Posts
Proliferated Nonsense | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Yet while the trend is unmistakably in the direction of more, not fewer, nuclear powers, the arms-control community is devoting ever more time and resources to the goal of 'global zero'—the abolition of nuclear weapons. That obsession is a fascinating and maddening detachment from reality.
It is not even clear that abolishing nuclear weapons would produce an unambiguously beneficial result. Perhaps it is only a coincidence, but the six and a half decades since the dawn of the atomic age constitute the first extended period since the emergence of the modern state system in the seventeenth century that no major wars have occurred between great powers. Many historians conclude that the principal reason the cold war did not turn hot was because both Moscow and Washington feared that a conventional conflict could easily spiral out of control into a nuclear conflagration. It is at least a worrisome possibility that the elimination of nuclear weapons could inadvertently make the world safe for new great-power wars. And given the destructive capacity of twenty-first-century conventional weapons, such wars would be even more horrific than the two bloodbaths in the twentieth.
But even if global zero did not produce such a perverse outcome, the goal is simply unattainable. It is improbable enough that the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China would be willing to relinquish their arsenals. It is a much bigger stretch to believe that such countries as Israel, India and Pakistan would do so. And it is bordering on fantasy to expect such wannabe nuclear powers as North Korea and Iran to abandon their aspirations.
All of those countries embarked on nuclear programs because of acute regional and extra-regional security concerns. Israel worries about the huge demographic edge enjoyed by its Islamic neighbors, and the prospect that the Jewish state's edge in conventional military capabilities will gradually erode. Pakistan worries about the growing economic and military power of its larger neighbor, India. New Delhi, for its part, not only distrusts Pakistan, but frets about China's geostrategic ambitions. All of those countries regard their nuclear arsenals as their ace in the hole, guaranteeing not only their regional status, but in some cases their very existence. They are highly unlikely to relinquish such a tangible insurance policy in exchange for paper security promises from the United Nations or any other source."
"Instead of pursuing the chimera of global zero, the arms control community needs to focus on attainable goals in a world in which proliferation is becoming an unpleasant reality. Getting the United States and Russia to drastically cut their bloated nuclear arsenals is one such goal. So, too, is an effort to induce India and Pakistan to adopt more explicitly defensive nuclear doctrines, and in the case of Pakistan, to improve the security of its arsenal. It may be possible—although it is more of a long shot—to persuade Iran to refrain from weaponizing its nuclear program, thereby reducing the incentive of its worried neighbors to build their own deterrents. An effort to reduce Pyongyang's temptation to become the global supermarket for the sale of nuclear technology has at least some prospect of success."
Friday, June 05, 2009
All Cost, No Benefit | Jerry Taylor | Cato Institute: Commentary
All Cost, No Benefit | Jerry Taylor | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only two cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg) and the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg) — would meet the standard."
(Don't forget the Tesla)
If only a few cars meet that standard how many will in 7 years? And what about options with more passengers, cargo, towing, or safety?
"There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty."
"U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends."
(Don't forget the Tesla)
If only a few cars meet that standard how many will in 7 years? And what about options with more passengers, cargo, towing, or safety?
"There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty."
"U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends."
Does Military Power Keep Us Safe? (Part II) | Christopher Preble | Cato Institute: Commentary
Does Military Power Keep Us Safe? (Part II) | Christopher Preble | Cato Institute: Commentary: "By reducing the size of our military to a level more consistent with our own needs, and by encouraging others to become more self-reliant, we can make space for the other forms of human interaction that facilitate security and prosperity over the long term."
"Some worry of a new cold war with Russia, while others see a hot one with China in the offing, perhaps over Taiwan. Those prospects cannot be dismissed lightly, but the fact remains that the major powers have managed to avoid the very sorts of cataclysms that claimed the lives of an estimated 100 million people in the first half of the 20th century. Perhaps we've all learned something?"
"The casualties caused by international terrorist incidents since September 11, 2001, and the prospects for future casualties, pale in comparison to the death and destruction that took place between August 1914 and November 1918, and again between September 1939 and August 1945.
The violence and bloodshed that can be deployed by non-state actors is an order of magnitude smaller than what could be caused by even a medium-size modern industrial state.
