More, I mean Less, Government Spying

Anonymous, in response to my anti-government spying post from yesterday, asked if I were against intelligence gathering in general: "Should we disband the MI-5, DIA, NSA, CIA and FBI?" No, I am not against intelligence gathering. In fact, I would say that much of our problem in the Middle East is due to inadequate intelligence (and I don't just mean the obvious embarassment of the missing Iraq WMDs. Weren't we supposed to be greeted as liberators?). I believe that in reality we need to step up our intelligence efforts, particularly in the field of HUMINT, or human intelligence. If we had known more about our enemy, the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings, as examples, likely wouldn't have happened, and we probably wouldn't be in Iraq now. But what I am against is intelligence gathering that attacks our civil liberties and civil rights while providing only marginal or even specious improvements to our security. As shopworn as the metaphor is, Orwell's 1984 is still instructive in this. I am also against the fearmongering that has become the current administration's stock-in-trade. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" -Benjamin Franklin

Incarceration Nation

In the US, there are 2.2 million people now in prisons and jails. That's one inmate for every 136 U.S. residents. According to the group The Sentencing Project, that's the highest rate in the world. For comparison, take a look at these numbers (in prisoners per 100,000 people). US--702 Russia--628 South Africa--400 England/Wales--139 Canada--116 Germany--91 France--85 Why do we have such high prison populations? One reason is that we have relatively high crime rates, especially for violent crimes. But a bigger reason seems to be our sentencing policies, and in particular, our treatment of drug offenses. The US on average issues longer sentences. In one study, for instance, burglars in the US served an average of 16.2 months in prison, compared to 5.3 months in Canada and 6.8 months in England/Wales. As another example, over 25% of all inmates are in prison for drug offenses, a ten-fold increase since 1980. So why should we care about this? Well, I don't think liberals need to be told that incarceration has high social costs. But conservatives may need to be reminded that incarceration also has high economic costs. It costs about $40,000 a year to house a prisoner. The US spends about $40 billion a year on its prison system. Surely, that money could be spent elsewhere.

Government Spying

The Weekly Standard, a conservative news site that often infuriates me, offers this defense of government phone tapping and other spying. Gary Schmitt argues that the London bombings of 2005 may have been prevented if the British government had listened in on more phone calls and had practiced more "assertive" information-gathering techniques on detainees. I disagree with this line of thinking. Hindsight is always 20/20, and we can (and do) always second-guess ourselves after the fact. "We could have cracked this case if only we had listened to one more phone call...if only we had more powers to spy, we could have caught that guy red-handed...." You get the point. It's easy to see why reasoning breaks down. The slope is a slippery one indeed.

Wal-Mart Blocked

Here's an interesting article that ties together some of the eminent domain and Wal-Mart discussions we've had. The city of Hercules, a poor city in the San Francisco Bay Area, has used its power of eminent domain to keep Wal-Mart out. Wal-Mart, not surprisingly, will fight the action. They will spin it as a defense of private property rights. In this case, though, the citizenry was 100% behind the city's decision. This brings up a lot of interesting issues. First, is this a legitimate and justifiable use of eminent domain? What if the the citizens had not been in support of the city council? Second, this is not the first time that a city has taken action to prevent the entry of a Wal-Mart, though it is certainly an interesting tactic. Other cities have passed ordinances and onerous taxes. Wal-Mart always fights and usually wins. It is undeniable that Wal-Mart can offer goods at very low prices. It also often provides needed employment. Hercules is a city that would probably benefit from a store. Should a city even try to block a Wal-Mart? If so, how far should it go?

Off to Jolly Old England

I'll be out of town until May 30. Tune in then....

Libyan Spin

The Bush Administration and its supporters like to point to Libya as a success story in the great experiment of regime change in the Middle East. The story goes that Libya, scared by our invasion of Iraq, decided to come in out of the cold. Of course, this is spin. Libya's rehabilitation started during the Clinton Administration, as Clinton conducted negotiations with Khaddafy to surrender for trial the Libyan agents responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing. Not only did Khaddafy release the agents in 1999, but also agreed to a $3 billion settlement. Don't be fooled.

