The impact of bio-fuels on the price of food has been debated almost from the initiation of the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Most U.S. studies place the impact at 25% or below. A recent EU study places it at 75%. I have seen figures that indicate the impact to be around 150% in Africa. In spite of the apparent inconsistency of these numbers, they reflect the reality of food in each of the areas mentioned.
In the U.S., the majority of food consumed is highly processed. It comes frequently in ready-to-eat packaging, or in heat-and-serve form. In that case, the raw food product makes up only a small percentage of the overall cost of the finished product. A significant increase in the raw commodity price has only minimal effect on the cost of the consumer-ready item.
In Europe, food preferences favor less processing. The items are impacted more by increases in the basic commodity price. In Africa, food items are frequently the raw commodity and all preparation occurs after purchase. In that case, the raw commodity price makes up an extremely high percentage of the cost of the item with the remainder going to transportation costs and profits through the production-to-retailer chain.
The bottom line is that bio-fuels do have a significant impact on worldwide food prices. The severity of that impact depends on the affluence of the society that we are examining. Those least able to afford the impact are the ones most greatly affected.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Energy Fuels Political Games
While Washington plays politics with our energy future, the U.S. consumers continue to pick up the check. The bill to curb energy speculation appears to be merely a political move designed to fool the electorate into believing that Democrats really care about our cost of fuel. It is really an attack on free enterprise which fails to address the true issue -- supply and demand. The price of fuel is set where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded. We either need a greater supply or a lower demand. The economic growth of China and India make it difficult to lower demand even though we are burning less fuel in the U.S. Therefore, we must work on the supply side of the equation. We must produce more oil.
From all appearances, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do not care about the American people. They only care about their power and the narrow interest groups that keep them there. Until Republicans control both the Senate and the House, there is little chance of meaningful energy legislation. That control means more than a simple majority of seats. It must be at least 60% to be truly effective.
From all appearances, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do not care about the American people. They only care about their power and the narrow interest groups that keep them there. Until Republicans control both the Senate and the House, there is little chance of meaningful energy legislation. That control means more than a simple majority of seats. It must be at least 60% to be truly effective.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Senator Cornyn: Fighting the Energy Fight
Senator Cornyn is continuing to fight for the American people on the subject of energy and high fuel prices. He pulls very few punches in his condemnation of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi as well as other prominent Democrats over their political stonewalling on this critical issue. I applaud his continued efforts. Read what he is doing here and here.
We Can Do Better
We frequently see the debate between “environmentalists” and the rest of us as framed in an “us” vs. “them” manner. Business people feel that the environmental movement is nothing but a roadblock to progress. People in developing countries see environmental groups preventing them from experiencing the luxuries of the west because they hinder the utilization of the natural resources at hand.
Environmental groups often carry names like “Friends of the Earth” or “Save the Wildlife.” Those types of names carry with them a stigma that immediately sets on edge the typical businessman.
What if the debate became a completely economic one?
There is within the economic community the idea that when external costs are internalized into the price of a good or service, the decision to allocate resources to that good or service often changes. An example of internalizing these externalities would be the impact of a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation. In order to avoid the potential complexities of the decision, let’s limit it to one possible issue – or, external cost -- the impact of the mining activity on the water supply of a community.
Suppose that the mine is located within the watershed of a Navajo community. To fully understand the cost to develop the mine, the potential pollution of the community’s water supply must be examined. Such examination would need to include preventative measures and possible remediation in the event of contamination. It also would need to look at long-term effects to wildlife residing in the watershed. Wildlife might provide hunting lease income to the reservation. It might also be of significant cultural value that would be difficult to price. It might affect tourist income from photography or viewing. It might impact local artisans who utilize specific clays located within the watershed.
With the exception of preventing and remediating potential contamination, none of the impacts mentioned are direct costs to the mine owner/operator. They are however, external costs to the community of locating the mine in their watershed.
How does one determine the value of natural resources? We can estimate the value of mineral deposits. We can value land based on the transactional market for similar properties. But, how do we value the less obvious things such as: filtering the water supply, tourism, hunting and fishing, recreation, moderating effects on climate, flood protection, erosion control and other items about which we don’t currently understand?