Can it even be compared with the Cold War, which claimed far fewer lives but lasted nearly five times longer than the two world wars combined? Again, no. Both are ideological struggles, fought chiefly by non-military means, but the threat of global thermonuclear war hung over every aspect of Cold War diplomacy.
And the scale of violence that would have been unleashed had U.S. or Soviet (or Chinese, French or British) decision makers lost their cool would have caused far more death and destruction than Osama bin Laden can muster in the darkest reaches of his imagination.
What we need is a little perspective. This perspective should inform our strategy for the next generation.
For if there is a historical analog for the radical Islamist terrorist threat of the early 21st century, it is the anarchist movement of the late 19th century. Like the modern-day terrorists, the anarchists spread chaos and disorder by blowing up bombs in crowded places and by inciting riots.
Anarchists succeeded in assassinating a number of world leaders, including Czar Alexander II of Russia, Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary — and even U.S. President William McKinley.
The killing of a single man, Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914, precipitated the global conflict that resulted in more than 30 million casualties. That provides a useful lesson for the present day, but not the one that the scaremongers want you to learn: namely, that the overreaction to comparatively minor incidents can have far-reaching, and often horrific, effects."
"On the other hand, and especially in the case of Iraq, we have lashed out, convinced of our right to do so based on our own security needs, and believing the military to be the best instrument for breaking that supposed state-terror nexus.
On still other occasions, we have pointed to our sense of obligation to act, in the service of democracy promotion or the advancement of human rights, believing that those lofty goals would also undermine the terrorists' cause.
But surely if ever there was a case of means upsetting ends, this was it, because for every ten, or even 100, quiet successes against al-Qaeda and its ilk, it takes but one loud failure to set back our efforts, perhaps for many years."
"They worry not that we will direct our wrath at them, but rather that in our thirst for justice we will harm those unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."
"Some worry of a new cold war with Russia, while others see a hot one with China in the offing, perhaps over Taiwan. Those prospects cannot be dismissed lightly, but the fact remains that the major powers have managed to avoid the very sorts of cataclysms that claimed the lives of an estimated 100 million people in the first half of the 20th century. Perhaps we've all learned something?"
"The casualties caused by international terrorist incidents since September 11, 2001, and the prospects for future casualties, pale in comparison to the death and destruction that took place between August 1914 and November 1918, and again between September 1939 and August 1945.
The violence and bloodshed that can be deployed by non-state actors is an order of magnitude smaller than what could be caused by even a medium-size modern industrial state.
Can it even be compared with the Cold War, which claimed far fewer lives but lasted nearly five times longer than the two world wars combined? Again, no. Both are ideological struggles, fought chiefly by non-military means, but the threat of global thermonuclear war hung over every aspect of Cold War diplomacy.
And the scale of violence that would have been unleashed had U.S. or Soviet (or Chinese, French or British) decision makers lost their cool would have caused far more death and destruction than Osama bin Laden can muster in the darkest reaches of his imagination.
What we need is a little perspective. This perspective should inform our strategy for the next generation.
For if there is a historical analog for the radical Islamist terrorist threat of the early 21st century, it is the anarchist movement of the late 19th century. Like the modern-day terrorists, the anarchists spread chaos and disorder by blowing up bombs in crowded places and by inciting riots.
Anarchists succeeded in assassinating a number of world leaders, including Czar Alexander II of Russia, Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary — and even U.S. President William McKinley.
The killing of a single man, Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914, precipitated the global conflict that resulted in more than 30 million casualties. That provides a useful lesson for the present day, but not the one that the scaremongers want you to learn: namely, that the overreaction to comparatively minor incidents can have far-reaching, and often horrific, effects."
"On the other hand, and especially in the case of Iraq, we have lashed out, convinced of our right to do so based on our own security needs, and believing the military to be the best instrument for breaking that supposed state-terror nexus.
On still other occasions, we have pointed to our sense of obligation to act, in the service of democracy promotion or the advancement of human rights, believing that those lofty goals would also undermine the terrorists' cause.
But surely if ever there was a case of means upsetting ends, this was it, because for every ten, or even 100, quiet successes against al-Qaeda and its ilk, it takes but one loud failure to set back our efforts, perhaps for many years."
"They worry not that we will direct our wrath at them, but rather that in our thirst for justice we will harm those unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."
