I'm going to geek it up today and talk about a couple ways that economies grow - import replacement and new work. Both are very applicable to the current US and world economy, but we're going to start examining them by looking at a new and simple economy.
Let's take a new village created around a gold mine. It earns its money by digging up ore and shipping it out. Everything in the economy is imported in - the booze, the mining equipment, the food, equipment is sent to be repaired, clean water is trucked in - heck in some cases even the laundry is shipped out. If we assume the economy is earning 100 million a year, probably 90 million of that is flowing right out.
The something interesting starts happening. The bathtub rum guys get good enough to set up their own microbrewery. Someone starts farming nearby. Others start repairing the complex machinery in in town. The village drills down to an aquifer and starts piping that out to residents. All of this is import replacement - things which used to be imported from outside the economy are now being created
So, instead of 90% of the economy's money flowing straight out, maybe it's down to 70%. And that additional money that stays in the economy can be used to buy more outside goods, or can be saved to start up new businesses. Probably it's used for both. So maybe they start importing fancier stuff - dvd players, better filtration equipment for their water, and so on. Maybe they hire some engineers to come in and build infrastructure - a sewage treatment plant, a better road system, a deepening of the local harbor and so on.
Imagine that the mining community has its own currency and think about what's been happening with their currency during this. When they started import replacing, they used less of their money to buy outside goods. Since that was the case, their currency became worth more. As it became worth more it became possible for them to import more goods - for less, but as they did, the currency then dropped in value, making it more expensive to buy outside goods - and making any goods they might sell to the outside world worth more.
And that's when a couple other interesting things happened. The microbrewery, having had to brew using substandard conditions and local flora turned out to have a product unlike anything anyone else had, and there was enough money saved up to build it up so it could produce more booze. The community started selling the booze to the world, and instead of just having money coming in from the mine, it now had money coming in from liquor sales. And some of the mining engineers figured out a better way to extract ore. They left the mining company (their state being smart enough not to allow non-compete clauses in contracts), started up their own business, and started manufacturing the necessary machines for their new mining technique. They then sold that equipment and the expertise for using it (but not for manufacturing it) to the outside world. Even more money started coming into the community.
And the local currency, with more money coming in, appreciated. The community then did another round of buying new, more upscale imports - an upscale auto dealership opened up in town, more fancy electronics goods came into town and so on. In reaction to that, the currency dropped in value, and some local businesses started up to provide some of the more fancy goods - some technicians from mining company, who work on microelectronics, split off to set up a company creating consumer electronics goods whose selling point is hardiness. Lots of small companies making parts for both the mining company and the electronics company spring up, so they no longer have to buy those parts from outside, and indeed they start exporting those parts beyond what is now, not a village, but a city.
And our new city has grown in three ways. First there was the original resource - the reason for existing. In this case that was a mine, but it could have been as an entrepot town (say having a harbor, or being at an intersection of shipping lines, whether rail, road or river) ; it could have been a fishing town; it could even have been the center of an agricultural district. From there it first used import replacement to reduce the amount of money it was spending on outside goods. Next it created new work, a new product or industry - in this case a new type of booze, and a new way of mining plus the equipment that went with it and exported those things to the world. Part of what made that possible was the money saved in the community by increasing the savings rate through the earlier import replacement - keeping more money in the community. Then it increased imports which is actually part of the cycle of growth, because it allows the community to learn about new goods to either import replace them, or to create new work. Both of which happened with the creation of the electronics company (new work, plus import replacement) and the myriad of small suppliers (import replacement, plus new exports). Through all of this, in our simplified model, currency was applying feedback - telling the community when it could afford to import more stuff, giving it an export subsidy when it had imported more, and an import subsidy when it had created new wealth. (In the real world as it currently stands, where major countries manipulate their currency with massive interventions, exchange rates don't give accurate feedback, though they still give subsidies for one activity or another - the Chinese Yuan, for example, is set at a concessionary rate to act as an export subsidy and to encourage the Chinese economy to do income substitution. The US dollar currently does the reverse with respect to most Asian economies.)