Dubai's Economy

Steve, an occasional contributor, sent in this dispatch from India: "I was catching up on the hammer and wanted to mention that I read somewhere that the growth in the UAE is not all driven by oil profits. In fact, I seem to recall the argument that the growth is intended to build an economic base for the region--through tourism, trade, etc.--that will sustain it in the post-fossil fuel world." He was referring to my discussion of Dubai and globalization. Well, here's what the Department of Energy has to say about the UAE economy: "The overall performance of the UAE's economy is heavily dependent on oil exports, which account for over 30 percent of total gross domestic product (GDP). Growth in real GDP was 6.4 percent in 2004, partially due to higher crude oil prices. For 2005, real GDP growth is projected to reach 6.5 percent. The non-oil segment of the UAE's economy also is experiencing strong growth, particularly the petrochemicals and financial services sectors. "

More on Hybrids

I got a lot of interest in my post the other day about CAFE standards versus increased gasoline prices as ways to reduce gasoline use. squantum felt that any appeal to the market is misguided because the petroleum market is far from free, with subisidies present throughout. He also felt that higher CAFE standards could be layered over high prices and be doubly as beneficial. Well, one problem with this view is that high prices and high CAFE standards come at a cost. The CBO report I referenced earlier says this: "The costs that higher CAFE standards would impose on consumers have two components: higher prices paid by purchasers of new vehicles and a loss in the well-being of consumers who would be discouraged from buying a new vehicle because of the higher prices...A tax increase would, similarly, raise gasoline prices and reduce the quantity sold, which would also reduce the welfare of gasoline consumers...With an increase in CAFE standards, average vehicle production costs would rise more than prices would as firms added fuel-saving technologies. Thus, firms' vehicle profit margins would decline, as would total vehicle sales. In the case of a gasoline tax increase, while the retail price of gasoline would rise, the price received by gasoline producers and suppliers would fall--with the tax increase making up the difference." And a little further on: "The total costs associated with setting car and truck standards so as to reduce gasoline consumption by the benchmark target of 10 percent would reduce producers' and consumers' welfare by about $3.6 billion per year ." So if we raised CAFE standards AND increased gas prices, that $3.6 billion could be even higher. One could take issue with the exact model used by CBO to arrive at that figure, and one could also argument, as I would, that the welfare benefits of reduced gasoline use were not properly accounted for in the calculation. But my point is that it's difficult to strike the balance. Meanwhile, Anonymous 1 and Anonymous 2 tell us that hybrids are not all they're cracked up to be. In response to the Anonymouses, my point about hybrids in the original post was not necessarily that hybrids are better, but that Japanese auto manufacturers seem to be more nimble and astute at providing what the market wants. Hence Detroit's problems. And remember this. Cars are much more than transportation. They are lifestyle statements. As the Car and Driver editorial page says, what's wrong with buying a hybrid to make the statement "I care about the environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil"? No one questions the economics of the person who decides to buy the Hummer, who is making a decidedly different statement but a statement nonetheless.

Worst President in History

Is Bush the worst president in history? Some think so.

The ACLU and Partisanship

The conservative blogosphere is filled with reactionary, close-minded partisans. I know, that's not a revelatory statement, but it was brought home once again today. Stephen Carter published a piece in Christianity Today called, "The ACLU Is Not Evil." His point is that just because christians may disagree with a group's views doesn't make the group evil. Pretty elementary stuff, huh? Surprising that it requires an op-ed to explain it. Well, not so suprising when you read the reactions to the article: here, here, here.

