It is worth reading.

The first page or so I didn’t like, the author seemed indecently glad that fat, stupid America had got its due, and I expected a pretty radical, out there set of solutions that didn’t have much to do with the economy, but rather simply were the authors vision of social justice.  In truth, there is some of that in the article, but less then I expected and it also was pretty clear in that those who think the future will represent some wholesale rejection of the past are wrong.

I don’t agree with everything the article says.  Actually I disagree with quite a lot, but it is worth reading for some of the positives that can come out of our current crisis.

For the record, I suspect that we are not at ‘The End of Excess’ any more then the 30s represented the end of excess.  From the perspective of the roaring 20s, the 50s were incredibly wealthy and our current standard of living unimaginable.  I strongly suspect that that trend will continue and we will be hugely richer ten years from now, and we can’t even guess was thirty or forty years from now will be like.  And I expect that more then anything, it will be the American spirit that leads the way.

Two months into an international anti-piracy campaign off the Somalia coast, the number of attacks against cargo ships is down sharply, senior military and diplomatic officials said Thursday.

Good.  I happen to believe that maintaining order on the high seas is critical for our civilization.  Progress in this area is a very good sign.

CNN.com
Iranian scientists have reached “nuclear weapons breakout capability,” according to a new report based on findings of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.

The Institute for Science and International Security report concludes Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon.

If we know everything (always a doubtful prospect) Iran still has a ways to go before they have a deployable device, and this doesn’t provide anything new as to their intentions.  It has always been quite obvious to me that Iran has been seeking weapons capability, but certainly there are many who don’t believe that and this bit of news doesn’t provide anything to convince them otherwise.

Obviously though the window in which we can act to influence them on this issue is closing.

International Herald Tribune
Under former leader Saddam Hussein, printing presses needed government permission for anything they put out, said Abdul Mahdi al-Aamiri, manager of Basras Alghadeer printing company.

“The huge difference democracy has made to our business – you cant even compare to how we were before,” he said.

This makes me smile.

(via Dean’s World)

National Journal Magazine
In normal times, Congress might never enlarge so many programs at once. But, as with Reagans tax cut, the crisis-induced demand for action may suspend the normal laws of political gravity — and allow Democrats to redirect federal priorities as boldly as Reagan did. “This is a once-in-a-25-year opportunity to [implement] a lot of our agenda,” a top House Democratic aide says. Largely for that reason, most congressional Republicans are likely to resist the plan, no matter how many more tax cuts Obama offers them.

The article in its entirity talks about how the stimulus package is a chance for Democrats to redefine how government action relates to the economy.  I think that is a pretty good assessment, and one that will probably have some pretty long term reprecussions.

It is a pretty big departure from how we have looked at this sort of problem for almost 30 years.  Many Democrats see this as a huge assett, since they feel that the last 30 years have resulted in very uneven economic gains, with the rich getting the lions share of the benefits.

I am doubtful that this new approach, even if it is as effective in general economic terms will actually succeed in any way in reducing the income gap.  I expect that the opposite will occur, as this government transfer of wealth will disproportionately transfer wealth from people without economic (and hence political) power to those who have it.  The intentions in many cases are good, but the problem of focused special interests remains.

That said, I’m not entirely oppossed to this.  My basic read on the economy is that we do need to increase government spending (or reduce taxes) to increase the money supply.  Inflation remains low, indeed deflation seems more  of a risk right now and that needs to be avoided.  The how we spend it is probably less important then the spending itself.

I’m not positive how much though.  The 700 billion bank saving bill hasn’t had a chance to work its way through the economy at all yet, and passing another 900 billion this soon seems to me to risk pretty signifigant inflation.  High inflation though is probably not as risky as deflation, so I’m on the fence on that.  Different economists are saying differnt things, of course, but there does seem to me a majority that think we need more then what has already been passed.

I also am favorably inclined to increased funding for scientific research, education, and some of the infrastructure they are propossing.  Long term investment of this sort probably makes sense, even with the inevitable inefficiencies of government tied onto them.

FT.com / Europe
France’s defence minister on Wednesday appeared to rule out any immediate reinforcement of French troops in Afghanistan if requested by Barack Obama, the new US president.

Hervé Morin said deploying additional French forces to the war-torn country was “not a question for now”

I’m  not surprised by this.  While it is certainly true that President Obama is more popular in many parts of Europe then President Bush, at the end of the day being well loved (or very much hated) doesn’t make much difference when it comes to nation states determining their interests and choosing how to support them.

This isn’t intended as a dig against Obama, I expect he will be able to do about as well as anyone in getting European support, but it is a little bit of a dig at all those who were sure it was just Bush’s fault and that Obama would work miracles in this area.

Diplomacy is carrots and sticks, not a love fest.

It will be interesting.

NYTimes.com
“It’s dirty, hot and smelly here,” she said wistfully. “A factory is better.”

Take a minute and read the whole thing.

DailyTech
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

1979 was the first year they began collecting this data, so we don’t have a lot of history on it, but this is interesting anyway.  It is also interesting since, as I recall, in 1979 the great climate worry was the impending ice age.

(via Instapundit)

I highly recommend it.

One thing it doesn’t address though is exactly how to spend the money we create.  Partially that is because creating the money is the number one goal, and the spending is just the mechanism.  I have a few unformed thoughts on some basic criteria for how the money should be spent such as long term infrastructure investments, spending that maximizes social justice, etc. and these are often contradictory or at least could be.  I was wondering if any of my readers had any thoughts on this though, if the government is going to spend a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, how should they determine what to spend it on?