Now that we've seen how an economy grows, let's see how it can shrink. Our city, let's call it Aurelia, has had nothing but growth. But two things have happened - the cost of being in it have gone up (higher living expenses, higher taxes, higher property values) and the company creating the mining equipment has figured out how to turn it into the turnkey operation that can be done entirely in-house. The technology is now mature, it no longer needs to be located next to the miners and engineers who are working the field, figuring out new tweaks, and so on. As such, it no longer makes sense to keep it in a place that costs a lot - it's not necessary, and all it does is increase costs. So they close down their manufacturing operations (but probably leave their headquarters in Aurelia) and set it up in a place with a cheaper currency, in the countryside where expenses are lower (but still near some rail or sea lines for transport). The economy of Aurelia contracts - less money is coming in, and indeed, now the local mine has to buy the mine equipment it needs from outsiders. The currency also takes a dip in value.
That dip in value is a feedback mechanism. It makes it easier to do import replacement (because imported goods are now costing more) and it makes it easier to create new work and export it to the rest of the world. In a properly functioning economy, that's what happens - someone starts manufacturing goods that were imported, or creates new work, the currency value goes back up, and the economy hums along in alternating cycles of creating new work/import replacing, sending mature industries out to cheaper domiciles, and importing new goods which are hopefully fueled for possible future import replacement periods or which help new work be created.
Now this is a theoretical model. That's not to say this isn't how the world works - it does, sort of, and there are many examples (Silicon Valley, Manchester, Massachusetts at various time, Chicago and New York manufacturing, Detroit, etc...), but there are also many cases where it fails, and a city, or country, loses the ability to continue the virtuous cycles.
And this model is a useful one for looking at the economy in the world today. Let's take a very brief look at this, starting with China. What China is doing today is keeping their currency artificially cheap (they spend about 10% of GDP on currency intervention, which is a massive number). Cheap currency means imported goods are more expensive, which means it encourages import replacement in a big way. Cars, consumer electronics, ripped movies, etc... it makes sense to make them in China not just because China has cheap labor, taxes, etc... but because China has cheap currency. So China gets huge amounts of growth both in import replacement (for internal consumption) and in export led growth. And when a mature industry, in, say, America - like most manufacturing industries, looks at where they should move their plants, China has a significant advantage in getting them, which is why China is a main offshoring destination.
The US, in the meantime, has an overvalued dollar against China (and the other major Asian currencies). That means instead of getting feedback that says "it's time to import replace or to create new work", the feedback that the US is getting says "you should be importing goods and shipping out mature industries." That, of course, is what is happening. And since it's happening in huge amounts, the US savings rate is actually negative, meaning that to do new work, to import replace, American has to actually borrow money from overseas.
Now currency feedback isn't the only thing that matters - sometimes it will still make sense to import replace. Sometimes someone will still come up with an idea for new work, for a new product, that is worth doing and which because of supplier networks and other issues (often just "I don't want to set up my business in a foreign place like China) is worth setting up in the US.
But in general the current atmosphere is not conducive to a huge wave of either import replacement or new work (the last great wave was the Internet boom in the 90's). This should have been the decade that telecom really took off, but because conditions are extremely poor and because of regulatory and oligopoly issues (you can't really innovate, because the majors simply won't let you activate most features on their networks) it didn't happen. Without that huge boost of new work, or of import replacement (the next big bout of which will probably actually be energy replacement) the US economy has essentially stagnated, with awful unemployment numbers, awful raises, and huge amounts of debt being taken on.
There are more lessons to be taken from this model, as well. Non-compete clauses, for example, are awful for economic growth (it's not an accident that Silicon Valley is in California, with its restrictions on non-competes). Mature industries always head out for cheaper domiciles, it's just a question of how far communications and transportation infrastructure - and political stability, allow them to do so. Small companies are where most new products come from. Concentrations of many small firms tend to give rise to more types of new work - to new products and industries, more than large monopolies or oligopolies (there are some exceptions).
