Our Politics

Category: Development

  • Amid Rising Energy Costs, Biden Administration Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    Amid Rising Energy Costs, Biden Administration Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    President Joe Biden said on November 23 that the administration will tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of a global effort by energy-consuming nations to calm 2021′s rapid rise in fuel prices. The coordinated release between the US, India, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom is the first such move of its kind. The US will release 50 million barrels from the SPR. Of that total, 32 million barrels will be exchanged over the next several months, while 18 million barrels will be an acceleration of a previously authorized sale. US oil dipped 1.9% to a session low of $75.30 per barrel following the announcement, before recovering those losses and moving into positive territory. The contract last traded 2.5% higher at $78.67 per barrel. International benchmark Brent crude stood at $82.31 per barrel, for a gain of 3.2%.

    The announcement follows the Biden Administration saying for months that it was looking into the tools at its disposal as West Texas Intermediate crude futures surged to a seven-year high, above $85. Prices at the pump have followed the ascent and are hovering around their highest level in seven years. The national average for a gallon of gas stood at $3.409 on Monday, according to AAA, up from $2.11 one year ago. Crude prices make up between 50% and 60% of what consumers pay to fill up their tanks, AAA said. “The President stands ready to take additional action, if needed, and is prepared to use his full authorities working in coordination with the rest of the world to maintain adequate supply as we exit the pandemic,” the White House said in a statement.

    As of November 19, the SPR held 604.5 million barrels spread across four sites, according to the Department of Energy. It takes 13 days after a presidential announcement for the oil to hit the market, the department said. In total, the SPR, which was founded in 1975 after the oil embargo, can hold 727 million barrels. The SPR can be tapped in three ways: a full drawdown to counter a “severe energy interruption,” a limited drawdown of up to 30 million barrels, or a drawdown for an exchange or test sale, according to the DOE. “This is a well-timed move to try and lower oil prices,” John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital, said after the announcement. “This added supply should help to bridge the production shortfall ahead of winter, especially if we get confirmation of meaningful supply, as well, from several of the major Asian consuming nations.”

    In August, the Biden administration called on OPEC and its oil-producing allies to boost output in the face of rising energy prices. But the group decided to maintain its previously agreed-upon schedule of raising production by 400,000 barrels per month. In April 2020, the group made the unprecedented decision to remove nearly 10 million barrels per day from the market as the pandemic sapped demand for petroleum products. Other producers, including the US, also curbed production as oil prices plunged to never-before-seen lows. Since then, demand has rebounded while producers have been slow to return oil to the market, which has pushed crude to multiyear highs. “Today marks an official emergence of an ‘anti-OPEC+’, a group of top oil-consuming countries that are taking the supply-side dynamics into their own hands in the unconventional and unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves to create artificial looseness in the oil market and deliver a negative blow to oil prices,” said Louise Dickson, senior oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy.

  • Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Passes House of Representatives, To Be Signed Into Law By President Biden

    Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Passes House of Representatives, To Be Signed Into Law By President Biden

    The House of Representatives passed a more than $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill late on November 5, sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk in a critical step toward enacting sprawling Democratic economic plans. The Senate approved the revamp of transportation, utilities, and broadband in August. The legislation’s passage is perhaps the unified Democratic government’s most concrete achievement since it approved a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package in the spring. The measure passed in a 228-206 vote. Thirteen Republicans supported it, while six Democrats voted against it. The US Congress has tried and failed for years to pass a major bill to upgrade critical transportation and utility infrastructure, which has come under more pressure from extreme weather. The Biden Administration has also contended passage of the bill can help to get goods moving as supply-chain obstacles contribute to higher prices for American consumers.

    The House vote followed a day of wrangling over how to enact the two planks of the party’s agenda. The push-and-pull exemplified party leaders’ months-long struggle to get progressives and centrists, who have differing visions of the government’s role in the economy, behind the same bills. Democrats entered the day planning to pass both the infrastructure legislation and the party’s larger $1.75 trillion social safety net and climate package. A demand from a handful of centrists to see a Congressional Budget Office estimate of the social spending plan’s budgetary effects delayed its approval. Progressives sought assurances the holdouts would support the bigger proposal if they voted for the infrastructure bill. After hours of talks, and a call by President joe Biden into a progressive caucus meeting urging lawmakers to back the infrastructure bill, the party’s liberal wing got assurances from centrists that they would support the larger package. 

    Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said the group reached a deal to back the infrastructure plan in exchange for a commitment to take up the safety-net bill “no later than the week of November 15.” A group of five centrists separately issued a statement saying they would back the Build Back Better legislation pending a CBO score that assuages their concerns about long-term budget deficits. 

    In a statement after the House vote, President Joe Biden said the legislation would “create millions of jobs, turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, and put us on a path to win the economic competition for the 21st Century.” He also noted that the procedural vote on the second Democratic bill will “allow for passage of my Build Back Better Act in the House of Representatives the week of November 15th.” The bills together make up the core of President Biden’s domestic agenda. Democrats see the plans as complementary pieces designed to boost the economy, jolt the job market, provide a layer of insurance to working families and curb climate change.

    President Joe Biden and Democrats have looked for a signature achievement they can point to on the 2022 midterm campaign trail as the president’s approval ratings flag. President Biden will welcome the developments, as House passage of the bill followed a strong October jobs report and approval of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine for 5-to-11-year-olds in the US. While President Biden could sign the infrastructure bill soon, the safety net and climate package will likely take weeks longer. The House will have to wait for a CBO score. The Senate may pass a different version of the plan, which would require another House vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has set a Thanksgiving target to pass the larger Democratic bill.

    The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would put $550 billion in new money into transportation projects, the utility grid, and broadband. The package includes $110 billion for roads, bridges, and other major projects, along with $66 billion for passenger and freight rail and $39 billion for public transit. It would put $65 billion into broadband, a priority for many lawmakers after the coronavirus pandemic highlighted inequities in internet access for households and students across the country. The legislation would also invest $55 billion into water systems, including efforts to replace lead pipes. Before the vote, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told MSNBC that “the moment the president signs this, then it’s over to our department on the transportation pieces to get out there and deliver.” It can take years to complete major projects after Congress funds them. Republicans helped to write the bill in the Senate, and it garnered 19 Republican votes in the chamber. A range of congressional Republicans opposed the plan because they considered it too closely tied to Democrats’ larger proposal, which they are passing without Republicans through the budget reconciliation process.

    Despite much bipartisan support, many Democrats considered the infrastructure bill inadequate because it did not address issues including child care, pre-K education, Medicare expansion, and the enhanced child tax credit. Those policies, priorities for President Joe Biden and top Democrats, made it into the House version of the social safety net bill. Democratic leaders tied the proposals together in an effort to keep centrists and progressives on board with both plans. A thorny legislative process has unfolded for months as Democrats try to get disparate groups with varied visions of the federal government’s role in the economy to back both packages.

  • In A Rare Bipartisan Vote, US Senate Passes $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

    In A Rare Bipartisan Vote, US Senate Passes $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

    The Senate gave overwhelming bipartisan approval on August 11 to a $1 trillion infrastructure bill to rebuild the nation’s deteriorating roads and bridges and fund new climate resilience and broadband initiatives, delivering a key component of President Joe Biden’s agenda. The vote, 69 to 30, was uncommonly bipartisan. The yes votes included Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and 18 others from his party who shrugged off increasingly shrill efforts by former President Donald Trump to derail it. “This historic investment in infrastructure is what I believe you, the American people, want, what you’ve been asking for for a long, long time,” President Biden said from the White House as he thanked Republicans for showing “a lot of courage.” Senator McConnell, who publicly declared that his priority was stopping the Biden agenda, said in a statement that “I was proud to support today’s historic bipartisan infrastructure deal and prove that both sides of the political aisle can still come together around common-sense solutions.” The measure faces a potentially rocky and time-consuming path in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a majority of the nearly 100-member Progressive Caucus have said they will not vote on it unless and until the Senate passes a separate, even more ambitious $3.5 trillion social policy bill this fall. That could put the infrastructure bill on hold for weeks, if not months.

    The recently passed infrastructure bill is one of the largest passed by the Senate in recent years. It would be the largest infusion of federal investment into infrastructure projects in more than a decade, touching nearly every facet of the American economy and fortifying the nation’s response to the warming of the planet. Funding for the modernization of the nation’s power grid would reach record levels, as would projects to manage climate risks. Hundreds of billions of dollars would go to repairing and replacing aging public works projects. With $550 billion in new federal spending, the measure would provide $65 billion to expand high-speed internet access; $110 billion for roads, bridges, and other projects; $25 billion for airports; and the most funding for Amtrak since the passenger rail service was founded in 1971. It would also renew and revamp existing infrastructure and transportation programs set to expire at the end of September.

