I'm a little slow sometimes in catching up to what is going on in the economy. The fact is, I don't pay that much attention to the news and most news coverage is of all the wrong things anyway. The things that truly impact us tend to stay below the radar of most of the media.
Tonight a friend asked me what I thought about the Quantitative Easing Policy of the Fed. It was a new term to me, so, I did some research. At risk of being raked over the coals for doing so, I am going to link (here) to the Wikipedia definition. Yeah, I know, there is definitely risk associated with using a Wikipedia definition, but, after a good deal of research of other sources I concluded that it does a pretty good job of explaining it.
I also am linking an MIT article that is another attempt at explaining it. Interestingly, the conclusions of the two definitions are somewhat at odds. The MIT article seems to think it will do no harm, the writer of the Wikipedia entry sees a good deal of risk.
I not only see risk, I see definite harm to the average citizen. The impact of the policy is an increase of the money supply while forcing interest rates to artificially low levels. The result is a deflated dollar. That means that the average citizen is losing wealth because his money is worth less and he can't get a reasonable return on most investments that he would make.
The problems with the economy are not going to be fixed by Monetary Policy. The real issue is uncertainty created by wrong-headed Fiscal Policy. Until Congress and the current Administration get their house in order, the economy will remain stagnate. While there is plenty of money in the system, no one is willing to risk it to create new jobs. Banks aren't lending without Federal Guarantees and businesses aren't expanding in the face of huge tax increases on the horizon.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
A Blob of Contention
I realize that the meandering post below is not as cohesive as was desired when I first began the ramble, but, perhaps there are a few things within that make sense.
Somewhere between "Drill Baby, Drill" and "The TreeHuggers Lament" is a balance that should define our approach to energy. We are responsible for being good stewards of the resources of this planet. That includes our environment and all of the things encompassed by that word -- plants, animals, water, soil, air, etc.
Stewardship implies use. It does not mean that we "preserve" something at the cost of humanity.
The basic issue upon which the dichotomous views toward energy development turn is that of a human-centric view of the world versus one in which humanity has no value greater than any other thing -- at least on the surface. In reality, it is a much more elitist view. Those who would have you think that humanity has no greater value than anything else hold themselves at a much higher value than others. In other words, it is a purely self-centric view. It is a view that one group, those who worship the earth, are of greater value than those who do not.
Among those who value humanity above other things, there is also a division in views. There is a split between those whose view is very near-term (usually no greater than a few days at the least or their own lifetime at the most) and those who take a generational view -- one that includes a responsible attitude that extends beyond their own lifetime. Again, it is a difference between those who are self-centered and those who look beyond personal self-interests.
Ultimately, the division is between those who are purely self-seeking and those who feel a responsibility beyond self.
In the end, an attitude that is purely centered on self will result in destruction because there is no building for the future. The extension of this philosophy of life would logically indicate that self-serving attitudes result in the destruction of the family, the country and ultimately, humanity.
The instinct for self-preservation, should at some point, trigger a cooperative effort. For the individual whose view is of long periods of time, this point is reached quickly. For those whose focus is in the immediate, this view is not reached until faced with chaotic, destructive forces beyond their control.
Applying this train of thought to our national situation we should become aware of a couple of things. First, the focus on immediate gratification in our society would imply that, as a nation, we have a very short-term view. Second, the acquisitive nature of our society would imply a highly self-centered attitude is the norm. When taken together, these two factors alone indicate the source of our headlong rush to destruction.
So, how does this apply to energy policy?
At both ends of the spectrum we see self-interest as the driving force, although among the "treehuggers" it is disguised in the rhetoric of something else. Each of these interests are pulling in opposite directions. Normally, when you have forces pulling in opposite direction it is accompanied by a ripping sound.
On the one hand is the drive to "preserve" and on the other the desire to develop. In the end, the balance would be responsible development with an extended view that looks to future generations.
I am a firm believer in the free market. I think that if allowed to work without interference, the market will ultimately achieve balance. We do not have a free market. We have energy subsidies on the one hand and we have burdensome "environmental" regulations on the other.
Subsidies can be a useful policy tool. When used properly with a view to national security interests, they can drive behavior in a manner that protects the interests of the nation. When used improperly, they can lead to corruption.
"Environmental" regulations also can be a useful tool. They should protect the interests of the whole so that "bad" individual behavior is corrected. Clean air, clean water and safe products are in the best interests of the nation. There is a tremendous "health cost" burden when such are not available. This "health cost" is both direct (medical bills) and indirect (lost productivity or individual impairment).
Nation-states were formed when individuals of common interest banded together for protection. Always, there was a cost to personal freedom and a gain to personal preservation. It was a balance between individuals of competing interests. The same balance applied between different nation-states.
Energy production must achieve a balance between competing interests (the present versus the future) that maximizes the benefit for all -- both today and in future generations. The answer is not wind or solar. The answer is not in fossil fuels alone. The answer is probably not nuclear. The answer will be in new technologies. In the interim however, we will cross the bridge that is composed of all of the available technologies into a future that we would not recognize if we were suddenly transported in time to that far off day -- given of course that there are still humans left alive to experience it.
Meanwhile, the "Blob of Contention" between current and future needs drifts aimlessly in the Gulf of Mexico.
Somewhere between "Drill Baby, Drill" and "The TreeHuggers Lament" is a balance that should define our approach to energy. We are responsible for being good stewards of the resources of this planet. That includes our environment and all of the things encompassed by that word -- plants, animals, water, soil, air, etc.