And an economy which isn't creating new work, new products, as fast as it is rationalizing old work, has a problem. As an industry matures what took many highly skilled people to do, takes fewer and fewer over time and it becomes, packageable, routinized - and thus able to be shipped away from the area that created it - able to be done by second raters who aren't at the cutting edge.
And this, to a large extent, is the situation the US finds itself in.
EndNote
Those who are interested in this topic may wish to read Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities and Cities and the Wealth of Nations which is where the general cycle is cribbed from.
Ian writes also for The Agonist
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
zed?
I need to head out, then I will come back and read. Have fun.
Zed out?
great pic; now to read.
Truthout - recommended reading: Very Scary Things
One thing that can’t be “shipped away” is our contribution to global warming. Many argue this would be the cutting edge for creating new jobs in this country. Jobs that in the main could not be outsourced.
Ross Perot was right - about a lot of things that have since happened. It is the giant sucking sound…
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans92c.html
Would the U.S. economy be better off today without NAFTA and CAFTA?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 8
CAFTA is a piece of junk. NAFTA… depends. The US makes money from NAFTA, but one can argue that the structural effects on the economy have been negative. The people who really lost from NAFTA were the Mexicans. It’s also a huge infringement on sovereignty, which is the main knock against it.
The WTO deals are more of a concern than NAFTA, honestly.
Straw poll results now due to be announced- did the mad mitter keel over his gooper opponents as expected? We’ll soon find out.
Don’t forget, tonight, tomorrow, the peak for the Perseid meteor shower. Best seen shortly before daybreak:
http://www.space.com/scienceas.....20806.html
Sure is quiet out there tonight, or should I say, in here.
?Does anyone know eef T-Rex ees around?
eh?
Thom Hartman advocates returning to a tariff based system to level the playing field. What’d ya think Ian?
good post by the way
Off topic, but this is a nice write-up about the HRC/LOGO Visible Vote forum.
rwcole @ 10
Fifteen minute delay just announced from the stage in Ames.
Fascinating post Ian … good and meaty!
And more info on economics is a plus - we tend to be pretty uninformed on econs
Excellent article, Ian. This helps me understand US economic issues much better. Now, what to do? Certainly we need to invent new jobs in new industries — why not climate change? Green technology and retro-fitting would create many US jobs, right?
LS @ 7
Ross Perot, in my opinion, would have been a great president. He loves the United States. He is honest. He knows (knew?) more about business and economics than almost anyone. He has (had?) a great, pugnacious personality. Perfect? No. Better than [fill in the blank]? Yes. I voted for him twice and said fuck the MSM.
Jonathan @ 19
He’s still around, as far as I can tell.
Sonoma Rus @ 14
If you do, China may well retaliate with their reserves. It’s hard to play tough when you’re so massively in debt, deficit and trade deficit.
That said, I fully expect some significant protectionism. The era of globalization is winding down, for all you don’t hear people saying so. And tariffs aren’t always a bad thing, especially since many countries are effectively employing trade subsidies (mind you, so does the US, especially in agricultural goods).
I support free trade (but not free capital flows), but we don’t have free trade right now, we have very managed trade that calls itself free.
Only 14,000 votes cast in Ames; the state GOP was projecting 30,000.
TeddySanFran @ 18
Bill Clinton has advocated this, but I haven’t heard Hill talk about it at all. Bush certainly doesn’t want to solve the Saudi problem.
LS @ 11
There is also this from Sky & Telescope: Prepare for the Perseids
Very interesting, Ian. Looks like we’re in a world of hurt. What do you see as the most immediate changes we need to make?
The Saudis aren’t a problem for Bush.
TeddySanFran @ 18
I agree there’s a lot of potential within those markets, it behooves us not to cede that to the Japanese or Europeans!
Only 14,000 voted and 53% of them puked as they pulled the lever.