    Its success, painstakingly negotiated largely by a group of Republican and Democratic Senators in consultation with White House officials, is a vindication of President Joe Biden’s belief that a bipartisan compromise was possible on a priority that has long been shared by both parties, even at a moment of deep political division. “This is what it looks like when elected leaders take a step toward healing our country’s divisions rather than feeding those very divisions,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), a key negotiator, said before the bill’s passage. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), said that “everyone involved in this effort can be proud of what this body is achieving today — the Senate is doing its job.”

    With a bipartisan victory pocketed, Democrats turned immediately to a more partisan venture, a second social policy package that would fulfill the remainder of their spending priorities. The Senate’s $3.5 trillion social policy budget, which is expected to pass along party lines later in the week, will allow Senate committees to draft legislation packed with policies to address climate change, health, education, and paid family and medical leave, and pass it over the threat of a filibuster. It will also include tax increases and is expected to generate unanimous Republican opposition. “Despite this long road we’ve taken, we have finally, finally reached the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). But, directing his comments to colleagues eager to take up unaddressed priorities, he added, “We are moving on to a second track, which will make a generational transformation.”

    The Senate vote capped a grueling, months-long negotiation between the Biden administration and Senators in both parties over the scope and size of an infrastructure bill. After an abbreviated effort to work with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), on a plan that could win backing from Republican leaders, President Joe Biden turned his focus to a group of 10 moderate Republicans and Democrats who had helped strike the compromise that paved the way for a postelection pandemic relief package in December. The Senators and top White House officials spent weeks debating how to structure and finance the legislation over late-night meals, virtual meetings, and phone calls. Even after the group triumphantly announced an outline in June, it took a month to translate that framework into legislation. Along the way, the effort appeared on the brink of collapse, after it failed a test vote in the Senate and former President Donald Trump sniped at it from the sidelines, trying to persuade Republicans that they would pay a steep political price for supporting it.

    “When we have more people on both sides of the aisle who want to do things in a partisan way, as opposed to figuring out how we can work together, I don’t think that’s in the best interests of the country,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), one of the key negotiators, said in an interview. “It was really important for the continued relationships within the Senate that are so important to getting things dome. Negotiators were particularly bedeviled by the question of how to pay for their plan. Republicans declared that they would not support any legislation that raised taxes and rejected a proposal to beef up IRS enforcement against tax cheats, and Democrats ruled out raising user fees for drivers.

    Democrats and President Joe Biden, who had initially proposed a $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan, made significant concessions. The package includes far less funding than they had wanted for lead pipe replacement, transit, and clean energy projects, among others. To finance what remained, analysts said the government would most likely have to borrow heavily. On August 5, the Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would add $256 billion to the deficit over 10 years, contradicting the claims of its authors that their bill would be fully paid for. That is nearly half of the new spending in the legislation, which includes a patchwork of measures purported to raise revenue to pay for it, including repurposing unspent pandemic relief funds, more tightly regulating cryptocurrency and delaying carrying out a Trump-era rule that would change the way drug companies can offer discounts to health plans for Medicare patients.

    The infrastructure bill also carries major policy changes. It amounts to a tacit, bipartisan acknowledgment that the country is ill-prepared for a worsening climate. Billions of dollars would be invested in projects to protect homes from weather calamities, move vulnerable communities out of harm’s way and support new approaches to countering climate change. It also includes $73 billion to update the nation’s electricity grid so it can carry more renewable energy, $7.5 billion to construct electric vehicle charging stations, $17.5 billion for clean buses and ferries, and $15 billion for removing lead pipes. The agreement targets critical resources toward underserved communities, although not as much as President Joe Biden had requested. It would direct $1 billion over five years, slightly more than half of it in new federal funding, to a program to help reconnect communities divided by highway construction, as well as millions of dollars to help improve access to running water in tribal and Alaska Native communities.

    The infrastructure bill also includes money to restore lakes across the country, $66 billion in new funding for Amtrak, and more funding for programs intended to provide safe commutes for pedestrians. It also creates a $350 million pilot program for projects that reduce collisions between vehicles and wildlife. The bill dedicates an increasing amount each year for grants to clean up drinking water by removing lead-contaminated pipes and making other infrastructure upgrades. The legislation reserves at least $25 million per year for “small and disadvantaged communities.” In the days before the measure passed, senators engaged in a last-ditch attempt to allow some exemptions to strict tax regulations on cryptocurrency brokers that had been included in the original bill, after pushback from senators in both parties. But without agreement on other amendments, negotiators ultimately failed to secure unanimous consent to make those changes.

    Despite the fact that the infrastructure bill passed the Senate by a decent margin, legislation faces a tricky path in the House, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she will not take it up until the Senate clears the reconciliation bill. The House has also passed its own infrastructure bill, which includes more money for climate change mitigation and nearly $5.7 billion to pay for 1,473 home district projects, or earmarks, that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee vetted. A handful of moderate Democrats have urged House Speaker Pelosi to avoid delaying a stand-alone vote on the bipartisan agreement. But leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in a letter to Pelosi, warned that a majority of its 96 members confirmed they would withhold their support for the legislation until the second, far more expansive package cleared the reconciliation process in the Senate.

  • September Jobs Report Reveals Slowing Economy Ahead of Presidential Election

    September Jobs Report Reveals Slowing Economy Ahead of Presidential Election

    Nonfarm payrolls rose by a lower than expected 661,000 in September, and the unemployment rate was 7.9%, the Labor Department said on October 2 in the final jobs report before the November election. Economists surveyed had been expecting a net job gain of 800,000, and the unemployment rate to fall to 8.2% from 8.4% in August. The payrolls miss was mainly due to a drop in government hiring as at-home schooling continued, and Census jobs fell. “The issue is momentum, and I think we’re losing it,” said Drew Matus, chief market strategist for MetLife Investment Management. “When you go through a significant disruption to the labor market, it takes time to fix itself. That’s without regard to whether there’s a virus.”

    The decline in the unemployment rate came with a 0.3 percentage point drop in the labor force participation rate to 61.4%, representing a decline of nearly 700,000. However, a separate, more encompassing measure that counts discouraged workers and those working part-time for economic reasons also saw a notable decline, falling from 14.2% to 12.8%. The unemployment decline for African Americans was even sharper than the headline rate, falling from 13% to 12.1%. The Asian rate declined from 10.7% to 8.9%. Leisure and hospitality led job gains with 318,000 while retail added 142,000 and health care and social assistance increased by 108,000. As expected, government jobs were the biggest drag on the month, losing 216,000 due to a drop in local and state government education as many schools maintained at-home instruction due to the virus. A reduction in Census workers also pulled 34,000 from the total. In other sectors, health care and social assistance gained 108,000, professional and business services contributed 89,000 and the transportation and warehousing sector was up 74,000. Manufacturing grew by 66,000, financial activities added 37,000, and the other services category rose by 36,000. Markets reacted little to the report, with stocks still heading for a lower open following news that President Donald Trump said he and first lady Melania Trump tested positive for Coronavirus.

    Despite the deceleration in job creation, there were some positive signs as the economy continues its pandemic-era recovery. Those reporting being on temporary layoff fell by 1.5 million to 4.6 million. Workers holding part-time jobs for economic reasons fell by 1.3 million to 6.3 million, and the totals for longer-term layoffs also decreased considerably. The temporary layoff total peaked at 18.1 million as payrolls fell by 22 million in March and April. However, permanent job losses increased by 345,000 to 3.8 million, in total a 2.5 million increase since February, the month before the World Health Organization declared the Coronavirus pandemic. “Permanent jobs losses rose by more than 300,000. That’s not a good thing. The labor force participation rate declined, which pulled the overall unemployment rate down. That’s not a good sign, either,” said Kathy Jones, head of fixed income at Charles Schwab. “We’re looking at state and local government layoffs, we’re looking at a higher level of permanent job losses and more people leaving the workforce. None of that is good for the long run.”

  • House of Representatives Passes Landmark $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Reform Bill

    House of Representatives Passes Landmark $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Reform Bill

    The House of Representatives on July 1 passed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would sharply increase Infrastructure spending on roads and transit, push for deep reductions in pollution, direct billions to water projects, affordable housing, broadband and schools, and upgrade hospitals and US Postal Service trucks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Democrats were making good on a promise to rebuild America with “green, resilient, modern and job-creating infrastructure,” adding that the Moving Forward Act “shows that everything in our country is connected, from the education of our children to the technologies of the future to the road map to get there.” The bill is meant, in part, to address the expiration in September of a law authorizing spending on highways, transit, and other transportation programs. Backers, including Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR), said the bill represents an ambitious, years-in-the-making push to buttress and expand aging infrastructure in a sustainable way. The bill’s passage “is proof that finally, there is a majority of us in Congress who won’t accept the status quo and instead are willing to fight for a new vision” that puts “millions of people to work in jobs that cannot be exported, while harnessing American-made materials, ingenuity, and innovation,” DeFazio said.