Hopefully in the near future, we will see attention paid to such values. Such things must be part of an overall land use plan before disruptive activities are begun. We need oil, natural gas, wind energy, solar energy, coal and we need minerals that can only be obtained through extractive activities. Surely we have learned enough of the complex interactions of the environment to begin to make sound evaluations of our activities in a broader sense. We must learn to utilize our resources without destroying our surroundings. Let’s drill – but let’s do so in an environmentally informed manner. Let’s build windmills for electrical generation – but let’s situate them in a manner that retains the benefits of our wild lands. Let’s learn from the unintended consequences of our past mistakes – such as ruined lakes and streams from coal mining or oil and gas extraction. We can do better.
Environmental groups often carry names like “Friends of the Earth” or “Save the Wildlife.” Those types of names carry with them a stigma that immediately sets on edge the typical businessman.
What if the debate became a completely economic one?
There is within the economic community the idea that when external costs are internalized into the price of a good or service, the decision to allocate resources to that good or service often changes. An example of internalizing these externalities would be the impact of a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation. In order to avoid the potential complexities of the decision, let’s limit it to one possible issue – or, external cost -- the impact of the mining activity on the water supply of a community.
Suppose that the mine is located within the watershed of a Navajo community. To fully understand the cost to develop the mine, the potential pollution of the community’s water supply must be examined. Such examination would need to include preventative measures and possible remediation in the event of contamination. It also would need to look at long-term effects to wildlife residing in the watershed. Wildlife might provide hunting lease income to the reservation. It might also be of significant cultural value that would be difficult to price. It might affect tourist income from photography or viewing. It might impact local artisans who utilize specific clays located within the watershed.
With the exception of preventing and remediating potential contamination, none of the impacts mentioned are direct costs to the mine owner/operator. They are however, external costs to the community of locating the mine in their watershed.
How does one determine the value of natural resources? We can estimate the value of mineral deposits. We can value land based on the transactional market for similar properties. But, how do we value the less obvious things such as: filtering the water supply, tourism, hunting and fishing, recreation, moderating effects on climate, flood protection, erosion control and other items about which we don’t currently understand?
Hopefully in the near future, we will see attention paid to such values. Such things must be part of an overall land use plan before disruptive activities are begun. We need oil, natural gas, wind energy, solar energy, coal and we need minerals that can only be obtained through extractive activities. Surely we have learned enough of the complex interactions of the environment to begin to make sound evaluations of our activities in a broader sense. We must learn to utilize our resources without destroying our surroundings. Let’s drill – but let’s do so in an environmentally informed manner. Let’s build windmills for electrical generation – but let’s situate them in a manner that retains the benefits of our wild lands. Let’s learn from the unintended consequences of our past mistakes – such as ruined lakes and streams from coal mining or oil and gas extraction. We can do better.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Energy: All of the Above
Senator Cornyn once again weighs in on the issue of Energy. The present gains on energy legislation are a result of the Democrats caving slowly to the building pressure from the electorate. Watch out though, come this fall if they retain their control of the House and Senate and possibly add the Presidency, the consumers in this country don't stand a chance. Energy prices will go through the roof. Why? Because they (the Democrats, er, Socialist Elite) don't want us using it! They want to be the elite (as in the Politburo) controlling the masses -- subjugating us to be their servants. It is eliteism at its worst. It is reminiscent of the rebellion of the working classes that resulted in the Communist Dictatorships of Stalin and Lenin. Sigh. Why are people so blind?
Cornyn Comments on Supreme Court Nominees
History tells us that the next President will likely have the opportunity to make at least one and possibly two appointments to the Supreme Court. Senator John Cornyn has posted some very insightful thoughts on that on Governor Huckabee's blog. Head over there for a look!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Infrastructure as Economic Stimulus
Infrastructure is an issue that merits attention. We must re-vamp our electrical distribution infrastructure to accommodate wind and solar power generation. We must establish infrastructure for ethanol -- pipelines, rail cars and truck transport. With hydrogen fuel for automobiles on the horizon, we need to look at establishing an infrastructure to distribute and retail that fuel. Natural gas powered vehicles also need filling stations. Our highways are in need of attention -- especially many of our bridges which are aged. The extreme growth of metropolitan areas such as Austin, Texas, have left a gap in the road system of those cities. We need port terminals for LNG offloading and for receiving oil that hopefully will soon be pumped on the outer continental shelf. We need new rail and high-speed transit facilities. And the list goes on.