NAFTA was supposed to be a big boon for small farmers, workers and entrepreneurs in Mexico, but evidence is that NAFTA seriously harmed these groups. This is in part because the biggest most powerful aspect of NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO etc is not free trade at all, but rather free investment insurance for international projects, and overly prod intellectual property rights guarantees to those who are already very well off. For example, Mexican small farmers got wiped out. This produced a free and desperate labor pool to fuel renewed illegal immigration problems in the US.
One issue raised in this nice post, though almost as a side issue, is the harm rent seeking can do to economic growth and progress, and technological innovation. The idea of rent seeking has traditionally been associated with government regulation and how interest groups (corporations, labor unions, industries, special interest groups) can influence government action to divert revenue streams to those groups. The idea is that you can institute a government regulation that implicitly establishes a property right over some stream of revenue, which you promptly grab and stuff in your pockets. Whether that revenue can be attributed to any productive activity on your part is irrelevant. I think that recently corporate rent seeking has become as big an issue as government rent seeking. Ian Welsh mentions overly aggressive non-compete clauses and oligopoly as mechanisms that can facilitate rent seeking. I think that overly aggressive investment insurance regimes, and intellectual property rights guarantees are the most important parts of these co-called trade agreements, and they facilitate private rent seeking.
Effectively, NAFTA subsidized large-scale international investment in agriculture and manufacturing in Mexico. Little folks got creamed. Their choice has been to compete for a limited number of jobs in border manufacturing plants or heading north.
To the extent that NAFTA served not to facilitate free trade, but provide cheap investment insurance and opportunities for private rent seeking in Mexico and Central America, they have harmed the economic well-being of small business and workers and farmers in those areas at the expense of international corporations, or large Mexican companies. To the extent that this means more unhappy poor people next to us, I think it has harmed the US.
But I think the big tie in to this wonderful economics post (which the world needs more of -thank you FDL!) is that NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO initiatives have harmed opportunity for local economic development by the small fry. And not for any reason connected to real economic fundamentals, but rather crony capitalism (free and overly generous investment insurance that creates both an unfair advantage, and moral hazard by the big shots taking too much risk and then sluffing off the resulting social costs) and provides more opportunities for private corporate rent seeking.
If NAFTA had been truly and only and specifically a free trade agreement, I think the results would have been much different, and it would have been a good thing. The real NAFTA, well, the results have been very mixed.
TeddySanFran @ 26
Actually, they are family.
TeddySanFran @ 22
Heh, that ought to rattle their cage a little more!
TeddySanFran @ 18
I would try and turn energy from something that is primarily dug up and is bottlenecked into something that is a capital good (that you can manufacture more of, like solar power). I would do a massive refit of all buildings to passive and active solar with meters to allow for selling energy back into the net (you can’t offshore or outsource most of those jobs). I would break up the telecom monopoly to allow the telecom revolution to actually happen, and mandate open access like in the 90’s on phone lines which allowed ISPs to sprout all over the place. I would outlaw all non-competes in the US.
And I would allow the US dollar to fall to its natural value, indeed I would force it to do so, which takes away China and Japan’s blackmail value. Mind you, that’d be a huge standard of living hit, but it’s going to happen anyway (you do this as fast as possible, so you have 4 years to recover for the next election.)
TeddySanFran @ 22
“None of the above” might be the winner?
wesgpc @ 29
Rent seeking - rentiers - deserve a whole post of their own. Rent seeking behaviour is perhaps the biggest problem in the US today, I absolutely agree.
As a Canadian, I have argued on Canadian blogs that we should unilaterally end NAFTA (6 months notice is all it takes). There’s an argument that it’s been a slight net benefit to us, but the cost in sovereignty and tied hands is too much, in my opinion and I think Canada should be diversifying its export market away from the US as much as possible, in any case.
NEED RESOURCES HELP.
Sorry to intrude off-topic.
I recall reading somewhere the amazing factoid that Iran is a NET CONSUMER of oil (or energy?). Can anybody help me get a source on that? It would be much appreciated.
.
CTuttle @ 31
Tickets to cast “votes” each cost $35, so it’s the difference between over a million dollars and less than half a million for the Iowa GOP.
heh.