    House Republicans objected to the bill’s concentration on reducing carbon pollution and slammed the process that resulted in what they dismissed as the “My Way or the Highway” bill. Pelosi is seeking to “heap an irresponsible amount of debt onto our children instead of seeking market-driven, collaborative, bipartisan solutions to improve our infrastructure,” said Congressman Sam Graves (R-MO) the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee. The bill passed largely along party lines after days of debate and amendments, with three Republicans voting yes and two Democrats casting no votes. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it drew immediate criticism from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “House Democrats appear addicted to pointless political theater,” McConnell said. “So naturally, this nonsense is not going anywhere in the Senate. It will just join the list of absurd House proposals that were only drawn up to show fealty to the radical left.” Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which passed a narrower, bipartisan transportation bill last July, called the House bill “a road to nowhere” and urged the House to “get serious about infrastructure.”

    If the full Senate passes transportation or other combined infrastructure bill, Congress could move to create a conference committee to seek to reconcile the diverging visions, congressional aides said. Or they could try to come to an agreement on a temporary extension of the five-year transportation law, known as the Fast Act, that expires in September, though members from both parties say they oppose such a move. Either would be complicated further by broad differences over how such infrastructure should be paid for, a disconnect that has stymied many plans in recent years, despite widespread bipartisan and popular support for addressing infrastructure needs.

  • President Trump Announces Deal With Mexico to Forestall Planned Tariff Increases

    President Trump Announces Deal With Mexico to Forestall Planned Tariff Increases

    President Donald Trump backed off his plan to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods and announced through Twitter on June 7 that the US had reached an agreement with Mexico to reduce the flow of migrants to the Southwestern border. President Trump tweeted the announcement only hours after returning from Europe and following several days of intense and sometimes difficult negotiations between American and Mexican officials. Trump’s threat that he would impose potentially crippling tariffs on the US’ largest trading partner and one of its closest allies brought both countries to the brink of an economic and diplomatic crisis, only to be yanked back from the precipice nine days later. The threat had rattled companies across North America, including automakers and agricultural firms, which have built supply chains across Mexico, the US, and Canada.

    Business leaders in the US, Mexico, and Canada had warned that the Trump Administration’s proposed tariffs would increase costs for American consumers, who import a whole host of goods ranging from automobiles to appliances from Mexico, and prompt retaliation from the Mexican government in the form of new trade barriers that would damage the US economy. But the trade war ended before it began, forestalling that economic reckoning and an intraparty war that President Donald Trump had created by threatening tariffs to leverage immigration policy changes. Trump’s tactic had drawn protests from Republicans, including many Senators who have long opposed tariffs and worried the measure would hurt American companies and consumers. In an unusual show of force against their own party’s President, Republican Senators had threatened to block the tariffs if President Trump moved ahead with them, and had demanded a face-to-face meeting with Trump before any action. For Mexico, Trump’s threat was a replay of past episodes in which he ranted about the country’s lack of immigration enforcement. This year, he threatened to shut down the entire Southwestern border, backing off only after aides showed him evidence that Mexican authorities were taking aggressive action to stop migrants.

    According to a US-Mexico Joint Declaration distributed late on June 7, Mexico agreed to, “take unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of its national guard throughout the country to stop migrants from reaching the US. The declaration, distributed by the State Department, said Mexico had also agreed to accept an expansion of a Trump administration program that makes some migrants wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are heard in the US. “The United States looks forward to working alongside Mexico to fulfill these commitments so that we can stem the tide of illegal migration across our southern border and to make our border strong and secure,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. But the declaration by the two countries included an ominous warning, as well, stating that if Mexico’s actions “do not have the expected results,” additional measures could be taken. The declaration said the two countries would continue talking about other steps that could be announced within 90 days to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of its national guard throughout the country to stop migrants from reaching the US.

  • Trump Administration Authored Report Says that Climate Change Damage is “Intensifying Across the Country”

    Trump Administration Authored Report Says that Climate Change Damage is “Intensifying Across the Country”

    On November 23, the US government released a long-awaited report stating the effects of global warming and climate change in the US are worsening and that the potential for irreversible environmental damage is steadily increasing. The report’s authors, who represent numerous federal agencies, say they are more certain than ever that climate change poses a severe threat to Americans’ health and pocketbooks, as well as to the country’s infrastructure and natural resources. And while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the government he runs, are increasingly dire.

    The Congressionally mandated document, the first of its kind issued during the Trump administration, details how climate-fueled disasters and other types of worrisome changes are becoming more commonplace throughout the country and how much worse they could become in the absence of efforts to combat global warming. The report notes that Western mountain ranges are retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them. Coral reefs in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida and the Pacific territories administered by the US are experiencing severe bleaching events. Wildfires are devouring ever-larger areas during longer fire seasons. And the country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras.

    The National Climate Assessment’s publication marks the government’s fourth comprehensive look at climate change impacts on the US since 2000. The last came in 2014. Produced by 13 federal departments and agencies and overseen by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the report stretches well over 1,000 pages and draws more definitive, and in some cases more startling, conclusions than earlier versions. The authors argue that global warming “is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us.” And they conclude that humans must act aggressively to adapt to current impacts and mitigate future catastrophes “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.” “The impacts we’ve seen the last 15 years have continued to get stronger, and that will only continue,” said Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the report. “We have wasted 15 years of response time. If we waste another five years of response time, the story gets worse. The longer you wait, the faster you have to respond and the more expensive it will be.”

    That urgency is at odds with the stance of the Trump administration, which has rolled back several Obama-era environmental regulations and incentivized the production of fossil fuels. President Trump also has said he plans to withdraw the nation from the Paris climate accord and questioned the science of climate change just last month, saying on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that “I don’t know that it’s man-made” and that the warming trend “could very well go back.” Furthermore, as the Northeast faced a cold spell this week, Trump tweeted, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” This shows a misunderstanding that climate scientists have repeatedly tried to correct, a confusion between daily weather fluctuations and long-term climate trends. President Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday’s report. However, the administration last year downplayed a separate government report calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, saying in a statement that “the climate has changed and is always changing.”

  • “Geo-economics of Saudi Vision 2030” Video Response

    “Geo-economics of Saudi Vision 2030” Video Response

    This video by CaspianReport discusses “Saudi Vision 2030,” a plan proposed by the government of Saudi Arabia that seeks to reduce the countries dependence on oil, diversify its growing economy, and develop public service industries such as health, education, infrastructure, recreation, and tourism. The goals of the plan include reinforcing economic and investment activities, increasing non-oil industry trade between countries through consumer goods, and increasing government spending on the military. The details of the plan were first announced on April 25, 2016, by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), and the Council of Ministers has tasked the Council of Economic and Development Affairs with identifying and monitoring the mechanisms and measures crucial for the implementation of “Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.”

    The main rationale behind the Saudi Vision 2020 plan is to decrease the dependence that the Saudi economy has on oil revenues. The oil industry comprises close to 50% of Suadi Arabia’s total GDP, and the Saudi government has sought to decrease its reliance on oil revenues since the 1970s with an overall poor track record of success. The core priority of the Saudi government is to be able to develop more alternative sources of revenue for the government such as taxes, fees and income from the sovereign wealth fund. Another significant proposal is to lower the dependency of the citizens of the country on public spendings such as spending on subsidies and higher salaries and to increase the portion of the economy contributed by the private sector to provide more employment opportunities and to provide growth in the GDP.

    Suadi Vision 2020 has three main pillars: the status of the country as the “heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds,” the determination to become a global investment powerhouse, and to transform the country’s location into a hub connecting three of the most influential areas of the world (Western Asia, Europe, and Africa). The plan is supervised by a group of people employed under the National Center for Performance Measurement, the Delivery Unit, and the Project Management Office of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. The National Transformation Program was designed and launched in 2016 across 24 government bodies to enhance the economic and development center

    Saudi Vision 2030 is built around four major themes which set out specific objectives that are to be achieved by 2030. The four themes are:
    A vibrant society: urbanism, culture and entertainment, sports, Umrah, UNESCO heritage sites, life expectancy.
    A thriving economy: Employment, women in the workforce, international competitiveness, Public Investment Fund, Foreign direct investment, the private sector, non-oil exports
    An ambitious nation: Non-oil revenues, government effectiveness, and e-government, household savings and income, non-profits and volunteering.
    Projects: About 80 major projects are to be developed in Saudi Arabia by the year 2030. Most of these projects are financed by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia.