Texas currently has a budget surplus created by the growth in the economy and from high oil prices. It needs to go into some form of revolving fund for infrastructure. Now, even some Democrats are "getting it" as far as infrastructure goes. Construction requires workers. Workers spend money. That stimulates business. Business works more efficiently when infrastructure is in place to move energy to where it is needed. It all works together to fuel our economy which generates more taxes -- even at lower rates. Let's stimulate the economy by spending money on infrastructure.
Texas currently has a budget surplus created by the growth in the economy and from high oil prices. It needs to go into some form of revolving fund for infrastructure. Now, even some Democrats are "getting it" as far as infrastructure goes. Construction requires workers. Workers spend money. That stimulates business. Business works more efficiently when infrastructure is in place to move energy to where it is needed. It all works together to fuel our economy which generates more taxes -- even at lower rates. Let's stimulate the economy by spending money on infrastructure.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Energy -- Let It Flow
While Congress continues to do battle over the energy crisis, private industry is stepping up with projects that will help more than anything Congress can do. The best place to start is to get oil into our refineries and to turn it into gasoline. Canadian oil is a good potential source. Too bad the refineries are a long way south of there.
When will the Democrats learn that a free market is the best solution to our energy woes? Instead, they want to penalize investors who see energy as an opportunity. Go figure....
What we really need is a plan to get off of high center and become Energy Independent.
When will the Democrats learn that a free market is the best solution to our energy woes? Instead, they want to penalize investors who see energy as an opportunity. Go figure....
What we really need is a plan to get off of high center and become Energy Independent.
Subsidies, Trade, Agriculture and Security
Rising global food prices have created some interesting dynamics in recent trade discussions. In the past, agricultural subsidies and import/export tariffs have been a sticking point in any negotiations. One reason for this is that many countries wish to protect their agriculture industry due to security concerns. If world agricultural product prices are low, many industrialized countries cannot compete on the world market. Their producers are threatened with failure. So, the governments of those highly developed economies typically subsidize their farmers in some fashion so that they can remain in business and thus keep agriculture viable.
With high food prices, the subsidies are not as necessary to maintain viability for famers in advanced economies. They can compete with low-cost producers such as Brazil. This provides the opportunity for those governments to offer a cut in farm subsidies in exchange for things like reduced import tariffs for manufactured goods in countries that have erected barriers to protect their industry for reasons similar to industrialized countries protecting agriculture.
Ultimately, the most efficient way to allocate the world's resources is with a completely open, free market. This of course would necessitate that the world's governments all feel safe enough from their neighbors to believe that dropping protective barriers is prudent. Those barriers are like an economic stockade or fort. Just as a country seeks to protect itself militarily, it must protect itself economically.
In the last 30 years, the U.S. has exposed itself economically, yet has maintained its world preeminence in some respects, by its military power. Countries fear to take economic retaliation on the U.S. because of the potential for an overwhelming military response. Our dependence on foreign oil has weakened our position. We now are at extreme risk due to our high dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Have we stretched our military capacity to the point that the military threat is less likely to offset that economic threat?
We must achieve energy self-sufficiency. We also must remain vigilant to maintain our food security. The greatest strength of our country is our economic system. It is also our greatest point of vulnerability. If we are hostage to foreign sources of energy -- or, through exposing our agricultural sector to extreme market vulnerability by eliminating a system of price subsidies -- we offer ourselves to the mercy of our enemies.
With high food prices, the subsidies are not as necessary to maintain viability for famers in advanced economies. They can compete with low-cost producers such as Brazil. This provides the opportunity for those governments to offer a cut in farm subsidies in exchange for things like reduced import tariffs for manufactured goods in countries that have erected barriers to protect their industry for reasons similar to industrialized countries protecting agriculture.
Ultimately, the most efficient way to allocate the world's resources is with a completely open, free market. This of course would necessitate that the world's governments all feel safe enough from their neighbors to believe that dropping protective barriers is prudent. Those barriers are like an economic stockade or fort. Just as a country seeks to protect itself militarily, it must protect itself economically.
In the last 30 years, the U.S. has exposed itself economically, yet has maintained its world preeminence in some respects, by its military power. Countries fear to take economic retaliation on the U.S. because of the potential for an overwhelming military response. Our dependence on foreign oil has weakened our position. We now are at extreme risk due to our high dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Have we stretched our military capacity to the point that the military threat is less likely to offset that economic threat?