May they go the way of the Maryland GOP.
Ian Welsh @ 32
Once our third rate service economy is done we are toast. China and Japan own our debt-we don’t actually make anything. What is actually left of our economy? Now that Bush has trashed our image abroad other countries are losing confidence in our long term strength and sustainability. The checks that W is trying to cash will ultimately come back “NSF”.
Dumbo @ 35
Don’t have a source, but I think what you’re talking about is gasoline, not oil. They don’t have the refinery capacity to meet their own needs, and have to re-import. Could be wrong on this, mind, but that’s my recollection.
wesgpc @ 29
Please post more. Please. I’m a (dumb) tax lawyer with an undergrad degree in electrical engineering. I don’t know economics. I want to learn.
The thing that’s worrisome is how does the fact we are spending about $12,000,000,000 per month on two ‘wars’ (with no tax increase to cover these wars) factor into all this?
Ian, googling “Iran gasoline ‘net consumer’” isn’t finding it. Neither does “Iran oil ‘net consumer’”.
I think you might be right about the gasoline/refinery thing. I need a quotable source, though.
TeddySanFran @ 36
Coupled with the lackluster crop of candidates, the GOP must be reeling!!! Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch…!!! ;-)
TeddySanFran @ 22
What does this mean, TSF?
This also begs the question of selling oil in euros instead of dollars. Anyone beilieve we went to war for WMD’s? Democatracy? or Freedom? Hell no. Its to keep the dollar as the basis for international oil sales. Try explaining that to JQ Public though
Another delay just announced. I wonder if Ron Paul won and they can’t figure out what to do?
Goopers broke? Did they try advertising that you get a signed photo of the President if you donate? Oh they did? That’s when the money dried up? OK Never mind.
Let’ hear it for Paul—sane hope for the gooper party!!
Loo Hoo. @ 43
It means the Iowa GOP didn’t sell as many tickets as they’d hoped. You gotta buy a $35 ticket (or have someone buy you one) to vote in the Iowa Straw Poll today.
In 1999, GWB’s campaign bought 11,000 tickets for people, and only got 7,400 votes for their candidate. Slippery Iowans.
Tiger widens his lead in the PGA going into his final day. Nicklaus wishes him the best and goes off to puke.
Goopers forced to delay the announcement as they weren’t geared up to count so few votes.
Apparently the Diebold machines used to count the votes malfuntioned, according to the Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder.
I am not making this up.
There was a court case yesterday in Iowa, dismissed by a judge, asking for paper ballots to be hand-counted.
rwcole @ 47
It would seriously put the fear of god in them…!!! 8-)
rwcole @ 47
I THINK I might be able to vote for Paul. He’s a rad. Not perfect. But no one is.
Dumbo @ 41
I don’t have that, but an Iranian friend told me today that gasoline is strictly rationed there.
I kinda like Paul- actually I kinda like libertarians in general. I’m not keen on the government and it’s armies of christian soldiers tellin me what I can and cannot do—libertarians are the anti-fascist party.
TeddySanFran @ 51
Diebold machines acting up on the goopers? Maybe there is divine retribution after all!!!
rwcole @ 55
So are Liberaltarians!!! ;-)
rwcole @ 55
don’t be so sure. Paul, like his dem counterpart Kucinich, doesn’t want women to have abortions.
The trouble with tryin to control the vote with hackable chines- is —that there are plenty of hackers on both sides.
mom
Well I don’t agree with that part- that was just a little libertarian war dance.
TeddySanFran @ 51
HA! Maybe all of the states will go the way of California before ‘08.
Ian: if you can or want to come up with a post on recent developments in public and private rent-seeking in US, or the Americas, with some specific examples, I will read it. Heck, I’ll print it out and frame the thing and hang it in my office. It would be greatly appreciated.
I think the only promising current development in the contemporary economic policy stream (which is very hostile to the non-rich) that encourages the sort of local small scale innovation discussed in this post is microfinance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfinance
It is not a magic bullet by any means. However, it has shown benefits for very poor areas that were considered intractable basket cases. The whole idea was considered mad, of course, by most main-stream development economists.
