Bush's Energy and Eco-Idiocy

Bush, Energy

Debates about energy on Fox News, the Republican Party’s megaphone, reflect just how far Bush and his supporters have strayed from a priori economic truths, in adopting the Democratic agenda.

The two ubiquitous interlocutors typically invited to “debate” energy—one a Democrat; the other a Republican—have no real disagreement about policy or the facts undergirding it. Their only quarrel concerns the degree to which Bush is carrying out the Democrats’ plank; Democrat pinkos say not fast enough; Republican pinkos give him full marks.

Democrats don’t even have to argue their case for the repugnant Marxist theory of environmentalism; Bush has accepted and acted on it–its fallacies inform his policies. As I’ve written:

“The theory used to be that capitalism was going to cause the impoverishment of the worker. The exact opposite transpired. Greater economic freedom, especially in developed nations, has enabled those who, in previous centuries would have lived short, nasty and brutish lives, to afford the accoutrements of modernity. The theory now is that the capitalist has taken a slight detour—the worker’s demise will indeed follow as soon as the capitalist is through despoiling the environment.”

Republicans have been converted: they are now “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Duly, they ignore that supply and demand determine the price of gas—and that, other than taking care in future not to reduce supply by pulverizing a country that was once a major oil producer—supply has to be increased to reduce prices.

Furthermore, the price system is the best way to conserve. Americans are already adjusting consumption because of prices. Dare to meddle with these, as Bill O’Reilly advocates, and shortages or surpluses will follow in short succession. If you cap prices (or profits, as Comrade Bill advocates), people will conserve less because prices will have been artificially lowered, and suppliers will have no incentive to drill for crude and bring it to market. If the eco-idiots don’t want lines at the pump the likes Iraqis are now enduring, let the price system work to conserve—and to secure supply.

Any impending scarcity is the responsibility of the powerful environmental lobby’s opposition to oil exploration—and the governments that have heeded it. This lobby has seen to it that a domestic moratorium and thousands of regulations and restrictions have been foisted over the years on industry in a bungling attempt at conservation. The prices at the pump are their handiwork. Absent legislative barriers to exploration, courtesy of ignorant environmentalists, high prices would, ordinarily, signal to oil companies that there are profits to be made, and that they should intensify drilling, refining, etc. In short, get more product to market.

As to the “commie cars” Bush is pushing, much to the delight of Democrats: Don’t expect Bush (who recently spoke of reducing “greenhouse admissions“), the Fox fillies, affiliated fops, or any other ignoramus on the networks, to tell you what they apparently don’t understand—also the only thing you need to know about electric, hydrogen, and hybrid gas-and-electric vehicles—these are only as good as the original source of energy that powers them.

Take the Hydrogen vehicle: energy is released when water (H2O) is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Notwithstanding that this process is not economically viable, and thus far more wasteful than oil extraction, to bring about this reaction, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, or a hydroelectric dam are required first. Dah!

America’s “People’s Car”—engineered due to the same central planning that brought into being the lowly Russian Lada (it was decreed by USSR’s Ministries Council)—is only as clean as “the original source of energy that generated the vim that powers it.”

Further reading: “Commie Cars”, “Mutant Marxists in the ‘Heart of Darkness'”

Bush’s Energy and Eco-Idiocy

Bush, Economy, Energy

Debates about energy on Fox News, the Republican Party’s megaphone, reflect just how far Bush and his supporters have strayed from a priori economic truths, in adopting the Democratic agenda.

The two ubiquitous interlocutors typically invited to “debate” energy—one a Democrat; the other a Republican—have no real disagreement about policy or the facts undergirding it. Their only quarrel concerns the degree to which Bush is carrying out the Democrats’ plank; Democrat pinkos say not fast enough; Republican pinkos give him full marks.

Democrats don’t even have to argue their case for the repugnant Marxist theory of environmentalism; Bush has accepted and acted on it–its fallacies inform his policies. As I’ve written:

“The theory used to be that capitalism was going to cause the impoverishment of the worker. The exact opposite transpired. Greater economic freedom, especially in developed nations, has enabled those who, in previous centuries would have lived short, nasty and brutish lives, to afford the accoutrements of modernity. The theory now is that the capitalist has taken a slight detour—the worker’s demise will indeed follow as soon as the capitalist is through despoiling the environment.”

Republicans have been converted: they are now “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Duly, they ignore that supply and demand determine the price of gas—and that, other than taking care in future not to reduce supply by pulverizing a country that was once a major oil producer—supply has to be increased to reduce prices.

Furthermore, the price system is the best way to conserve. Americans are already adjusting consumption because of prices. Dare to meddle with these, as Bill O’Reilly advocates, and shortages or surpluses will follow in short succession. If you cap prices (or profits, as Comrade Bill advocates), people will conserve less because prices will have been artificially lowered, and suppliers will have no incentive to drill for crude and bring it to market. If the eco-idiots don’t want lines at the pump the likes Iraqis are now enduring, let the price system work to conserve—and to secure supply.