Gasoline Prices and Fuel Efficiency

Thomas Brewton, who sees a liberal elite socialist conspiracy around every corner, contributes a particularly wacky piece this week, in which he argues that the New York Times is complicit in "state-planning" because it is advocating mandated higher fuel efficiency standards for cars (otherwise known as the CAFE standards). Ignoring the communist conspiratorial aspects of his polemic, we can focus on the fundamental paradox of his argument. He is saying that the government should not mandate more fuel-efficient cars because to do so will hurt US auto manufacturing, because US auto manufacturing cannot, it seems, produce a competitive fuel-efficient car. He says: "Even if you were to agree with the Times about forcing production of more hybrid cars, what do you say to the remaining workers in General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler who will lose their jobs as those companies go bankrupt? At the moment, GM and Ford in particular are struggling to avoid bankruptcy because of crippling labor agreements forced upon them with Federal support and complicity by the 1935 Wagner Labor Act. They are selling off divisions just to raise enough cash to stay alive. And they don’t have competitive hybrid cars." Come on, Thomas. Japanese cars have been the #1, #2, and #3 selling cars for years. (The Toyota Camry has been #1 for the last 4 years and 8 of the last 9 years). Toyota, Honda, and Subaru have topped the reliability scales for similar lengths of time. Here's a quote from Forbes Magazine about well-selling cars: "The Taurus and the Impala [by Ford and Chevy, respectively] still make the top ten, even though they lag way behind Camry and Accord in terms of build quality, reliability and the level of features in the cars. One reason the Taurus and Impala sell so well is that a large percentage of them are sold with deep discounts to fleets such as rental car agencies. According to a recent report from Merrill Lynch, in the second quarter of 2004, the American automakers' fleet sales as a percentage of total sales was 27.8%. The Japanese cars have a much higher percentage of cars sold for private use, meaning that the imports generate better per-car profits. Another reason for the popularity of the American cars is the fact that they come with thousands of dollars in rebates and cut-rate financing, and the Japanese dealerships aren't nearly as generous. The same is true for the Dodge Caravan; it is nowhere near as nice as the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey minivans, but it often comes with hefty incentives. Siennas, on the other hand, can sell for close to $40,000 without much in the way of incentives, if anything." Meanwhile, Japanese car companies have unveiled at least 4 [well-selling] models of hybrid cars in the last 3 years. Detroit has released only one. In other words, I don't blame Detroit's problems on onerous labor agreements. I blame it on the fact that they aren't producing cars that people want to buy. And in our capitalist system, aren't companies that can't sell supposed to go out of business? Brewton, though, wants to protect US auto manufacturing by keeping standards low. Despite its silliness, though, I think the article does bring up a good point about the role of government vis-a-vis gasoline prices and fuel consumption. Yesterday, I argued for conservation and higher CAFE standards--governmental measures. Anonymous, though, responded that we should let the market decide, and that a price of $5/gallon will produce the results we want. Anonymous's argument is predicated on a high price elasticity for gasoline, which begs the obvious question: what is the price elasticity for gasoline? Economists agree that in the short term, the elasticity is zero (or, 0.05 in one study). People will not immediately change their behavior if the price of gas goes up. It's easy to see why. Cars and houses, for instance, are major purchases that one does not change lightly. But what about in the long term? A Federal Trade Commission report stated "Estimates of long-run consumer demand elasticity suggest that a 10 percent price increase will result in only a 6 percent decrease in consumption." Is that enough to make a difference? I don't know. The Congressional Budget Office produced a report in 2003 that analyzed CAFE standards against price increases (though the CBO looked at a tax for increasing the price). The study concluded that CAFE standards would increase the price of autos, thus decreasing the number of autos sold. But it estimated that raising the standards by 3.8 mpg, overall fuel consumption for light trucks would decrease by 15% and for passengers cars by 10% (total fleet by 12%). If we use the FTC's elasticity of -0.6, then the per-gallon price of gasoline would have to increase by 20%. Taking today's prices ($2.93/gallon), the increase would be $3.51/gallon. So it looks like Anonymous is right. A $5/gallon price would reduce fuel consumption by 42%, more than CAFE standards would.