Of course, if its success continues, I am sure that insurance companies and some governments, will find opportunities to co-opt it. I think a corporate or a Cheney/Bush run micro-finance program would turn into a pay-day loan scam pretty quickly. You could look at the current mortgage market mess as a very poorly regulated for-profit micro-finance scheme for middle and working class US.
Some people maintain that the rapid decrease in poverty levels in the 90s were a result of Rubin’s demand for strict adherence to federal guidelines for non-discrimination and active marketing of bank loans to poor inner-city neighborhoods. That was a kind of microfinance program.
I think the using a mining town as the main example in this post was a good one. If a local extractive industry is locally owned, then one major block to local economic innovation and development (liquidity constraints) is effectively removed. The same would be true for a high value agriculture cash crop. Of course, institutional factors play a big role here, since also need to avoid severe concentration of land, income and wealth.
Maybe Diebold will go broke—I love the smell of justice in the morning.
rwcole @ 55
I’ve been hesitant to say here that I lean by force of nature toward libertarian principles.
Truth is, I would have liked to live in the U.S. when the federal government had a non-existent footprint on the land, and people were left to form their communities.
Jonathan
I’m kinda a “Leave me the fuck alone” sorta guy too.
Wasn’t there a Nobel prize awarded for micro-finance recently? And why wouldn’t those successes be replicable in our own depressed areas? Why can’t microloans be used to rescue NOLA, for example?
You’ve got the libertarian wing- the christian right wing- and the unbelievably rich fuck wings of the gooper party.
The musical question is “Can a party fly with three wings?”
TeddySanFran @ 48
I would say that it means lots of dejected GOoPers.
Now they gotta fix the vote so that Ron Paul and Barack Obama don’t come in 1st and 2nd.
They are a scurriying.
-GSD
I think that Mickey Mouse came in first and that’s what’s causin the heartburn.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/se.....2heart.htm
As Ian indicated, the problem for Iran is its very heavily subsidized (and hence cheap) gasoline. It is an oil exporter.
wesgpc @ 62
They’re trying to co-opt micro-finance - huge amounts of interest in it. But they can’t (yet) figure out how to get their costs down enough to make it profitable without having usurious rates of interest (in fact, they want to convince India, for example, to raise the allowable interest rate to over 40% annually.)
What I fear is that microfinance, which is now used primarily to help bootstrap people (they invest in small businesses mostly) will be used as the 3rd world equivalent of payday loan companies, which will make things much worse rather than better.
Cheap consumer credit is ok. Expensive consumer credit, imo, is worse than none at all. And ideally, microlending and credit circles should be used primarily for business, not for consumer spending.
Interesting thread, but the answers we all look for have been in front of us for many years and only one person in the US government ever had the gumption ( balls ) to bring it to the public. That person is Ron Paul.
The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 without question had to be the largest wholesale sellout of the the American people. Article one of the Constitution does not call for a central bank owned by a private banking cartel, but rather a US Treasury that would regulate money in only gold and silver. Not a fiat currencey backed by nothing more than hot air.
On Friday, Bernanke set in motion a financial time bomb. Our government and the markets are like addicts requiring greater and greater interventional fixes in the form of printing more and more worthless fiat, because there is nothing to back it as Nixon broke the bond between the dollar and gold in 1971.
Adding 35 billion in easy credit will do nothing other than monetizing greater an greater debt. In actuality, this was a bail out for banks that are stuck holding mortages on homes whose owners shouldn’t have been in homes in the first place because they were placed into them by corrupt lending standards such as no doc loans as well as no credit worthiness checks.
Finally, the Chinese have said enough is enough. We will no longer buy your worthless debt in the form of your T bills as you continue to back your economy with worthless dollars when the rest of the world knows that the only real money that mankind has ever known is both gold and silver.