    One such project that is part of the Saudi Vision 2030 is the National Transformation Program. First approved on June 7, 2016, the National Transformation Programa sets out the goals and targets to be achieved by the Kingdom by 2020. It is the first out of three phases each lasting for five years. Each step will accomplish a certain number of goals and targets that will eventually help the Kingdom in reaching the ultimate goals of Vision 2030. To assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to finance all the projects to be developed and facilitate the process of achieving the goals and targets of Vision 2030, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman announced in early 2016 that an IPO of Saudi ARAMCO is going to take place. However, only 5% of the company will be offered on the stock market. Other projects put forward under the Saudi Vision 2030 plan are the construction of a luxury resort located on the Red Sea between the cities of Umluj and Al-Wajh, the expansion of the Saudi entertainment industry, and the expansion of women’s rights. In the realm of women’s rights, the Saudi Vision 2030 plan seeks to grant women the right to vote, own property, travel abroad freely, and attend higher education facilities.

    Overall, the international reaction to the Saudi Vision 2030 plan has been somewhat mixed. Many critics argue that the lack of formal political institutions, inefficient bureaucracy and a significant gap between the labor force required by the Saudi labor market and current educational system serve as a hindrance on many of the growth prospects that the country has proposed. Other critics argue that the Saudi Vision 2030 plan does not take into account the fact that rapid reform efforts may not be entirely accepted by the Saudi population, and that a slow and gradual reform plan would be a more viable policy to implement. Despite some criticism towards the reform proposals, many international observers feel that it represents a genuine opportunity for the Saudi government to reform and create a far more positive view on the country in the eyes of the international community.

    Here is a link to the video:

  • Theories of Democratic Transitions: “Democratization: theory and experience”

    Theories of Democratic Transitions: “Democratization: theory and experience”

    In the third chapter of the book “Democratization: theory and experience,” Laurence Whitehead looks at the concept of civil society and its relationship to democratization. If democracy is to be viewed as a complex and open-ended process, a more explanatory account is needed to describe it more effectively. Before a democratic transition can begin, there must exist a political community receptive to such change and willing to participate in a democratic system. The ideas of civil society and social capital provide condensed analogies to explain the structure of and simplify the ideas regarding the long-term changes that stem from democratization. Instead of focusing on political actors and what they seek to accomplish, political theorists should instead focus on the large-scale and broadly-based features of the entire political community.

    Laurence Whitehead then goes on to highlight the factors that help to define the idea of civil society. Theorists of civil society have seen more success in erasing its highly specific origins and have converted it into a free-standing category of thought that comes to mind when Westerners make comparative statements about the density of associative life in diverse political communities. Additionally, most non-Western discourses tend to lack an equivalent concept to the idea of civil society. Even though some argue that non-governmental organizations can be considered to be civil societies, they tend to lack the surrounding ethos, authenticity, and autonomy that are considered to be hallmarks of civil societies. Moreover, non-governmental organizations also lack the well-structured support from the larger community that civil societies often have. The definition of civil society also excludes associations such as households, religious institutions, and hierarchical institutions such as conscripted military forces and the bureaucracy of national government. Between such extremes, there may be an independent sphere of voluntary association in which interactions are governed by the principles of autonomy and self-respect.

    Laurence Whitehead also considers the factors that characterize stronger civil societies. Strong civil societies are characterized by a wider set of boundaries for interaction between individuals in society and by a larger acceptance of personal freedom and individual rights. As such, a strong civil society will allow for a greater chance for democracy to be successful and long-lasting despite challenges. Even if people reach an agreement on the factors that allow for the successful implementation of civil society, the results of their agreement will not be quantitative and more descriptive in nature. The idea of a descriptive category, according to Whitehead, is akin to an “empty box,” as there are not previously existing theories within it. As such, people can apply their own theories in interpretations regarding the political process. Additionally, such factors raise the question of how an “empty box” descriptive category shape such dynamic and long-term political process such as democratization. Any linkage between both factors would require both a description and an explanation of how the norms of civility can be compelling enough to reproduce over generations and override the loyalty demands of the state and the primary descriptive groups.

    After going over some of the theoretical approaches to the idea of civil society, Laurence Whitehead goes over what would be a tentative definition of the concept of civil society. If groups such as terrorist organizations, armed paramilitary groups, and criminal organizations are not to be defined as being members of civil society, Whitehead highlights the need to stipulate a general definition of civil society that highlights the importance of civility. According to Whitehead, civil society is defined as a set of self-organized intermediary groups that are relatively independent of both public authorities and private units of reproduction and production, can discuss collective actions in the defense and promotion of their interests, do not seek to replace state agents or private reproducers or to accept responsibility for governing the polity as a whole, and agree to act within pre-established legal guidelines. Additionally, Whitehead states that civil society rests on four different conditions. The first two conditions are that of dual autonomy and collective action. The next two conditions are non-usurpation and civility. The definition of civil society tends to exclude criminal organizations and paramilitary groups and any organizations that threaten individual rights.

    Laurence Whitehead next looks at the idea of civility and incivility. Following such a definition of civil society, it is unlikely that political scientists will find forms of voluntary associative organizations distributed evenly throughout the geographical and social terrain that is covered by the modern nation-state. Whitehead argues that neither the market or the state can be effectively used to even out the uneven social geography that is present throughout the world. The reason why the market is ineffective in evening out social geography because it obeys consumer sovereignty. Additionally, the state cannot solve such issues because its policies are skewed towards societal groups with the highest level of influence. Such factors lead to the question of what mechanism can be used to address the issue of uneven social geography, as civil society will eventually become out of sync with democratic citizenship. The weaknesses of civil society are often evident in many of the newer democracies. For example, efforts at democratization in many post-authoritarian countries are often overshadowed by antisocial forms of individualism that substitute the forms of civil associationalism favored by civil society theorists. Thus, the main advantages of civil society tend to be highly concentrated among a minority of the people in many of the new democracies.

    The dynamic between civil society and democratic citizenship is also addressed by Laurence Whitehead. Civil society tends to develop unevenly over time in a logic distinct from state formation. The resulting patterns of associative life and social communication typically emerge as highly structured with insiders, traditional favored sectors, and excluded sectors. Additionally, new democracies often only work effectively if they can restrain such exclusionary tendencies and indulge the people with the most social capital to adapt to a broader and longer-term view of their civic engagement in society. Even though civil society developed incrementally, modern political regimes are often created quickly and with short notice. Examples of political regimes created abruptly include the new nations created Europe after World War One, Asia and Africa during the 1950s and 1960s, and the democracies created in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s. In all cases, formal political equality was established at a specific moment and the citizens earned a full set of democratic rights even though the creation of exclusionary political societies did not coincide with pre-existing maps of associative life between the citizenry.

    Civil society may also experience slow growth that eventually allows for the creation of the conditions favorable to democracy. Examples of the gradual development of civil society include Great Britain during the 17th Century and Spain during the 1970s. Additionally, it is also the case that the implementation of a democratic government will foster the development of civil society and create the conditions necessary for its success. Examples include many of the former communist countries and to the experience of many of the former territories of countries such as the US and Great Britain. There also exists the possibility that a civil society attains a high level of development, but never produce a democratic political regime, as in the case of Hong Kong. Moreover, a civil society may develop on the basis that its freedoms and rights can only be secured if there exists a series of exclusionary measures that prevent some members form full participation. Examples include the Palestinian population in Israel, the Cypriot population in Turkey, and African Americans in the Southern part of the US up until the 1960s.

    In conclusion, Laurence Whitehead explores the concept of civil society and its role in democratic transitions in “On Civil Society.” Whitehead underscores the importance of political theorists examining the factors that result in the development of strong civil societies that allow for the long-term stability of democratic governments. Additionally, Whitehead goes on to characterize the factors that characterize an effective civil society and the dynamic between civil societies and the expectations of democratic citizenship. An in-depth understanding of the idea of civil society will allow political scientists and political theorists to more effectively understand the factors that allow democratic governments to succeed in certain countries but ultimately fail in others. Moreover, the concept of civil society can be applied to explain potential democratic transitions in countries that a presently authoritarian.