Ethanol and Energy Independence

Here's an article that describes why ethanol will not produce American "energy independence" (which means not needing to import petroleum). Ethanol was always a red herring, in my opinion. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, as I've argued before, also holds false promise. If we are to solve our energy problems (and I don't think anyone denies that we have energy problems), we can't simply replace one fuel with another while continuing to consume the same total amount of energy. We need to actually reduce the amount of energy we use. The real energy crunch, at least in the immediate term, is with transportation fuels. Energy for heating and hot water, cooking, commerce, manufacturing and industry, etc., comes in the form of electricity and natural gas. Electricity is produced in this country by natural gas, coal, oil, hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal. In other words, electricity comes from a wide variety of sources, which gives us flexibility and options. Transportation fuel, whether it is for cars, trucks, planes, trains, or ships, comes from...petroleum. Until we come up with transportation that does not use petroleum--a quest, by the way, that we should be diligently undertaking--we need to reduce petroleum use. So, if we want to reduce the amount of petroleum that we use, we can 1) use our transportation vehicles less, or 2) make our transportation vehicles more efficient. Actually, we should be doing both. We can and should design our physical and social environment to require less petroluem-based vehicle use. Yes, I'm taking about walking, biking, public transit, but I'm also talking about requiring less total trips in a day to accomplish our business (in 2001, the most recent year of statistics, the average American made 4.1 trips per day, a number that increases by 2% each year). And of course, we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our entire vehicle fleet. This is probably the easiest and quickest-pay-off scheme out there--a 1% increase in fuel efficiency will yield the same benefit as drilling in the ANWR. Unfortunately, it has proven to be beyond the political mettle of our elected leadership.

The Da Vinci Code

The movie version of "The Da Vinci Code" opens one week from today. Its coming release has re-ignited the controversy surrounding this book and its "anti-Christian" claims. I put anti-Christian in quotes not because the book is not full of distortions, religious and otherwise--it is in fact replete with them--but because in all the hub-bub, people forget that it is just a silly little piece of lightweight fiction, and poorly written at that. I think that the book's many and vociferious critics were frightened by its popularity. Why has the book been so popular? Well, so-called historical fiction in general has become very popular in the last 10 years. According to one source, since 1997, 36 percent of all fiction books reviewed by the New York Times were historical. Couple this with a massive conspiracy theory--another perennial favorite theme --surrounding the Catholic Church, and you get instant appeal. The problem arises when readers confuse historical fiction with history. Numerous surveys have shown that a large portion of "The Da Vinci Code" readers take the book at face value. This confusion could be deliberate. As one historical fiction author has said, "Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures." In other words, some readers believe that historical fiction actually provides a true revisionist alternative to the false official record. But more likely and more sad, the confusion could be the result of our poor history education. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the national education "report card," in 2001, only 18 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders, and 11 percent of twelfth-graders were performing at or above the proficient level -- proficient being the lowest acceptable level. Said another way, 9 out of 10 readers have substandard history skills. Thus, most people confuse fiction with fact simply because they don't know any better. So read the book (I have, and didn't like it) and watch the movie (it stars Tom Hanks, after all), but keep in mind what you are reading and watching: a work of fiction.

Electoral College Reform

The last couple of presidential elections brought the Electoral College and its alleged shortcomings to the fore. Well, the Electoral College is in the news again, as several Congressman are working on something called the Campaign for the National Popular Vote (NPV). The NPV process is different from other Electoral College reform proposals (which generally involve abolishing it through a constitutional amendment). The NPV plan is to create an interstate compact among consenting states. Each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would go into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the compact. The eleven most populous states* have 271 electoral votes among them, and could thus make this change on their own. I agree with most conservative commentators (for instance here and here) that the NPV process is a bad idea because it one, essentially subverts the Constitution, and two, explicitly gives inordinate power to those eleven states. However, I am not so sure on the Electoral College reform idea in general. Any system that can produce a winner that does not reflect the popular vote seems flawed. Yet, I've seen articles that describe the Electoral College as the least bad alternative and therefore we should stick with it. At any rate, if the Electoral College needs reform, the NPV idea is not the way to go about it. What do you think? *California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina. For complete list, see here.

The New United States

Here is an interesting map that breaks the US into 50 areas of equal population. (If you can't see it well here, go to the web page). The proposed names are pretty funny, too.

France's iPod Law

squantum had a good response to my post on France's "iPod" law. Check it out.