A few more weeks of this nonsense and the Federal Reserve will implode on itself. Then and only then will we return back to what the founding fathers had called for. A US Treasury. Just Google ” Fiat Empire” and watch how the Fed was created and for what reasons. Then once you put 2 2 together you’ll better understand why your elected Congressmen and Senators keep getting voted back in to bring home the bacon. But that bacon is bankrupting us all. This ponzi scam is going to end very badly, and it isn’t going to take years to happen, but rather weeks. That, you can take to the bank.
Iraq has the same two bit a gallon gasoline as Iran- when ya can get any.
NH has been very conservative in the past, but the libertarian wing has been the strongest. Old Yankee money second, lunatic fringer Jesus Campers round out the rear very weakly.
-GSD
“What’ll ya sell me some gas for- the guy down the street’s only chargin two bits- but he’s out?”
“Three bucks- I charge two bits when I’M out too”.
Actually, old Yankees used to be in first place. Now they are second.
-GSD
Wonder what Karl Rove is doing right now…
TeddySanFran @ 66
There was a Nobel awarded, aye. Lending circles probably would work in depressed parts of America, but you do need to include the whole package - not just microlending, but the circles as well. It’s only a partial solution (infastructure needs still have to be dealt with by the government, and New Orleans needs significant infrastructure development) but it is a good part of a solution.
You do need a low cost structure to make micro-lending work, as well, and the major banks aren’t really set up to do that, nor have they figured out how yet.
re Paul and libertarianism: I actually posed the question a while back to a libertarian about how that could be reconciled with his anti-abortion position, and they explained that their philosophy precludes government involvement only against “victimless” crimes; thus, to the “life at conception” subset of the libertarian community, abortion is NOT a victimless crime, and therefore it can be outlawed just like any other “murder.”
A little on the slick side for my tastes……but it is, I suppose, sustainable as a matter of logic.
Anyway, b4 any of the sane folks here go cheerleading for Paul….dig a little deeper. Too tired to look for a link right now….but I have researched it……..and he ain’t quite as cool as he seems.
oddmommy @ 58
oddmommy, That is a very misleading statement re Kucinich and how he would govern, imo.
Karl’s tryin ta figure out what the hell he’s gonna do after his Frankenstein monster goes down the tubes and back ta Crawford for good.
“Broken down failure of a political director who destroyed national party looking for work”.
I gotta run, but I think the left blogosphere should work very hard to get cheap computers to lots of poor communities.
I think it would make an incredible outreach program.
-GSD
It will be interesting to see what happens if (when) the US dollar loses it world domination as the main reserve currency. I don’t think at all that is tied to what currency is used to pay for oil, and I think it will take decades. But even a slow gradual movement will have an impact. Then some of the costs of the lack of the kind of development Ian talks about in this post will appear. I think it will appear both in the US and China (since what are they going to do with all that WalMart crap they make if they can’t sell it to the US?)
The main brake to US dollar losing status as world reserve currency is that it has been the world reserve currency for decades. China would probably like to see dollar lose its prominence, but at a very nice slow predictable pace over 20 years, since they will be just as much toast as the US does if it happens quickly.
By the way, saw figures today that US has dropped further in ranking of life expectancy compared to other countries (and not just developed ones).
GSD @ 68
I think it means: why would you spend $35 to vote for an extension of a failed presidency?
I always thought Iowans were smart.
To some extent the part about cities is already happening. Compare Seattle with other cities. It brings in tons of really bright, creative young people from all over. These kids just up and leave smaller towns to be around other smart, creative kids. The smart old folks stay, because it’s so much fun to be around the bright young people. The schools improve, the neighborhoods thrive, and the city grows and prospers. Culture is strong, because of the large number of creative people attracted to the bright lights.
On the other hand, take Kansas. About half of the people there don’t even want their kids to learn about evolution. What smart person wants to raise their kids there? What smart kid wants to stay there? What kind of high-tech work is there to attract smart creative people?
The change is underway. The cities will survive, and the rest of the country will stagnate. The only real question is whether the cities can suck up the money that the rich have stolen during this administration.