  • Theories of Democratic Transitions: “The Civic Culture”

    Theories of Democratic Transitions: “The Civic Culture”

    In the book “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study,” Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba present a study of the political culture of democracy and discuss the social structures and processes that help to improve its overall stability. A common concern among political scientists is the future of democracy at the global level. In the years following World War II, events such as de-colonialization have raised some questions about the long-term stability of Democratic political systems and placed the issue into the broader context of the world’s culture. Despite the fact that Almond and Verba feel that the direction of political change at the global level is unclear, they argue that a political culture based upon individual participation will emerge due to demands by ordinary citizens. Additionally, Almond and Verba propose that the emerging nations will be presented with two different models of the participatory state, the democratic and totalitarian models of participation. The democratic model of participation offers the ordinary man the opportunity to take part in the political decision-making process as an influential citizen, whereas the totalitarian offers him the role of the “participant subject.” Both the democratic and totalitarian models of participation have appealed to emerging nations, but it is unclear which one will ultimately win.

    According to Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, the democratic model of participation will require more than the introduction of formal institutions of democracy such as freedom of speech, an elected legislature, and universal suffrage. A participatory democratic system also requires a consistent political culture. On the other hand, Almond and Verba argue that there are several problems with transferring democratic political culture to emerging nations. The first issue is that many of the leaders in developing states have little experience with the working principles of democratic policy and civic cultures such as political parties, interest groups, and electoral systems. As a result, the idea of democratic policy as conveyed to the leaders of new countries is incomplete and heavily stresses ideology and legal norms as opposed to conveying the actual feeling and attitude towards democratic ideals. A further reason why the diffusion of democracy to new nations is difficult is that they are confronted with structural problems. For example, many of the new nations are entering the global stage at a time in which they have not fully developed industrially. As a result, individual leaders may be drawn to a policy in which authoritarian bureaucracy promotes industrial development and technological advancement, and where political organization becomes a device for human and social engineering.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the idea of the civic culture. The civic culture is a mixed set of values that contains attributes from both modern and traditional cultures and allows them to interact and interchange without polarizing and destroying each other. Additionally, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as pluralistic and based on communication and persuasion, consensus, diversity, and accessibility to gradual political change. Almond and Verba then explore the development of civic culture in Great Britain. One of the circumstances that resulted in the creation of a modern society in Britain was the emergence of a thriving merchant class and the involvement of the court and aristocracy in economic decisions. Moreover, the English Reformation and the increasing prevalence of religious diversity resulted in a higher level of secularization within British society, leading to greater modernization. As a consequence of both factors, Britain entered the 18th Century with independent merchants and aristocrats who established a parliamentary system that made it possible to assimilate rapid social changes without any sharp discontinuities. By establishing a civic culture, ordinary people were able to enter into the political process and develop British democratic structures.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba describe several different types of political cultures. According to Almond and Verba, political culture refers to the overall attitudes that individuals have regarding the political system and their attitudes toward their respective roles in the system. The term political culture is used because it allows Almond and Verba to separate the non-political concepts from their study and allows them to employ an interdisciplinary approach to their analysis of mass attitudes towards democracy. In classifying objects of political orientation, Almond and Verba start with the general political system, which deals with the organization as a whole. In explaining the components of the political system, Almond and Verba distinguish the specific roles or structures, the functions of incumbents, and particular public policies, decisions, or enforcement of decisions. These structures, incumbents, and decisions are then classified by involvement either in the political (input) process, or in the administrative (output) process.

    In their study of mass attitudes and values, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba have identified three distinct types of political cultures. The first type of political culture mentioned by Almond and Verba is the parochial political culture. A parochial political culture emerges when the citizens of a particular nation have no understanding of the national political system, do not possess any tendency to participate in the input processes and have no consciousness of the output operations. Additionally, there are no specialized political roles within a parochial political culture, and the leadership roles are not separated from their religious and social orientations. Examples of parochial political cultures include African and Native American tribes and indigenous communities within particular nations. A subjective political culture is when people are aware of the mechanism of government and the political process, but are not taught to or are not allowed to participate in the system. Examples of subjective political cultures include traditional monarchies or authoritarian government systems. In a participant political culture, the populace is involved in the decision-making process and more or less has a say in public policy decisions. Examples of participant political cultures include the United States, Great Britain, and many other countries throughout the world. The three different classifications of political culture described by Almond and Verba does not assume that one classification replaces the other. On the other hand, the introduction of new classifications serves as a way to encourage previous political orientations to adapt.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also mention that a number of political cultures are systematically mixed. A systematically mixed political culture occurs when there are elements of more simple and more complex patterns of political orientations. The first example of a systematically mixed political culture is the parochial-subject culture, which occurs when a majority of the population has rejected the exclusive claims of diffuse tribal, village, or feudal authority and has developed allegiance towards more complex political systems. Examples of parochial-subject political cultures include the Ottoman Empire and the loosely articulated African kingdoms. In a subject-participant culture, a substantial part of the population has acquired the ability and desire to become more engaged in governmental decisions, whereas the rest of the population continue to be oriented toward an authoritarian political structure and have a relatively little desire to get involved in critical public policy decisions. Additionally, a successful shift from a subject to a participant culture requires the diffusion of positive orientations toward a democratic infrastructure, the acceptance of norms of civic obligation, and the development of a sense of civic competence among a substantial proportion of the population. France during the 19th Century and Germany during the early 20th Century are examples of subject-participant political cultures. A parochial-participant political culture occurs when elements of a participatory system are introduced to a traditionally parochial society. As a result of the lack of structure and experiences with democracy, parochial-participant political cultures have the most experiences with instability and teeter back and forth between democracy and authoritarianism.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba focus on the political cultures of five different countries in their study: The United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. Almond and Verba selected these countries because they have experienced a wide range of historical and political experiences and have gone through a number of events that influenced their political systems. The United States and Great Britain both represent relatively successful experiments in democratic governance despite the fact that the rationale behind their acceptance of democratic values is different. For example, the political culture in Great Britain combines deference toward authority with a lively sense of the rights of citizen initiatives, whereas the political culture of the United States is based on political competence and participation rather than obedience to legitimate authority. Germany is included because its experiments in democratic governance during the late 19th and early 20th Century never resulted in the development of a participatory political culture necessary to legitimize democratic institutions of government. Almond and Verba include Italy and Mexico in their study because both represent less developed societies with transitional political systems.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the feelings towards government and politics that are prevalent in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. The first metric that they measured was the national factors in which the resident of all five countries were most proud of. A majority (85%) of American respondents cited their political system as the greatest source of pride they feel towards their country. In contrast, only 46% of British, 30% of Mexican, 7% of German, and 3% of Italian respondents cited their governmental institutions as their greatest source of national pride. Moreover, American and British respondents were more likely to refer to public policy accomplishments than the respondents from other countries. The Italian respondents cited their countries contributions to the arts and its cultural treasures, whereas the German respondents cited their countries economic system as the greatest source of national pride. Additionally, Mexican pride was distributed equally between the political and economic systems and the physical attributes of their country.

    The findings show that the Americans and British express great pride in their political institutions and thus feel the least alienated towards their political systems. On the other hand, the Germans and Italian respondents express a low level of pride in their political institutions and feel more alienated towards their governments. The results from the Mexican respondents show that they have a keen interest in political involvement despite the fact that their political culture is largely parochial. The fact that Mexican respondents expressed an interest in politics is due to past feelings associated by the populace with events such as the Mexican Revolution. The continued connection to the Mexican Revolution shows that the Mexican people believe that the revolution did not accomplish its stated political goals and that the process of political change is ongoing. When broken down by educational level, a majority of American, British, and Mexican respondents with higher levels of education expressed more pride in their respective political systems. Additionally, the fact that educational attainment does no influence the levels of national pride among the German and Italian respondents further suggests alienation from the political system as opposed to a lack of awareness of the system.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also go on to explore the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities among the respondents from all five countries. Both Almond and Verba hypothesized that if the respondents expected fair treatment by governmental authorities, they would, in turn, express more support for legitimate authority. The respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany expected a higher level of treatment by governmental authorities than the respondents from Italy and Mexico. Additionally, the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities varies by educational attainment. For example, respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany with higher educational levels expect more equitable treatment by political authorities than respondents with lower levels of education. Even though the number of Italian and Mexican respondents expecting fair and equal treatment in government were relatively low, the differences between the advantaged and less advantaged groups regarding education were larger than in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Such findings show that there is a connection between expectations regarding treatment by governmental authorities and alienation from the political system.