We must achieve energy self-sufficiency. We also must remain vigilant to maintain our food security. The greatest strength of our country is our economic system. It is also our greatest point of vulnerability. If we are hostage to foreign sources of energy -- or, through exposing our agricultural sector to extreme market vulnerability by eliminating a system of price subsidies -- we offer ourselves to the mercy of our enemies.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Interlude
Hello all. We have had a family reunion. It has been crazy. That's why no blog for the last few days. I hope to get back to speed tomorrow.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Speaking Before a Hostile Crowd: McCain
Senator McCain is demonstrating that he can handle foreign policy. Even with potentially hostile situations, he is able to reach out by finding common ground. Being able to deal with those who are openly opposed to you is difficult for many. I think that at times in his career it has been difficult for John McCain. He seems to be overcoming that difficulty.
It is sad that so many people vote for reasons that are not directly tied to the policies or positions of a candidate nor are they tied to their abilities to handle the office. They are often a matter of gender, of race, or of looks. Demonstrated leadership is important. Charisma is NOT the best criteria for selection. Look what that did for us under "what is the definition of is" Clinton. Senator McCain is showing us that he has what it takes to be President.
It is sad that so many people vote for reasons that are not directly tied to the policies or positions of a candidate nor are they tied to their abilities to handle the office. They are often a matter of gender, of race, or of looks. Demonstrated leadership is important. Charisma is NOT the best criteria for selection. Look what that did for us under "what is the definition of is" Clinton. Senator McCain is showing us that he has what it takes to be President.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Water Resource Planning
Growing up in West Texas, one learns to appreciate water. The area in which I was raised is one of the prime agricultural areas of the state -- thanks to the Ogallala Acquifer. If it wasn't for that acquifer, it would be a dry place indeed.
The demands for good, clean drinking water are increasing as populations grow. Not only is that water needed for drinking, it is needed for agriculture. The world cannot feed itself without irrigation. Developing and maintaining our water resources is crucial to our survival.
There are water deficit areas and water surplus areas throughout the world. It would be great if we could pipe water from the surplus areas to the deficit areas. The problem is, water runs downhill but has to be pumped up hill. Most surplus areas are at lower elevations while deficit areas are at the higher ones.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to take water from deficit areas -- such as the Texas Panhandle -- and send it downhill to Dallas. Especially when it draws from an acquifer that is already being slowly depleted by its primary user -- agriculture.
Perhaps it is time for Texas to take a hard look at the state's overall water situation and develop a plan for the future. If we don't, we may severly handicap our children and grandchildren by our failure.
The demands for good, clean drinking water are increasing as populations grow. Not only is that water needed for drinking, it is needed for agriculture. The world cannot feed itself without irrigation. Developing and maintaining our water resources is crucial to our survival.
There are water deficit areas and water surplus areas throughout the world. It would be great if we could pipe water from the surplus areas to the deficit areas. The problem is, water runs downhill but has to be pumped up hill. Most surplus areas are at lower elevations while deficit areas are at the higher ones.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to take water from deficit areas -- such as the Texas Panhandle -- and send it downhill to Dallas. Especially when it draws from an acquifer that is already being slowly depleted by its primary user -- agriculture.
Perhaps it is time for Texas to take a hard look at the state's overall water situation and develop a plan for the future. If we don't, we may severly handicap our children and grandchildren by our failure.
Inflation or Fuel Surcharge?
Inflation? We don't have inflation. What we have is a fuel cost surcharge rippling through our economy. It affects the price of everything.
What can be done about it? Produce more energy -- quickly. The law of supply and demand are immutable in spite of what the Democrats tell you. We can work on both sides of the equation -- for that's what it is. Price is set based on the equilibrium point of supply and demand. Taxes and regulations artificially raise that point. The most efficient mechanism for determining price is a free market.
We need to learn to conserve and we need to produce more energy. The quickest way to drive down energy prices is to glut the market with an abundant supply of energy. All forms of energy are affected but the one on every one's mind right now is the price of gasoline. We need more oil and we need it quickly.
Most of the oil rigs available are being used currently. We need more rigs and we need them working now -- on the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR and anywhere else where there are untapped reserves.
Let's wean ourselves from foreign oil. Let's establish our Energy Independence. Join Senator John Cornyn in his efforts.