The Rise of Collectivist Conservatives | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Rise of Collectivist Conservatives | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "'Your rights as an American are individual rights,' Beck reminds us. 'I feel like I need to keep saying that word so it stays in the front of your and everybody's mind—individual, individual, individual!' To add heft to his indignant free-associative musings, Beck turns regularly to semi-pro philosophers such as Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook to decry the 'ideology of altruism and collectivism' before his considerable television audience."
"Beck's "9/12 Project," meant to revive the fleeting American spirit of grieving, truculent solidarity that followed the 9/11 attacks, lays out nine principles and 11 values of "the greatest nation ever created." The first principle is "America is Good." What is that if not a recklessly unconditional commitment to the national collective? With his fourth principle—"The family is sacred"—Beck simply ignores the fact that no force in human history has been more corrosive to family cohesion than the individualist ideal of self-realization that he champions.
Similarly, when it comes to the "War on Terror," Beck's embrace of the rights of individuals against the state just peters out. Beck's nonchalance about warrantless wiretaps and water-boarding betrays a peculiar notion of individual liberty."
"For too many conservatives, "individual rights" is code for their right to remain unburdened by whatever exercises of state power they happen to dislike."
"Beck's "9/12 Project," meant to revive the fleeting American spirit of grieving, truculent solidarity that followed the 9/11 attacks, lays out nine principles and 11 values of "the greatest nation ever created." The first principle is "America is Good." What is that if not a recklessly unconditional commitment to the national collective? With his fourth principle—"The family is sacred"—Beck simply ignores the fact that no force in human history has been more corrosive to family cohesion than the individualist ideal of self-realization that he champions.
Similarly, when it comes to the "War on Terror," Beck's embrace of the rights of individuals against the state just peters out. Beck's nonchalance about warrantless wiretaps and water-boarding betrays a peculiar notion of individual liberty."
"For too many conservatives, "individual rights" is code for their right to remain unburdened by whatever exercises of state power they happen to dislike."
A High-Speed Rail Mirage | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary
A High-Speed Rail Mirage | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Although every taxpayer would share the cost of these trains, high-speed rails are not about serving the common people. Instead, they are aimed at the elite. Japanese and French high-speed trains are attractive to tourists, but they're not heavily used by local residents. Residents of Japan and France on average ride their bullet trains less than 400 miles a year."
"Amtrak charges a minimum of $99 for its high-speed Acela from New York to Washington, but only $72 for its conventional train. Fares for unsubsidized buses on this route start as low as $20 (including free Wi-Fi), while airfares start at $99. Only the wealthy and those whose employers cover the cost will pay the $99 rail fare."
"Obama's 9,000-mile high-speed rail plan reaches just 33 states, yet the $13 billion he proposes to spend would cover about 2.5% to 25% of the cost, depending on how the system is built. In contrast with the interstate highway system, which paid for itself out of user fees, high-speed rail fares would not cover the capital costs and only part of the operating costs.
Most of Obama's plan should really be called "moderate-speed rail," as it would upgrade existing freight lines to run passenger trains at top speeds of 110 mph. At around $5 million per mile, the total cost would come close to $50 billion."
"California predicts its 220-mph trains would take just 3.5% of cars off of roads. California highway traffic grows that much every two years."
"Amtrak charges a minimum of $99 for its high-speed Acela from New York to Washington, but only $72 for its conventional train. Fares for unsubsidized buses on this route start as low as $20 (including free Wi-Fi), while airfares start at $99. Only the wealthy and those whose employers cover the cost will pay the $99 rail fare."
"Obama's 9,000-mile high-speed rail plan reaches just 33 states, yet the $13 billion he proposes to spend would cover about 2.5% to 25% of the cost, depending on how the system is built. In contrast with the interstate highway system, which paid for itself out of user fees, high-speed rail fares would not cover the capital costs and only part of the operating costs.
Most of Obama's plan should really be called "moderate-speed rail," as it would upgrade existing freight lines to run passenger trains at top speeds of 110 mph. At around $5 million per mile, the total cost would come close to $50 billion."
"California predicts its 220-mph trains would take just 3.5% of cars off of roads. California highway traffic grows that much every two years."
Can President Obama’s Policies Heal the US Economy? - Frank Shostak - Mises Institute
Can President Obama’s Policies Heal the US Economy? - Frank Shostak - Mises Institute: "[Obama:]
There is, however, no such thing as a shortage of demand. In fact, individuals' demand is unlimited. What is scarce is not demand but rather individuals' ability to fund the demand.