    The attitudes towards political communication are also discussed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. A key component of democratic governments is the willingness for ordinary men and women to get involved in the political process. The main factor that influences such willingness is the level of comfort with discussing political issues. Respondents from the United States and Great Britain expressed the highest level of willingness to discuss politics. Additionally, even though German respondents expressed the highest frequency of following reports about public affairs, the number of people who discuss politics on a regular basis was lower than in the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, the Mexican and Italian respondents expressed a relatively low willingness to discuss political affairs. With regards to the percent of respondents who refused to report their voting decision, the American, British, and Mexican respondents expressed little reluctance when revealing their political choice, whereas the German and Italian respondents expressed the highest level of reluctance. The reluctance on the part of the German and Italian respondents to reveal their voting choices shows that they feel that identifying with a political party is unsafe and inadvisable. Additionally, their unwillingness to reveal their voting choices indicates that there is a higher level of alienation from the political system on the part of the German and Italian respondents when compared to the American, British, and Mexican respondents.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then discuss the relationship between the civic culture and democratic stability and the impact of political culture on the political system that it belongs to. One view that Almond and Verba discuss is the rationality-activist model, which stipulates that a stable democracy involves the population to be informed and active in politics. Additionally, the rationality-activist model requires the citizens to base their voting choices on careful evaluation and carefully weighing in the alternatives. On the other hand, Almond and Verba mention that current research shows that most citizens in democratic nations rarely live up to the rationality-activist model. As such, Almond and Verba feel that the rationality-activist model is only a part of the civic culture and does not make up its entirety. Moreover, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as a mixed political culture that involves both citizens who are informed and take an active role in politics and citizens who take a less active role in politics. The diverse nature of the civic culture also implies that the different roles in political such as parochial, subject, and participant do not replace each other and instead build upon each other.

    In conclusion, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba discuss the idea of the political culture and its relationship to democracy in “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study.” A major concern among political scientists is what factors result in the establishment of a political culture that allows for the stability of democracy within a particular country. In their study of political culture, Almond and Verba looked at several factors such as citizen views on government, views on treatment by governmental authorities, and the willingness of people to discuss political issues and the views that respondents from five different democracies have regarding them. The results of their study determined that countries with a long-term history of democratic governance were more likely to have political cultures that foster democratic ideas than countries with a shorter history of democratic government. Additionally, Almond and Verba discuss the relationship between political culture and the long-term stability of democratic political systems.

  • Killing Petroleum, From the Most Unlikely Sources;Water

    Killing Petroleum, From the Most Unlikely Sources;Water

    Everyone is shocked oil has gone down in the last few years when it was close to $4 a gallon now under $3. Why has gas dropped so low in the US and worldwide?
    In the United States under the Obama Administration, an increased amount of “fracking” occurred where they increased domestic production to reduce dependence abroad.
    The strong U.S. dollar has been the main driver for the price decline of crude oil over the last few years. In fact, the dollar is at a 12-year high against the euro, leading to appreciations in the U.S. dollar index and a reduction in oil prices. This puts the market under a lot of pressure because when the value of the dollar is strong, the value of commodities falls. Global commodity prices are usually in dollars and fall when the U.S. dollar is strong. For example, the surge in the dollar in the second half of 2014 caused a sharp fall in the leading commodity indexes (Evan Tarver Investopedia). More reason are that OPEC has been unwilling to stabilize oil prices and is actively competing with the US. But also higher fuel efficient US/EU (somewhat due to Obama) has resulted in less demand for oil. The Iran Nuclear Deal also help Iran sell more oil on the market lower prices.

    The reason oil and many other industries are likely to die is simple, they require to much water. It takes 2-7 barrels of water to create 1 barrel of oil. Varies based on method. Let’s talk fracking!

    “Water use and wastewater production are two of the chief environmental concerns voiced about hydraulic fracturing,” said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. (Duke Staff)

    So to get oil, it requires the intense use of water and dumping of the dirty water back into areas which can create more water problems.
    Kondash said. “Drilling a single well can require between 3 to 6 million gallons of water, and thousands of wells are fracked each year. Local water shortages could limit future production.”Finding ways to treat and dispose of or recycle the large volume of chemical-laden flow back water and brine-laden wastewater that is produced over the lifetime of an unconventional oil or gas well also poses challenges, the researchers stated.“Given the high levels of contaminants these waters contain, it’s startling that the amount of wastewater being produced from hydraulic fracturing in the United States is nearly on the same level as the amount of water used to frack the wells in the first place,”(Duke Staff).
    So if you following me here, there will be a major shift in the use of petroleum because profits are declining, the benefits are being reduced and the dollar value of clean water will only continue to increase. This does not way in regulations like a carbon tax or other taxes likely to take affect in the next 20 years. Almost all countries are Earth will have water problems in the next 15 years. The only direction to move is away from oil production and into new energy sources. Electric cars, a proper transit system, solar, tidal and other technologies that have a lower impact on the environment and aren’t as resource heavy. To speed it up, a good plan would be to increase taxes or higher standards to speed up the process.Another good way is to encourage divestment from oil producers/heavy use things like cars and into more community-based technology like transit. The only problem with that is the World currency is the US dollar. The US dollar is based on Petroleum. A collapse of Petroleum could have ripple effects that most economists probably don’t have the wherewithal to predict. Looks like the sun is setting on the future of petroleum.

    Read more: 4 Reasons Why the Price of Crude Oil Dropped
    Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102215/4-reasons-why-price-crude-oil-dropped.asp#ixzz4wwjh8qem

    Barrel Breakdown
    http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/

    Blue Gold World Water Wars
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=megBMpB33jE

    Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices
    https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm

    HOW MUCH WATER DOES U.S. FRACKING REALLY USE?
    https://today.duke.edu/2015/09/frackfoot

  • Universal Basic Income a Conservative Idea?

    Universal Basic Income a Conservative Idea?


    What is Universal Basic Income?
    The idea that every citizen of a state should receive a basic income to survive. Instead of work 9-5 regular job, you would only need to if you want extra then bear minimum in society.

    Who is proposing Universal Basic Income?
    Right now many people see a future of automation as a destroyer of “jobs” for people to survive in the current monetary society. Major captains of industry have come out supporting it. Like who? Elon Musk -Mark Zukeburg Sam Altman, Andrew Ng, Bill Gross, Ray Kurzweil and more. You can find an introduction to the people on a link below.

    The How, What and Why?

                     As robots replace human labor what is to become of the workforce? How will society coop with men not operating jobs that maintain and produce capital? Well as the narrative goes, they are supposed to be good little workers and accept what society hands them. If people fight for the Universal basic income then it can become their right to have it. If they don’t get it, they have to accept it. But is universal basic income anything but to keep the fundamental restructuring of society and to keep the management of “production” out of the hands of the average man? The leaders of industry clearly see a time where the work is 95% machine driven and people really won’t have a place in the type of society it will create. It is saying there are no losers just above the tide people and people above the floor of desuetude. But it neglects to address the fundamental arguments of inequality, power, and egalitarianism. Who gets a say in what gets done? Who gets a say in what’s made? Who gets a say in how we do things? Fundamentally a society with and or without Universal basic income still presents a serious dilemma. Wealth in most societies like the US, influence, determines and often changes elections against the “popular” consensus of society. So Elon Musk is willing to give you a basic house, with solar panels and probably other essentials but it should not be mistaken men like him do this to keep his big house, expensive car and the mob off his company. Jean Ziegler a former UNO Special Rapporteur said it best when he said,

    “The agriculture of the world could feed 12 billion people with no problem. A child that starves to death today is murdered.”

    The human potential to feed everyone is possible, it’s the governments and large companies that prevent them from doing so because they would lose money-“capital”. Proposing that we feed everyone is a good start but asking why they are hungry is a better one.

    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” Dom Helder Camara, a Brazilian Archbishop

    The quote by the Brazilian Archbishop echoes a truth, the reason people starve is because we let them. The reason people let it happen is because small groups of generally wealthy American men find it immoral to lose a profit even though someone loses a life. Distribution of resources is a key area here that is not well discussed in Universal Basic Income. Yes, everyone in the state would theoretically receive an income to survive, but what they would not receive is real opportunities to climb out of that zone, lets call it climbing the ladder. With wealth concentration, monopolization of industry, patenting of technology it would become increasingly difficult for individuals to climb up to a substantially higher level of “wealth” or up the ladder.Currently, economic mobility is at its lowest point in a very long time in the US and around the world. Could UBI fix this? It remains to be scene with it not addressing the monopolization of wealth and industry. Why should one man own more than 90 or 100 million? There is no good answer to that, especially with the result of it, the concentration of power. Regardless of your stance on any political issue, who argues that one man should be a king when he has no right to be a king?It is not divinely ordained. It is not because of merit or intelligence, its is largely the result of being born at the right place at the right time to the right circumstances.  Under an increasing non-competitive, low labor society we could see worse inequality rise. I am not applying that historically competition was strong because it has usually been the opposite, but it will likely become worse. You have 400 families controlling half the world’s wealth today. Under Universal basic income will that change? I am not sure. But a great doubt hovers the minds of many on the issue.