Related: U.S. Senator John Cornyn has posted a guest post at RedState.
What can be done about it? Produce more energy -- quickly. The law of supply and demand are immutable in spite of what the Democrats tell you. We can work on both sides of the equation -- for that's what it is. Price is set based on the equilibrium point of supply and demand. Taxes and regulations artificially raise that point. The most efficient mechanism for determining price is a free market.
We need to learn to conserve and we need to produce more energy. The quickest way to drive down energy prices is to glut the market with an abundant supply of energy. All forms of energy are affected but the one on every one's mind right now is the price of gasoline. We need more oil and we need it quickly.
Most of the oil rigs available are being used currently. We need more rigs and we need them working now -- on the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR and anywhere else where there are untapped reserves.
Let's wean ourselves from foreign oil. Let's establish our Energy Independence. Join Senator John Cornyn in his efforts.
Related: U.S. Senator John Cornyn has posted a guest post at RedState.
Monday, July 14, 2008
A RISKy Game
Have you ever played RISK? It is a strategic board game in which you assign armies to the countries which you hold. You then attack other countries or defend your own if being attacked. The object is to gain complete control of all of the countries represented on the board. The game is great for teaching basic strategic thinking.
Generally there are two basic types of players of the game. One is defensive -- always worried about holding onto what they have. They tend to play reactively. If attacked in a specific place, they quickly build up armies in that place in order to defend against the next attack. They are motivated by the fear of losing. The other type of player is offensive in nature. They are always on the attack. They look for and probe weaknesses in their opponents. They will often sacrifice some areas for the sake of an overall strategic plan. They usually win.
Mr. Obama seems to be the first type of player. Let's put 10 armies on Afghanistan. We don't need them in Iraq anymore because we haven't been attacked there lately. I don't like losing. Do you? Then why back a loser?
Generally there are two basic types of players of the game. One is defensive -- always worried about holding onto what they have. They tend to play reactively. If attacked in a specific place, they quickly build up armies in that place in order to defend against the next attack. They are motivated by the fear of losing. The other type of player is offensive in nature. They are always on the attack. They look for and probe weaknesses in their opponents. They will often sacrifice some areas for the sake of an overall strategic plan. They usually win.
Mr. Obama seems to be the first type of player. Let's put 10 armies on Afghanistan. We don't need them in Iraq anymore because we haven't been attacked there lately. I don't like losing. Do you? Then why back a loser?
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Polarizing America
One of the most polarizing figures of recent times tells us that we are becoming more polarized as a society. I'll bet that he has no clue what role he has played in defining that polarity.
We like to be around those who are like us. Astounding isn't it? Hasn't it always been that way? If you look around our country you will see that those of similar ethnic descent tend to live in the same neighborhood. Those of similar occupations live near each other. Those in similar positions within the hierarchy of business live near each other. Wait -- I'm saying that farmers and farm workers live near farms. Factory workers live near factories. The wealthy live where they have neighbors with big houses -- don't want to hurt property values with smaller houses moving in now do we?
The real polarity is that of ideas. It is the differences in how we look at the world. Do we fear our neighbor or do we cherish them? Are we out to conquer the world or do we feel like we are victims? Do we follow the crowd or do we strike out on our own? The older I get, the more I see patterns in how people behave and think based on an underlying philosophy that is either inward focused or outward focused. I'm not referring to big egos. I'm referring to whether one sees themself as a victim or as a conquerer -- whether the "world is out to get me" or, "bring it on, world."
Then again, there are the wolves and sharks. But, that's a whole 'nother post....
We like to be around those who are like us. Astounding isn't it? Hasn't it always been that way? If you look around our country you will see that those of similar ethnic descent tend to live in the same neighborhood. Those of similar occupations live near each other. Those in similar positions within the hierarchy of business live near each other. Wait -- I'm saying that farmers and farm workers live near farms. Factory workers live near factories. The wealthy live where they have neighbors with big houses -- don't want to hurt property values with smaller houses moving in now do we?
The real polarity is that of ideas. It is the differences in how we look at the world. Do we fear our neighbor or do we cherish them? Are we out to conquer the world or do we feel like we are victims? Do we follow the crowd or do we strike out on our own? The older I get, the more I see patterns in how people behave and think based on an underlying philosophy that is either inward focused or outward focused. I'm not referring to big egos. I'm referring to whether one sees themself as a victim or as a conquerer -- whether the "world is out to get me" or, "bring it on, world."
