency has become a common policy goal in many countries (see article).

In itself, self-sufficiency is not bad. If poor countries have a comparative advantage in producing their own food, they should do so (and that will often be the case). The problem is that the new rhetoric of self-sufficiency coincides with a growing distrust of markets and trade. Grain importers no longer trust world markets to supply their needs. “Land grabbers” are snapping up land abroad to use for food production. Everywhere, governments are more involved in farming through input subsidies. In these conditions self-sufficiency could easily sprout protective walls.

That would be in nobody’s interest. As Europeans have demonstrated over decades, pursuing self-sufficiency above all else is extremely wasteful. Self-sufficiency would also lock in patterns of agricultural production just when climate change is affecting different parts of the world differently, making trade between them all the more important.

The food-price trauma of 2007-08 is persuading some countries to say that they need to divert part of their wealth to subsidise food so they can be self-sufficient and avoid future crises. But the demands of feeding 9 billion people in 2050 tell a different story: farming needs to be as efficient as possible. That requires markets and trade. Investing in agriculture is a boon; rejecting agricultural markets would be a disaster.

Taming the mafia state

Afghanistan’s anti-corruption drive

Taming the mafia state

Anti-graft pressure mounts in Afghanistan, as Hamid Karzai is again sworn in as president

IT WAS no secret what the world wanted to hear from Hamid Karzai when Afghanistan’s president was sworn in for a second term on Thursday November 19th: a commitment to get tough on corruption. Visiting Kabul for the inauguration, Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, said Mr Karzai had a “window of opportunity” to show tangible results. American officials say he has just six months to tackle what one calls “Afghanistan’s mafia state”.

In his inauguration speech, he said ministers in his administration must be “competent and just”. But heeding Western concerns about their behaviour does not come naturally to Mr Karzai. He has been in a combative mood since the West’s much-resented demand that he accept that his re-election was marred by massive vote-rigging. In a recent American television interview he batted back questions about corruption in his government with his oft-repeated line that foreign donors must clean their own act up and stop development funds from being wasted. Such wastage, however, is at least lawful, unlike the Afghan government’s practice of selling jobs to officials who then repay themselves through extortion. Nor is it akin to the impunity the well-connected enjoy.

So entrenched is corruption in Afghanistan that some argue it can be fought only by appointing international prosecutors. But Mr Karzai’s government rebuffs such proposals with a prickly defence of Afghan sovereignty. So the idea now is to create elite Afghan law-enforcement agencies, under the guidance of the FBI and Britain’s Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). The hope is that locking up some big drug dealers and corrupt officials will show that not everyone is immune.

A special counter-narcotics agency, with mentors from SOCA, that arrests, detains and tries drug-traffickers, has been operating for some time. It was responsible for the conviction of a well-connected drug-dealer later pardoned by Mr Karzai. The agency had its first big success this year when an important drug dealer was brought down by a sting operation and the novel use of wiretap evidence.

NATO is also getting involved. An anti-corruption task force will gather evidence on suspects and pass it to a body called the Serious Crimes Task Force, referred to as “the Afghan FBI”. This will be structured along similar lines to the counter-narcotics outfit, with heavily guarded judges who it is hoped will be immune to intimidation.

The attorney-general’s office, too, has received help. Diplomats hope it will soon announce some senior scalps, probably including ministers (though provincial governors seem immune). Despite all the efforts to protect judges, a recent drug case was mysteriously dismissed, only for the suspect to be found guilty in a hasty retrial.

For some Americans, the crucial test of Mr Karzai’s seriousness in tackling corruption is his willingness to sack Ahmed Wali Karzai, his half-brother, who lords it over the south as head of Kandahar’s provincial council. Both he and his brother deny longstanding allegations that Ahmed Wali is involved in the drug trade. And parts of the foreign effort in Afghanistan also rely on Ahmed Wali, including allegedly the CIA (though he denies reports he is on the agency’s payroll). As one NATO official in Kabul put it, Ahmed Wali’s “ruthless use of patronage” has annoyed many people and possibly increased support for the insurgents. But it has also kept many other people on side. “Ahmed Wali is the only thing holding Kandahar together right now,” says the official, speaking of a city second only to Kabul in importance, and suggesting that in tackling this important symbol of perceived corruption it is not just Mr Karzai who has a conflict of interest.