    Dangers
    What could evolve is an exacerbation of the current problem, dumb, bullshit pass time crap. I am talking about wasting 3 hours a day watching sports when it has no “value” whatsoever. In the days of the Romans, they built Colosseum’s like the Circus Maximus, not just because they wanted to see people cut each other heads off for fun, but to keep people entertained and not thinking too much. It is important to constantly question the hierarchy and establishments of power in current human civilizations. Fuck apes. Society has the potentially to become an even more trapped and detached human consciousness with the increase of technologically development in virtual reality. Today we have an intense focus on entertainment while the world falls apart, environmental destruction, the potential for nuclear holocaust, drug epidemics, disease, famine, deep poverty and more. Many of these things will not be addressed by simply giving a “citizenry” Universal Basic Income. Be Weary my friends and stay thirsty for knowledge. For without the thirst we lose our humanity.

    “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” Socrates

    Introduction
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/these-entrepreneurs-have-endorsed-universal-basic-income

    Jean Zieglar
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve

    Circus Maximus
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_Maximus

    Said something about Apes?But here is some fun aside from it
    http://www.consumepopculture.com/#/make-america-apes-again/
    Why will Universal Basic Income become the future? Understanding Automation, video somewhat neo-liberal perspective

    More
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

  • Marco Palladino for Public Office

    Marco Palladino for Public Office

    Idea to add categories

    Criminal Justice
    Environmental
    Social
    Economic
    Educationally
    Liberty

    Green energy/infrastructure development

    http://www.jill2016.com/plan

    Income inequality

    https://talkpoverty.org/2015/06/10/solutions-economic-inequality/

    Marco Palladino is a 22-year-old running for public office to represent his idea of equality justice and a pursuit of a better American Society. His pursuit is for simple ideas to be incorporated into public policy and to get the fat cats on a diet. Marc believes in cutting inefficient and bad policy spending program that don’t benefit the American people

    Quick Resume
    Intern for Monmouth University Peace Corp Prep
    Intern for New Jersey Universal Health Care Coalition
    Intern for Food and Water Watch

    Economics and Social
    https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/676725529181719/?autoplay_reason=all_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0&video_creator_product_type=0&app_id=273465416184080&live_video_guests=0
    Supporting Strong Credit Unions

    Living Wage
    $15 wage is necessary for people to survive in today’s world.

    Universal Health Care

    Increase Taxes on people making over $500,000 and adding higher estates taxes which only affect 0.001 of the population.

    Free Public/Community Colleges (Secondary Education)

    Upgrading US transit system (Public Works)

    Drug Policy/ Reform/ Making Streets Safer

    School Reforms

    Prison Reforms
    Mandate possession of any drug must be in high quantities in order to become a crime unless under the age of 16 where minors should be assigned a social worker.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wg6_hqu2Ck
    Environmentally Policy
    A ban on Pesticides should and is a top priority statewide to protect NJ residents for cancer and other health issues. It is also an issue of keeping the eco-system alive, keep pesticides out of the water we drink and the animals drink. A ban on pesticides and a mandate for using other techniques will be key to kill pesticides be they weeds or insects.
    Sustainable Farming Habits combined with crop rotation will dramatically reduce the need for pesticides. Crop rotation show pesticides are less worrisome has been a historical tactic as well as large scale indoor farming.

    An example? How about giving Exxon tax credits for cleaning up their oil spill? To Marc that doesn’t make sense, they shouldn’t be fined on basic numbers but percentages of their global income. Marc is from New Jersey, a place with the most Superfund sites in the country. A Superfund site is a site so toxic the federal government has to step in. Public officials, private officials have failed to solve this problem sometimes because of will, but often because long tedious legal battles that end up sucking money from actually solving the problem. A recent example X, where the state won but most of it was put toward the legal fees. It is a dire need to reduce costs and to get to action when cleaning up toxic waste that makes NJ less healthy.
    Why everyone should be an environmentalist

    A Louisiana Town Plagued by Pollution Shows Why Cuts to the EPA Will Be Measured in Illnesses and Deaths


    Ban on Pesticides or other toxic Chemicals
    Using pesticides is a way to generally get rid of weeds we do not want or even insecticides for insects.What has been shown over time is that these products are not only ineffective because over time plants or bugs build resistance but that they are a danger to the users. We need to reform how we use toxic chemicals, a metaphor for this is like using a shotgun instead of a flyer swatter. We do not need to use these chemicals and often we have the natural solutions available. Before I get into them, it’s worthy make note that many farms use them too much and risk their health and the public’s’ health to do such. We can systematically reduce risk and increase human health but first reducing consumption of goods by high taxes and training courses on sustainable none pesticide use agriculture. Organic agriculture reduces the use of toxic chemicals of which end up in the water supply of which the affects are severe in certain places more than others. The question we should ask ourselves is always is it worth it? With contamination of water, huge determent to human health(cancers) for workers and for regular townsfolk, is it worth it?
    Simple solution to chemicals
    A common found around the house weed killer is actually vinegar, it is known to kill many plants and is not toxic to human health! Don’t be dumping 200 pounds in a yard though.
    Another good idea is to plant certain types of plants around the house to keep bugs out!
    https://www.facebook.com/homeyhomeTV/videos/153265455214383/?autoplay_reason=all_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0&video_creator_product_type=2&app_id=2392950137&live_video_guests=0

    Carbon Cutting on Public Policy of State/Government
    We need to cut all the excess carbon out of the air that we are producing with our machines, agriculture, and technology. One of the ways we begin to do that is by auditing the carbon output of different areas and after that data taking steps to cut it which should create tons of environmental and engineering jobs around the tri-state area. Right now the US military is one of the biggest polluters, making sure they are accounted for and making smart public policy choices that not only improve public health but create a more sustainable future. It’s why military barracks all over are getting solar on them which is a great choice.

    Investment in Research and Development as Share of GDP to Increase
    We must increase our military and generally spending on technologies that are likely to benefit public. Over the last decade spending has been cut in research and development, the United States is the only country to do such and will suffer long term shortfall unless its a leader in technology.

    Pentagon Pollution, 7: The military assault on global climate


    Investing in Energy Infrastructure in all homes and other efficient devices to reduce energy and water waste.

    Investing in clean solar and Wind energy where its most efficient will be key to pushing NJ to Marc’s goal of 100% renewable by 2035.
    Cooperating and making non-profits a part of the conversation like Food and Water Watch remain key for a more policy-focused future.
    Offshore Wind
    Solar

    International Conflict Resolution
    “Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, I aint marching anymore.”- Phil Orchs
    Funding Art
    http://www.nj.gov/state/njsca/dos_njsca_about.html

    Water Conservation
    We are running out of clean water and doing on road to serious trouble by 2020. Investing in clean long term public water systems is critical for the future of New Jersey and doing it in key areas. Changing prices systems based on use/income and setting limits so people get charged after they go over a certain amount. Upgrading age-old water infrastructure will be important for maintaining health, especially in high-density areas. Forcing a water tax on consumers to promote lower water use and to also build centers all over the state in ideal locations for high-cost effectiveness. Also planting the right type of tree, native to the region, could have the affect of promoting more sustainable water system.
    Corruption
    Corruption is a plaque on the American political system, the American economy and the ability to have a “democracy of maximums and plutocracy of minimums. We need to work on banning money from different groups who have the least interest in the health of the American society. Killing corruption via banning lobbying, making corporations with historically lobbying power pay an additionally tax for a public defender against the companies interests to level the playing field. First by going for limbs than buying going for the centrally nervous system.
    Corruption is a bug to be killed by concerned and active citizens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdrjzE1SE58
    Wolf-Pack – Helps fight corruption

    Serious Economic Viability Schemes-Reduce-Reuse- Recycle
    Turning foreclosure into a benefit for small business and entrepreneurs will be key to upgrading areas and making use of already available resources. Fixing old malls up and converting them to tech hubs and vertical farms will create strong industries to the public benefit.
    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/9/15183330/america-water-crisis-affordability-millions
    Reforming agriculture is another way to cut water consumption as a significant portion of water use goes to agriculture.

    Converting Office Buildings into productive community spaces.
    http://www.useful-community-development.org/adaptive-reuse.html
    https://www.fastcompany.com/3041551/unconventional-ideas-for-using-empty-office-buildings
    Building Transportation hubs that makes sense and to have a 100 year plan.