Any impending scarcity is the responsibility of the powerful environmental lobby’s opposition to oil exploration—and the governments that have heeded it. This lobby has seen to it that a domestic moratorium and thousands of regulations and restrictions have been foisted over the years on industry in a bungling attempt at conservation. The prices at the pump are their handiwork. Absent legislative barriers to exploration, courtesy of ignorant environmentalists, high prices would, ordinarily, signal to oil companies that there are profits to be made, and that they should intensify drilling, refining, etc. In short, get more product to market.

As to the “commie cars” Bush is pushing, much to the delight of Democrats: Don’t expect Bush (who recently spoke of reducing “greenhouse admissions“), the Fox fillies, affiliated fops, or any other ignoramus on the networks, to tell you what they apparently don’t understand—also the only thing you need to know about electric, hydrogen, and hybrid gas-and-electric vehicles—these are only as good as the original source of energy that powers them.

Take the Hydrogen vehicle: energy is released when water (H2O) is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Notwithstanding that this process is not economically viable, and thus far more wasteful than oil extraction, to bring about this reaction, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, or a hydroelectric dam are required first. Dah!

America’s “People’s Car”—engineered due to the same central planning that brought into being the lowly Russian Lada (it was decreed by USSR’s Ministries Council)—is only as clean as “the original source of energy that generated the vim that powers it.”

Further reading: “Commie Cars”, “Mutant Marxists in the ‘Heart of Darkness'”

America Or Little China?

America, China

Why has a Falun Gong demonstrator, who heckled Chinese President Hu Jintao, being charged? I must have misheard all that stuff about American liberties, for if we arrest and charge people for peaceful—if noisy—protest, then what are our freedoms worth?

If this is the practice in the U.S., then our venerated liberties exist on a continuum, alongside China’s “freedoms.” As anti-Chinese mediacrats have taken pains to point out, the Chinese would have tortured that protester; we merely lock her up for a short duration (six months, apparently), under bearable conditions (sometimes with the prospects of a book deal in the offing).

Official dignitaries should be treated with decorum. But arresting the protester, a woman by the name of Iting Lin, while blabbering to the Chinese president about his need to respect his people’s human rights and freedom to assemble, speak, and worship—now that’s what you would call a performative contradiction.

Much more embarrassing than the Falun Gong incident was a White House announcer introducing the anthem of China as that of the “Republic of China”—the formal name for Taiwan.

Well, the Chinese can have a double chuckle at the expense of American “freedoms” and… ignorance.

Updated: America: Follow The Chinese & Save!

America, China

What a disgrace. For the past few days I’ve heard assorted American economists and commentators—socialists all—complain bitterly about the Chinese saver. Yes, the Chinese may have a democracy deficit, as American politicians never cease to remind them, but they don’t believe in debt, personal or national, as do wastrel Americans and their political overlords.

This is one reason why the Chinese economy is exploding: savings, capital accumulation, and investment are the very lifeblood of a healthy economy. Solvency and fiscal prudence are virtuous qualities, and, in the long run, lucrative.

The Chinese save up to 40 percent of their Gross Domestic Product. In fact, they behave exactly like individuals in a truly free-market would behave; they save like there is no tomorrow. Or, more appropriately, like there is no welfare state, which, indeed, the Chinese don’t have. Or if they do have social programs, these don’t meet American standards of socialism.

Or so our leading lights have been claiming throughout the week of President Hu Jintao’s visit: The reason the Chinese save so energetically is because they don’t have an adequate welfare system, the pointy-heads have puled.

Yes, this is the message from the land of rugged individualism: develop more government programs. Of course, these do no good, other than for the bureaucrats that administer them. They are, moreover, based on immoral distribution. Yet this is what we wish on China.

I guess it’s a case of “leveling the playing field”—another expression that is often lobbed at the Chinese. Translated, it means wanting to see one’s rival sapped of his vitality too.

That the Chinese plan their lives as though there were no government hand-outs to rely on has incenses American economists and commentators (at least the ones I’ve had the misfortune to hear this week). They want Bully Bush to put pressure on Hu Jintao to set up some programs for his people, and, by so doing, make them more like us: inclined to spend, because of the knowledge that Uncle Hu will pick up the tab (like Uncle Sam does so magnificently. Think Katrina).

As Henry Hazlitt reminded us in Economics in One Lesson, and as the Austrian, and classical economists before them, taught: “The rational saver, in making provision for his future, was not hurting, but helping, the whole community.” Money isn’t stored under the proverbial mattress, it is invested either directly (by buying securities) or indirectly (via the bank, which lends deposits out), thus creating steady, sustainable growth.

However, even if all Chinese were sitting on their money—a ludicrous proposition—isn’t it theirs to hoard? What about the individual’s right to keep what belongs to him without being punished by central planners and social engineers? Anyone who openly advocates such tweaking has a cheek waving his “Land of the Free” credentials in the faces of foreigners.

Since they must fend for themselves, absent government largess, the Chinese are probably the best barometers as to the true state of our intricately linked global economy. Do as they do!