Stewardship implies use. It does not mean that we "preserve" something at the cost of humanity.
The basic issue upon which the dichotomous views toward energy development turn is that of a human-centric view of the world versus one in which humanity has no value greater than any other thing -- at least on the surface. In reality, it is a much more elitist view. Those who would have you think that humanity has no greater value than anything else hold themselves at a much higher value than others. In other words, it is a purely self-centric view. It is a view that one group, those who worship the earth, are of greater value than those who do not.
Among those who value humanity above other things, there is also a division in views. There is a split between those whose view is very near-term (usually no greater than a few days at the least or their own lifetime at the most) and those who take a generational view -- one that includes a responsible attitude that extends beyond their own lifetime. Again, it is a difference between those who are self-centered and those who look beyond personal self-interests.
Ultimately, the division is between those who are purely self-seeking and those who feel a responsibility beyond self.
In the end, an attitude that is purely centered on self will result in destruction because there is no building for the future. The extension of this philosophy of life would logically indicate that self-serving attitudes result in the destruction of the family, the country and ultimately, humanity.
The instinct for self-preservation, should at some point, trigger a cooperative effort. For the individual whose view is of long periods of time, this point is reached quickly. For those whose focus is in the immediate, this view is not reached until faced with chaotic, destructive forces beyond their control.
Applying this train of thought to our national situation we should become aware of a couple of things. First, the focus on immediate gratification in our society would imply that, as a nation, we have a very short-term view. Second, the acquisitive nature of our society would imply a highly self-centered attitude is the norm. When taken together, these two factors alone indicate the source of our headlong rush to destruction.
So, how does this apply to energy policy?
At both ends of the spectrum we see self-interest as the driving force, although among the "treehuggers" it is disguised in the rhetoric of something else. Each of these interests are pulling in opposite directions. Normally, when you have forces pulling in opposite direction it is accompanied by a ripping sound.
On the one hand is the drive to "preserve" and on the other the desire to develop. In the end, the balance would be responsible development with an extended view that looks to future generations.
I am a firm believer in the free market. I think that if allowed to work without interference, the market will ultimately achieve balance. We do not have a free market. We have energy subsidies on the one hand and we have burdensome "environmental" regulations on the other.
Subsidies can be a useful policy tool. When used properly with a view to national security interests, they can drive behavior in a manner that protects the interests of the nation. When used improperly, they can lead to corruption.
"Environmental" regulations also can be a useful tool. They should protect the interests of the whole so that "bad" individual behavior is corrected. Clean air, clean water and safe products are in the best interests of the nation. There is a tremendous "health cost" burden when such are not available. This "health cost" is both direct (medical bills) and indirect (lost productivity or individual impairment).
Nation-states were formed when individuals of common interest banded together for protection. Always, there was a cost to personal freedom and a gain to personal preservation. It was a balance between individuals of competing interests. The same balance applied between different nation-states.
Energy production must achieve a balance between competing interests (the present versus the future) that maximizes the benefit for all -- both today and in future generations. The answer is not wind or solar. The answer is not in fossil fuels alone. The answer is probably not nuclear. The answer will be in new technologies. In the interim however, we will cross the bridge that is composed of all of the available technologies into a future that we would not recognize if we were suddenly transported in time to that far off day -- given of course that there are still humans left alive to experience it.
Meanwhile, the "Blob of Contention" between current and future needs drifts aimlessly in the Gulf of Mexico.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Witness the Beginning of a World Changer
The world and the Democrats underestimate Governor Sarah Palin, VP running mate of John McCain. The lady has class and poise that cover a solid intellect and a heart for her country and the citizens who dwell in it. With John McCain's experience and heart for service to lead the way, she will become a formidable force within a McCain administration.
Her charm will cross many barriers that might be denied to others. With proper coaching and mentoring, she could potentially play a significant role on the world stage in a manner that is beyond the typical role of a Vice President. Her perceptive mind and graceful presence are a combination that could place her in the forefront of forging strong relationships with leaders throughout the world. She could become a coalition builder unsurpassed in recent U.S. history.
She has a unique opportunity. Through a mentoring/educational process, she can sit down with world leaders and ask them one-on-one, in a manner not usual for diplomatic efforts, what is important to each of them. She can seek to understand the issues that are critical to them by asking questions. Diplomats are "assumed" to have an understanding of the countries with which they deal. She is not bound by those assumptions. She is a fresh slate where new ideas and perceptions can be shaped.
Foreign policy experience? Give her time and she could become a world-changer.
Her charm will cross many barriers that might be denied to others. With proper coaching and mentoring, she could potentially play a significant role on the world stage in a manner that is beyond the typical role of a Vice President. Her perceptive mind and graceful presence are a combination that could place her in the forefront of forging strong relationships with leaders throughout the world. She could become a coalition builder unsurpassed in recent U.S. history.
She has a unique opportunity. Through a mentoring/educational process, she can sit down with world leaders and ask them one-on-one, in a manner not usual for diplomatic efforts, what is important to each of them. She can seek to understand the issues that are critical to them by asking questions. Diplomats are "assumed" to have an understanding of the countries with which they deal. She is not bound by those assumptions. She is a fresh slate where new ideas and perceptions can be shaped.
Foreign policy experience? Give her time and she could become a world-changer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)