It's The Economy, Stupid!

(click the picture to get a detailed view)

From GOOD Magazines comes this excellent graphic of the US economy from the 1920 to 2008.

The Economists are for Obama

Well, I have to admit that this poll from The Economist (analysis) came as a surprise to me! The Economist emailed a survey to 683 members of National Bureau of Economic Research asking which presidential candidate, Obama or McCain, has a better understand of economics and who has a better economic plan. Of 142 people who replied, 46% identified themselves as Democrats (pdf), 10% being Republican (pdf) and 44% as Neither (pdf). The findings show that economists, on all sides, overwhelmingly say Obama has a better understanding of the economy and a better plan. To take a closer look at the overall data, click here (pdf).

The Money Meltdown

There is a new blog, The Money Meltdown, that aggregates information from different media sources to explain how the U.S. and global money markets fell into crisis. Topics range from background info to what you should do about your money.

Death and Taxes

A very cool visual showing the federal budget and what departments get how much funding. Numbers don't lie and US priorities are clear to see.

Winning the Oil Endgame

Amory Lovins, while at TED, talks about how to wean the US off of its oil dependency. He makes a very reasonable argument about how to do so while both helping the economy and maintaining national secuirty.

Download the book "Winning the Oil Endgame"

Source: TED

What Poverty Problem?

The folks over at QandO found an interesting article on poverty. Here are some of the statistics from the article (source is the Census Bureau):

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player. 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Source: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=6771

Trade, Not Aid

Bono, with the support of Hollywood and his 'One' campaign, has always been on the forefront of the African aid issue. There is no need to debate Bono's intentions, he comes across as honestly wanting to help the African peoples (Bono, surprisingly articulate, does makes a very persuasive argument). But there are a number of people out there --such as my self--who say he is not really helping, in fact, he is only harming Africa. These critics claim the West should be focusing on helping the Africans nurture their own wealth instead of giving them hand-outs. In a recent Los Angeles Times article, William Easterly writes:

The real Africa needs increased trade from the West more than it needs more aid handouts. A respected Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda, made this point at a recent African conference despite the fact that the world's most famous celebrity activist — Bono — was attempting to shout him down. Mwenda was suffering from too much reality for Bono's taste: "What man or nation has ever become rich by holding out a begging bowl?" asked Mwenda.

An article written by Jennifer Brea at American.com gives a great analysis on the issue:

For the thousands of foreign-educated lawyers, businessmen, and architects from the Diaspora who are leaving cushy corporate jobs to return home with their skills and their dynamism to open businesses, it's about creating wealth, not reducing poverty. Africa is not a victim in need of saving: it's a land of opportunity.

She goes on to write:

We can continue the endless cycle of need and dependency, or you can create jobs, develop indigenous capacity, and build a sustainable future.

Aid not only crowds out local entrepreneurship, it makes governments lazy and deprives countries of the incentive to build effective institutions. Public revenue derived from taxes makes governments directly responsible to their citizens. Free money builds white elephants and bloated bureaucracies, it being far easier to create new government jobs than implement policies to fight unemployment, especially when someone else is footing the bill.

The overall message:

Aid can alleviate immediate misery and that is why we love it. Charity is a profoundly human response to all those images that pull on our heartstrings. But all evidence points to the maddening conclusion that, in the long run, aid not only has no positive effect on economic growth, it may even undermine it.

Does this mean the West should stop helping Africa? Absolutely not. One of the major problems in Africa, notably in Sudan, are the corrupt governments. Free markets can go only go so far, the political environment must be free also for any true change to occur. Bono's plan to keep aid going only perpetuates the problem of corrupt governments and impoverished Africans. The West has an opportunity to intervene in situations such as the Sudan and break the chains of exploitive, violent governments so the African people can go on to help themselves.

UPDATE: I soon as I was done writing this post, I took a gander at Thomas Barnett's blog and found this interesting post.

The Global Warming Religion

With the recent Live Earth concert and the continuous trend in "global warming awareness", light has been brought to the radical alarmist position many environmentalists and, now, quickly, the average person is taking on the issue. Many scientists and/or environmentalists have become very dogmatic in their belief that global warming is real and is an effect of human industrialism. I would liken this unquestionable belief in global warming to those who believe in radical Islam. Like the demonizing of non-believers in radical Islam, if one questions the validity of global warming they are called out as 'moron' or 'a corporate shill.' Moreover, the people who publicly question global warming are treated with disdain and are often shunned by the scientific community. For example, notable climatologist Timothy Ball who came out in being skeptical of the degree to which humans were affecting the climate has received numerous death threats.

This narrow-minded type of thinking is described as consensus science. If everyone said that global warming is real and the issue is settled, does that make it necessarily true? No. Science is based on facts... not on what everyone BELIEVES is true. Michael Crichton (yes, the guy who wrote Jurassic Park and directed Westworld) made an excellent speech on the issue of consensus science and global warming (here). The global warming theory is just that, a theory; it does not make it indisputable. The scientific community has an obligation to question its own theory of global warming and not to reproach those who do so.

But more apropos, the recent Live Earth event was organized in order to raise awareness of global warming and did so by playing music. What the hell? I am I supposed to be persuaded purely by admittedly good music (Say what you want about Bono, but The Joshua Tree is up there as one of the best albums ever). If one wants to raise my awareness on an issue, show me logical arguments based on objective data, don't serenade me. But the data for global warming has up to this point been dubious (refer to Crichton speech). Am I saying that global warming does not exist? No, if that was my position I would be as dogmatic as the alarmists. But AIDS, suitable drinking water, literacy, malaria, and malnutrition are issues that are occurring right now that we can do something about. Why not take our limited resources and instead of applying them on something that is so equivocal as global warming and apply them to where the are really needed and pragmatic (Check out an earlier post on the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus and global warming.)

US States Renamed For Countries With Similar GDPs

click image for larger view

The map above breaks down the U.S. GDP into individual state GDPs, and then compares those with countries around the world. One must point out the population of each state is not taken into account with this map. For example, just because Oregon has a GDP comparable to Turkey, the people of Oregon have a higher quality of living because the overall population is less. In other words, it is the same amount of money but just spread around to a smaller population.

Source: StrangeMaps

Global Warming should not be a Top Priority

If you took the top economists around the world, sat them down in a room, and had them list the world's problems by order of priority....what would you get? Well a list with Global warming at the bottom, apparently. Economist Bjorn Lomborg explains the findings of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus and reveals that our priorities might not be the most pragmatic. (On a side note, BMW is paying for this lecture; although his premises may be valid, one might question whether he is a purely disinterested party)