For instance, an individual might have a demand for a Mercedes 600, but only have the funding for a bicycle.
In order to be able to fund a Mercedes, our individual must produce enough goods to enable him to secure the car.
A dramatic lowering of interest rates and massive government spending cannot improve the bottom line of the economy (the individual's ability to produce more and better-quality goods). Such policies can only redistribute real wealth from wealth producers to wealth consumers."
"there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity."
"The US president is of the view that somehow he could make the banks lend regardless of real savings. The only expansion of lending that the president could enforce upon banks is lending "out of thin air." This type of lending amounts to the creation of money "out of thin air" — the key factor behind the present economic crisis."
The first step was to fight a severe shortage of demand in the economy. The Federal Reserve did this by dramatically lowering interest rates last year in order to boost investment. And my administration and Congress boosted demand by passing the largest recovery plan in our nation's history.
There is, however, no such thing as a shortage of demand. In fact, individuals' demand is unlimited. What is scarce is not demand but rather individuals' ability to fund the demand.
For instance, an individual might have a demand for a Mercedes 600, but only have the funding for a bicycle.
In order to be able to fund a Mercedes, our individual must produce enough goods to enable him to secure the car.
A dramatic lowering of interest rates and massive government spending cannot improve the bottom line of the economy (the individual's ability to produce more and better-quality goods). Such policies can only redistribute real wealth from wealth producers to wealth consumers."
"there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity."
"The US president is of the view that somehow he could make the banks lend regardless of real savings. The only expansion of lending that the president could enforce upon banks is lending "out of thin air." This type of lending amounts to the creation of money "out of thin air" — the key factor behind the present economic crisis."
The Age of Folly - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute
The Age of Folly - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute: "The full-scale war on recession began in January 2008. Unemployment was climbing and house prices were falling, and George Bush, whose entire persona was the war mode since 2001, decided he wouldn't tolerate declining economic conditions.
That's when the Fed started pushing down interest rates to ridiculous lows and started gunning the money supply as much as possible. Bush put on his solemn/determined face and started talking to the American people about how he was going to destroy this recession monster in its crib."
Government attemps to fix the recession have been failing so maybe they should reconsider their tactics.
That's when the Fed started pushing down interest rates to ridiculous lows and started gunning the money supply as much as possible. Bush put on his solemn/determined face and started talking to the American people about how he was going to destroy this recession monster in its crib."
Government attemps to fix the recession have been failing so maybe they should reconsider their tactics.
Bad News for Our Money - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Institute
Bad News for Our Money - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Institute: "In the United States, the Federal Open Market Committee reiterated on April 29, 2009,
"to provide support to mortgage lending and housing markets and to improve overall conditions in private credit markets, the Federal Reserve will purchase a total of up to $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt by the end of the year. In addition, the Federal Reserve will buy up to $300 billion of Treasury securities by autumn.[4]"
Once again the bailouts of congress pale in comparison to the activities of the federal reserve.
"to provide support to mortgage lending and housing markets and to improve overall conditions in private credit markets, the Federal Reserve will purchase a total of up to $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt by the end of the year. In addition, the Federal Reserve will buy up to $300 billion of Treasury securities by autumn.[4]"
Once again the bailouts of congress pale in comparison to the activities of the federal reserve.
Rights for Robots - Sir Ernest Benn - Mises Institute
Rights for Robots - Sir Ernest Benn - Mises Institute: "For socialism is not a system; it is a disease. The 'something for nothing' mentality is, in fact, an economic cancer."
"Well-meaning, shallow thinking, kindly people, aware of the scriptural injunction that "the greatest of these is charity," have failed to notice the distinction between the real article and the giving away of other people's money."
"Well-meaning, shallow thinking, kindly people, aware of the scriptural injunction that "the greatest of these is charity," have failed to notice the distinction between the real article and the giving away of other people's money."
Obama Set to Appoint Pay Czar - Political News - FOXNews.com
Obama Set to Appoint Pay Czar - Political News - FOXNews.com: "The Obama administration plans to appoint a 'Special Master for Compensation' to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter."
Government money always comes with strings -- even if they aren't attached until later.
Government money always comes with strings -- even if they aren't attached until later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)