Click on WORD or PDF for full content
David Warren attempts to calm us down when contemplating Japan’s nuclear problems.
… Perversely, we have now had an international media sensation equivalent to a Japanese Chernobyl, from a “meltdown watch” on a nuclear power plant wherein there has been no meltdown, and the chances of one are not high. Moreover, the effects of such a meltdown would be relatively modest. This, at least, if one is reading writers with some expertise in nuclear engineering, as opposed to, say, axe-grinding environmentalists.
We have seepages of steam, radioactive on the dental X-ray scale, made dramatic by the very rigour of Japanese safety precautions. We have accumulations of a hydrogen gas from a chemical reaction between the melting zirconium alloy in fuel rod casings and this water steam, which -unsuccessfully vented -blew the roofs off several buildings. This provided exciting video footage. But the fuel rods themselves remain well-contained; and casualties are likely to remain negligible.
We have son-et-lumière (sound and light), but on the scale of other damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, this is minor collateral. Whole towns were swept over, people by the thousands swept inland and then out to sea. And the biggest “fallout” from the loss of these reactors is likely to come from the power shortages that will hamper recovery efforts for years to come.
Chernobyl failed thanks to a couple of major design flaws, paired in turn with the Soviet way of doing things. And even Chernobyl was not so bad, on the scale of manmade disasters (in Russia, especially). From a strictly “green” point of view, one might even call it a success. For beyond its propaganda value in helping people to confuse apples with oranges, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary in which a number of endangered species are apparently flourishing.
The one flaw exposed in the design of the second-generation nuclear facility at Okuma (“Fukushima One”) was the dependence on electrical pumps for the water cooling system. They were what the Richter 9 earthquake, and subsequent tsunami, knocked out. In third-generation reactors, the water is circulated by natural convection. Problem solved. …
Tony Blankley says the GOP will have to make some tough decisions.
… Back in the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan made three major promises: 1) Increase our military strength, 2) cut income taxes, and 3) reduce the budget deficit. Fortunately for President Reagan, he had the foresight during the campaign to prioritize those three promises, in the order in which I have listed them. He was able to keep Nos. 1 and 2, but could not keep the budget-cutting promise.
Today, there are three objectives or promises that many Republican congressmen have made: 1) Get the deficit and national debt under control, 2) don’t raise taxes, and 3) protect full benefits of Social Security and most of Medicare for those over 55.
The GOP will have to decide which of those laudable objectives have priority over the others. I would be amazed – but delighted – if they can keep any two of them, let alone all three.
For me the overwhelming historical obligation of our government – and the reason the Republicans were given the majority in the House – is to get the deficit and debt under control.
The GOP will risk losing its majority either if they propose coming in with a half-trillion deficit in the 10th year – or if they propose getting the deficit down by lowering costs of Social Security and Medicare and letting Bush tax cuts expire.
They should listen to the command of history, and take their chances with the electorate by proposing to solve the fiscal crisis – even at the price of not honoring their subordinate promises.
Mort Zuckerman suggests reasons for the anemic recovery.
… Three elements offer clues: consumer spending, housing and unemployment.
Importantly, the bubble of exuberant consumerism that powered the U.S. economy for the last 10 years of the 20th century and for most of the first years of the 21st century has burst. In reaction to economic hard times, American consumers are planning for the worst rather than hoping for the best, and they continue to pay down household debt instead of spending cash.
Who could blame people for holding back when we see roughly 50 million Americans on one or more taxpayer-supported programs, be it food stamps or unemployment benefits? This downturn may not have the 1930s feel of despair, but in large part that is because, as the economist David Rosenberg of the wealth-management firm Gluskin Sheff put it, “The modern day soup line is a check in the mail.”
An unprecedented number of Americans are borrowing against their 401(k)s, canceling their life insurance policies, and forgoing physicals. And that isn’t all. The American consumer today is fearful of the impact of higher food prices, higher gasoline prices, higher insurance costs, higher everything. The inflation of food and fuel alone has absorbed the December tax cuts agreed to by Congress and the administration.
So where has the recent modest growth in the economy come from? It is primarily due to massive amounts of federal government stimulus and a huge inventory swing, both of which will peter out this year. Only the wealthiest 10% of the population, whose stock portfolios have come roaring back, are doing well, but their spending is not enough to spur the economy or create much additional hiring.
Why are all the vital signs discouraging? Quite simply, it is because households are still carrying far too much debt on their balance sheets. …
Craig Pirrong thinks inactivity on the part of the administration is not necessarily a bad thing.
… If I am right in my analysis of Obama, at the most trying time in world history since the 1930s, a time fraught with political and economic peril, the United States is drifting along, neither led nor leading. It’s worse than that, actually. The administration has largely abdicated authority over the things that are properly in the executive sphere, while at the same time it has engaged in unprecedented expansion of government and executive power in areas–notably in economics–where the potential for mischief vastly exceeds the potential to make things better. Doing too much of some things and too little of others doesn’t mean that on average you’re doing just the right amount: quite the opposite.
When stymied domestically, as Obama has been by the victories of the Republicans in 2010, presidents have historically turned their attention overseas, where they can exercise authority and discretion more independently and with less constraint. Obama has not done that. To the contrary, the opportunities to do so have been immense, but the more these opportunities have grown, the more he has shrunk from seizing them.
One initial reaction is to regret this passivity. But given Obama’s background, ideology, and history, a more considered reaction is to conclude that it isn’t such a bad thing: things could be worse, and would likely be so were he to act according to his (leftist) lights.
Yes, things could be worse, but they are bad enough now. The United States and the world are suffering greatly due to the leadership vacuum on both economic matters (most notably the budget and entitlements) and international affairs. Yes, as Adam Smith said, there is a lot of ruin in a nation. And yes, as I wrote in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s election, we are testing just how much ruin there is in this one.
Rick Richman’s Libyan lessons.
8. You may eventually be subject to sanctions, so check to see if they’ve worked yet with Cuba, North Korea, or Iran.
9. Consider restarting your nuclear program, since the conditions that caused you to suspend it are gone. At most, the president will form a committee of several nations to talk to you; he will consider more sanctions if the world speaks as one. You need not worry about his “deadlines.”
10. There is basically only one thing you do need to worry about: do not, under any circumstances, approve any future Jewish housing in Jerusalem. The president will go ballistic if you do.
W. W. at the Democracy in America Blog takes the “broken window” debate to another level.
JAPAN is in tragic disarray after last week’s massive earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Nature may be cruelly unpredictable, but people are just cruel. Every time there is a catastrophe abroad, American opinionators use the prospect of reconstruction as an opportunity to conduct a proxy debate over fiscal stimulus and economic fundamentals. So, like clockwork, some benighted folks started talking up the potential economic gains from Japan’s disaster, causing a rubber ball to fall down a tube into a pail, which overflowed, splling water down a chute, which turned a little water-wheel, which rang a little bell, startling libertarian economics professors into lecturing us about “ the broken windows fallacy“.
Now, I believe the fallacy is indeed a fallacy, and I find the idea that Japan might somehow gain from this bout of terrifying havoc and mass death both ridiculous and disgustingly Panglossian. But, really, this isn’t about us, and I’ve grown weary of playing a part in the rote broken-windows Punch and Judy show. Much more pertinent and interesting is the fascinating, lively, empirically-informed academic literature on the economic effects of disasters, which I was reading up on last night. Alas, the New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum beat me to the punch, providing a short overview of some recent research that finds that disasters have no long-term affect on GDP. This excellent 2008 Boston Globe article by Drake Bennett offers a more comprehensive summary. …