Then again, there are the wolves and sharks. But, that's a whole 'nother post....
Spin City
Talk about Spin -- recent legislative victories on measures favored by the President are being accredited to a new willingness to compromise on his part. Supposedly his "lame duck" status doesn't sit well with the administration and they are wanting to go out with a solid string of accomplishments.
I think the recent legislative victories are instead the result of the politics of the 2008 Presidential race. The Dems are seeing the need to give-in to the President on several issues because their candidate is needing the approval of the American public. His recent moves to the center are signalling to his cohorts that there are issues about which the majority of Americans care and Congress needs to support him in that move. You add to that the extremely low approval ratings of Congress and you have additional pressure on lawmakers. There are a lot of them fearful for their jobs as they head toward the fall.
It is pure pragmatism that moves the vote. Further stonewalling of these important measures by a Democrat controlled House and Senate would be seen by the public for what it is -- pure partisan politics. They are merely trying to assuage the fears of the average voter that a Democrat in the Executive plus Democrat control of Congress would be pure disaster.
I think the recent legislative victories are instead the result of the politics of the 2008 Presidential race. The Dems are seeing the need to give-in to the President on several issues because their candidate is needing the approval of the American public. His recent moves to the center are signalling to his cohorts that there are issues about which the majority of Americans care and Congress needs to support him in that move. You add to that the extremely low approval ratings of Congress and you have additional pressure on lawmakers. There are a lot of them fearful for their jobs as they head toward the fall.
It is pure pragmatism that moves the vote. Further stonewalling of these important measures by a Democrat controlled House and Senate would be seen by the public for what it is -- pure partisan politics. They are merely trying to assuage the fears of the average voter that a Democrat in the Executive plus Democrat control of Congress would be pure disaster.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
More on Energy Independence Days
Powerline Blog has a guest post from U.S. Senator John Cornyn in which the Senator blasts the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat co-horts on the energy issues that we face. Head over there and read what he says and then drop by the Energy Independence Days posts on the Senator's blog. The next few days promise to be interesting with posts from former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
A Good Man Takes His New Assignment
He was a good one.
Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, has died after a long bout with cancer. He was 53. (see story here)
Photo source: Fox News
Friday, July 11, 2008
Energy Independence Days
U.S. Senator John Cornyn has declared war on our dependence on foreign oil. He has created a special emphasis on his website called “Energy Independence Days” in which there will be a series of posts including videos from Senator Cornyn on the subject of how we might achieve our Energy Independence.
I am thankful that the Senator has taken the best interests of the American people to heart and created this opportunity for the people of this state and nation to have input, as he helps through his leadership, to set our lawmakers on course to address this critical issue. I pray that solutions can be developed through the private and public initiatives that are a hallmark of this great nation. I am humbled to have the opportunity to provide a guest post on the Senator’s website. Thank you Senator Cornyn for all that you do for our state and our country.
I am thankful that the Senator has taken the best interests of the American people to heart and created this opportunity for the people of this state and nation to have input, as he helps through his leadership, to set our lawmakers on course to address this critical issue. I pray that solutions can be developed through the private and public initiatives that are a hallmark of this great nation. I am humbled to have the opportunity to provide a guest post on the Senator’s website. Thank you Senator Cornyn for all that you do for our state and our country.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The Mental Politics of Recessionary Thinking
One of my former Senators who now advises Presidential candidate John McCain has the Dems stirred up about the economy today. What is most interesting is that he is right. The American public is unduly influenced by the doom-and-gloomers of the media as to the condition of our economy. The media is playing into the hands of the Dems because that is who most of them support. The frenzy is self-feeding because the more it is hyped, the greater the impact of that hype on both the actual economy and the attitude of the people toward the economy.
Those who have a positive outlook are reaping the rewards. Those who fear to move forward are creating losses for themselves because of retrenching actions. It is the difference between being proactive and being reactive. Face forward, move forward and move on. The U.S. still has far and away the best economic system on the planet. It works.
Those who have a positive outlook are reaping the rewards. Those who fear to move forward are creating losses for themselves because of retrenching actions. It is the difference between being proactive and being reactive. Face forward, move forward and move on. The U.S. still has far and away the best economic system on the planet. It works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)