Commmunication in the year 12000

The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) is a nuclear waste repository is southeastern New Mexico. It is designed to permanently and safely store weapons waste for 250,000 years. The site itself is interesting, but more so is the subject of this article in the LA Times: WIPP officials are seriously undertaking an effort to communicate the danger of the site to people who come across it 10,000 years from now. Here's what they are planning: [T]he first warning layer: a 98-foot-wide, 33-foot-tall, 2-mile-long berm surrounding the site. That's just to get the attention of anyone who happens by....Powerful magnets and radar reflectors would be buried inside the berm so that remote sensors could recognize the site as purposefully and elaborately designed. It would be surrounded by 48 granite or concrete markers, 32 outside the berm and 16 inside, each 25 feet high and weighing 105 tons, engraved with warnings in English, Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic and Navajo, with room for future discoverers to add warnings in contemporary languages. Pictures would denote buried hazards and human faces of horror and revulsion. The same symbols would be printed on metal, plastic and ceramic disks with abrasion-resistant coatings, 9 inches in diameter, that would be buried just below the surface. Three information rooms would archive detailed drawings of WIPP's chambers and the physics of its hazards on stone tablets. They would also provide a world map showing all other known waste repositories and a star chart to calculate the year the site was sealed. One such room would stand in the center of the site. Another would be buried inside the berm, its only entrance a 2-foot hole to inhibit theft of the tablets, sealed with a 1,600-pound stone plug. The third room would be off site — perhaps inside the nearby Carlsbad Caverns. The final thing WIPP needs is a kind of Rosetta stone, a pictorial dictionary to aid in translation. Wow. But is this really an exercise in hubris? Can we really expect to intelligibly communicate across 10,000 years (a timespan larger than human civilization has been around)? Or is this more a way to assuage a guilt at creating a significant safety hazard that will be around for the next 500 or 600 generations (which would make it, in my mind, a uniquely American task)?

Top Ten Conservative Cities

Here's a link to the Top Ten Conservative Cities, according to Human Events Online, a conservative news weekly. I'm not sure how they came up with these rankings, but it is interesting to see that only one of the cities is east of the Mississippi, while 4 are in the Rocky Mountain West. We always joke that the Midwest is our conservative heartland (or maybe just our boring heartland), but I guess that that heart is moving west.

More Network Neutrality

About a month ago, I did a short piece on the Internet and net neutrality. I didn't know a lot about the subject at the time, but readers have since enlightened me. Slate ran a good article about it yesterday. Read it.

France vs. iTunes--Open-source Music

France is working to pass a law that will require all music purchased on-line to be playable on all brands of music players and software. This law will effectively outlaw iTunes in its current form in France. Sony's music format will also be effected. Songs purchased from iTunes have a whole raft of restrictions built into them, so they can, for example, only be played on iPods, can only be shared with a certain number of machines, and can only be listened to using iTunes. Apparently, France has a national tradition of open source creative expression, and the Minister of Culture feels that the iTunes model goes against this culture. This law raises some interesting questions, such as: 1) I know a lot of people are unhappy with Apple's digital rights management techniques. Is the iTunes model bad? 2) If it is bad, is government regulation the way to address it, or should it be left to the market? 3) If so, is France's method the way to do so? Many of my readers know more about this topic than I do. I'd like to hear their thoughts.

Hugo Chavez and Hot Air

Yesterday, Anonymous wondered if Hugo Chavez' posturing and saber-rattling were really an attempt to push up the price of crude oil, thus further enriching his faltering regime. The US imports about 1/7th of its oil from Venezuela. This month's Atlantic Monthly has a good article on Chavez. Franklin Foer, the author, points out that Chavez, who likes to threaten to cut off crude oil supplies to the US, actually has no real ability to do so. Says Foer:

But while the United States relies on Venezuelan oil, Venezuela is even more dependent on the American market. More than half of Venezuela’s oil exports head north toward the Gulf of Mexico—some 1.5 million barrels a day. Over the course of Chávez’s presidency, Venezuela has received billions of dollars from America in oil purchases. Ultimately, not even a lover of Quixote dares invest too much hope (or cash) in preparing for a break with the American market. Nature has tied Chávez’s arms. Venezuelan crude comes from the earth in a particular viscous form that requires specialized refineries, the type that exists in Louisiana and Texas, not China or India. The country’s fleet of tankers is geared toward transporting this oil to the Gulf of Mexico, and can’t be reversioned for longer hauls. What’s more, Venezuela doesn’t just export its oil to the United States; it actually sells the stuff there in the 14,000 Citgo stations that the state oil company owns.

So, like so much else about the Chavez regime, it's a lot of hot air.

US-style capitalism not inevitable

Here's an interesting piece in the International Herald Tribune that counters what many libertarians and other conservatives seem to think, which is: "Advocates of the new model capitalism, and the globalization project that goes with it, like to present it as an expression of historical necessity, rooted in classical economics and embodying irrefutable laws. It is progress itself, they say. Those who do not conform to the rules of modern market capitalism, and do not offer the human sacrifices of lost employment and diminished living standards that the market demands, will fall by the wayside of history." The truth, as this author makes clear, is that "The new American and British market capitalist model, which dictated deregulation of industry and privatization of state enterprises in the 1970s, and globalization of international markets in the 1990s, exists as a result of free political decisions and ideological choices that were anything but inevitable. History may one day describe them as having been perverse and socially destructive."

Gasoline prices

I don't often agree with conservatives, but I do agree with Thomas Brewton, Charles Krauthammer, the Cato Institute, and other rightwing commentators that Congress's proposals to return a $100 rebate to voters or to temporarily lift the 18.4-cent federal gas tax as measures to relieve high gasoline prices are absurd, and they would be laughable if they didn't expose the profound lack of leadership and vision from our elected officials.

Globalization

I have seen the future of globalization. I just returned from a 2-week trip that included 3 days in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), specifically in Dubai. Dubai, the commercial center of UAE and recently in the news for the so-called Dubai Ports Scandal, is a fascinating free-market-and-consumption-based city that is growing at an incredible rate (judging by the number of buildings under construction). I'm sure that globalization advocates hold up UAE/Dubai as a model for the tolerant, open, capitalist society of tomorrow. In one sense, it is a true international city. The number of people visiting, living, and working there from all over the world is amazing. English is the lingua franca among both shoppers and workers. It is still a Islamic city, though. Mosques were everywhere, even in the ultra-modern airport and Mall of the Emirates. However, this Islam is coexisting peacefully (as far as I could tell) with Western values (and Western skin-baring fashion). However, in another sense, the city is definitely American. It is a vast stripmall of glitzy franchise stores and restaurants and wide limited-acess freeways. It has all the bad that a modern American metro area offers but none of the good. The main tourist destination is only 5 years old, and yet already the traffic to get there is horrendous. There were no parks, no open areas, no public art. It was commerce all the way. In fact, pretty much the only reason to visit is to shop. There's almost nothing else to see or do. So is Thomas Friedman right, that such a liberal and liberally commercial city is indeed the salve for the sectarian wounds of today? I'm not 100% sure that he is. First of all, Dubai has none of what regional economists call basic industry; it doesn't actually produce anything new but just serves as a marketplace for goods and services produced and consumed elsewhere. That is not a sustainable economy. Second, there are two types of jobs in Dubai: low-skill service sector (working behind the counter at TGIF or Harvey Nicols, driving a cab, unloading trucks) and high-skill managerial. I guess that could describe America these days, but it didn't appear to me that the profits were trickling down to the lower classes. In other words, there still seemed to be a large income gap between the top and the bottom, and such an income gap is also not sustainable. Finally, Dubai is a bit of an anamoly because it is heavily leveraged on the UAE's oil wealth (though the UAE leadership actually started modernizing before oil was discovered in the 1970's). When the oil runs out, and it will, can Dubai maintain its position? In sum, I think the UAE and Dubai are very interesting case studies that bear watching. I hope that as the city matures, it will develop the other aspects that make living in a city worthwhile. I have hope that it will; San Francisco in its early years was another wild-fire, completely commercial city, and now many consider it the most urbane city in America.