    Convicted Felonies should have the right to vote after they serve their sentence. They served their time in jail and should not have the right to vote taken away from them.
    Take the Pledge to support
    Universal Healthcare
    Clean Energy
    Nuclear Disarmament
    Human Rights
    Free Speech
    Civic Education
    Higher Clean Drinking Water Standards
    Universal Suffrage for All

    Marc Has a desire
    “Weapons of Mass Dissent”-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngOchfbbgz0
    Bitcoin? Not sure
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_War_+_Peace.htm
    https://uselections.com/m/sites/view/OnTheIssues

  • Lipsett and The Modernization Theory of Democracy

    Lipsett and The Modernization Theory of Democracy

    The theory on democratization by Seymour Lipsett focuses on the relationship between economic development and the likelihood of a country to become and remain a stable democracy. In the 1959 article “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development,” Lipsett hypothesizes that the more developed a country is economically, it is more likely that the country would be a democracy and be characterized by a more stable political situation overall.

    For his study, Lipsett looks at a number of countries in both Latin America and Europe and uses several different indices such as per capita income, education levels, the percent of a countries population employed in the agricultural sector, and urbanization. Even though the indices were presented separately, they point in favor of Seymour Lipsett’s initial hypothesis that democracy and the level of development within societies are interconnected and show that if a country is more economically developed, the chances for the emergence of a democratic political system is much higher than for underdeveloped countries.

    Lipsett’s study also suggests that the first step in modernization is urbanization, which is followed by media growth and literacy. The next stage is rapid industrial development, which fosters improved communication networks. The growth of advanced communication networks, in turn, encourages the development of formal democratic institutions such as voting and citizen participation in the decisions of their governments.

    This article is a response to the article “Some Social Requisites of Democracy,” written by Seymour Lipsett in 1959 and available at: http://eppam.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/6/2/5562069/lipset1959_apsr.pdf

  • “The political economy of democratic transitions” Response

    “The political economy of democratic transitions” Response

    In the article “The political economy of democratic transitions,” Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman explore the effects of socioeconomic factors on democracy. Since the early 1970s, articles by Dankwart Rustow on democratic transitions have been reference consistently by experts. Rustow analyzed the socioeconomic, political, and psychological prerequisites of democracy. Democratization is the result of regime change, among numerous other factors. Most contemporary theories of democratization do not specify the resources that contending parties bring to negotiation and do not consider what is at stake for those involved. In contrast, the approach by Kaufman and Haggard examines the leverage of incumbents against the opposition. Additionally, they look at ten middle-income countries in Latin America and Asia to better explain where democracy came from.

    Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman start in the 1970s. Guillermo O’Donnell argued that economic changes create issues and incentives for militaries and individuals to abandon democracy and turn to authoritarianism. Additionally, Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan (other theorists) instead argued that electoral institutions increased polarization (such as the recent Clinton-Trump Presidential divide). Both Linz and Stephan argue that polarization is a reflection of a failure of democratic leadership.

    The collapse of authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe and Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s increased interest in democratic transitions. During this period, politicians were influenced by Rustow’s emphasis on strategic interaction and negotiation. For example, after the Cold War, a number of new democracies throughout Europe due to these strategic negotiations.

    The approach by Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman focuses on the effects of economic circumstances on the preferences, resources, and strategies of the most important political actors in democratic transitions. In addition, they recognize that many factors contributed to the democratic transformations of the 1980s and 1990s such as diplomatic pressures, structural changes associated with long-term economic development, and the spread of democratization within neighboring countries Moreover, Haggard and Kaufman argue that there is no relationship between regime change and economic crises.

    Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman go over the responses to the economic crises by authoritarian regimes. The financial crises of the 1970s and 1980s were far reaching and cut across all social classes, necessitating policy reform. Kaufman and Haggard argue that poor economic performance reduces the power of authoritarian leaders. Economic declines such as the 2008 Great Recession alter the status quo between governments and the private sector. Cooperation between private sector business groups and authoritarian rulers is crucial for the stability of authoritarian rule. If the private sector loses confidence in the ability of the government to manage the economy, businesses begin supporting opposition groups. In contrast, even though authoritarian regimes may decline in periods of weaker economic growth, they have greater power in a stronger economy because of public dissatisfaction.

    Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman go on to further support their arguments by comparing transitions from military rule in ten different countries. The six crisis transitions the look at include Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, the Philippines, Brazil, and Peru. The regime transitions in Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, and the Philippines occurred during economic downturns. Even though the transition in Brazil occurred during economic recovery, it experienced severe economic shocks several years earlier and still continued to face a series of unresolved adjustment challenges at the time of their respective transitions. The four non-crisis transitions they examine are Chile, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey. The authoritarian governments in these transitions withdrew due to a variety of international and domestic political pressures. Additionally, the transitions in each country occurred against the backdrop of strong economic growth and economic stability. These conditions help to account for variations in the terms of the transition and the political alignments that emerged under new democratic regime.

    The first area that Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman look at is the terms of the transitions in both the crisis and non-crisis scenarios. One area in which the differences between the crisis and non-crisis cases exists is through the processes through which constitutional orders were written and implemented. In Chile, Turkey, and Thailand, the transitions occurred under constitutions drafted by the outgoing authoritarian government. Even though incoming opposition political leaders succeeded in including some amendments, these constitutions provided the framework in which new democratic governments operated. On the other hand, opposition forces held much greater influence during crisis transitions. Their influence was particularly strong in the Philippines and Argentina. In such cases, opposition political leaders made choices with little input from the outgoing government and returned to the constitutions in effect prior to authoritarian rule. The relative strength of authoritarian and opposition forces in the negotiation process also influenced governmental design. The two objectives of outgoing authoritarian rulers were to preserve the military’s organizational autonomy and to impose limits on the opposition.

    Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman then go over the fact that outgoing authoritarian political leaders often create authoritarian enclaves in the noncrisis transitions. The main authoritarian enclave set up by the outgoing authoritarian rulers was the military. For example, Thailand’s military continued to be a dominant force in its political system despite the country’s transition towards democracy and Pinochet remained as the commander of the Chilean military after he stepped down from power in 1990. Additionally, civilian oversight of the Turkish army remained limited after its transition to democracy in 1983. On the other hand, economic difficulties and loss of support prevented outgoing leaders from preserving either military prerogatives or other means of political influence in the crisis scenario. In the case of the Philippines, the military provided crucial support for the democratic transition and thus had considerable support within the new democratic government. Additionally, the Brazilian military retained the most extensive institutional rights of any military among the crisis transitions but left office constrained by deep internal divisions and a decline in support among both politicians and the general public. As a result, its influence on the new Brazilian constitution is relatively limited when compared to a number of non-crisis transitions such as Chile and Turkey.

    Restrictions on political participation is another way in which both the non-crisis and crisis scenarios vary. In the non-crisis transitions, mechanisms of exclusion range from bans on political activity and outright repression to subtle manipulation of electoral laws. Exclusionary mechanisms were most visible in Turkey. For example, the government used legal restrictions on Islamic fundamentalism to clamp down on press freedom. The main labor confederation also remained banned after the transition in 1983 and the government sought to persecute union activists. Moreover, the Turkish military also banned numerous political organizations. On the other hand, the elimination of restrictions on labor and political groups was much more evident in the crisis cases. For example, labor unions regained the right to organize, strike, and press their political demands in countries such as Bolivia and many of the countries characterized by crisis transitions implemented open electoral laws that resulted in the development of strong multi-party political systems.

    Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman also explore the political economy of new democracies. Even though both Haggard and Kaufman reject the notion that social interests determine the prospects for democracy, they recognize that the opportunities for political elites to mobilize support is dependent on how economic policy affects the distribution of income across different social groups. The first important factor that Haggard and Kaufman note is that the economic legacy of authoritarian rule determines the policy agenda of democratic successors. New democratic governments that come to power in the wake of crises confront a difficult set of economic policy choices. New democratic leaders can often trade political gains for short-run economic losses, but the transition itself raises expectations that government will respond to new political challenges. Additionally, policy reform is difficult because economic problems are pressing and demands for short-term economic relief are widespread. Economic evidence from middle income developing countries provides broad support for these expectations. For example, average budget deficits were almost twice the level of the pre-transition period, whereas in the noncrisis cases deficits remained low. Moreover, four of the crisis cases (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru) experienced hyperinflation during their first democratic governments.

    In the noncrisis transitions, new democratic governments faced a different agenda of policy reforms. Even though economic reform was less pressing, even the most economically successful authoritarian governments were faced with societal issues that could erupt under democratic rule. Among the noncrisis transitions, the consequences of a large social deficit were most evident in Turkey, where inequality grew steadily during the 1980s. Despite such challenges, many of the countries that experienced non-crisis transitions made headway. For example, Chile’s democratic government had some success in reducing poverty and allowing for increased economic equality while maintaining strong economic growth throughout the 1990s. On the other hand, the continuing power of interests linked to the old regime placed limits on the extent to which the new democratic governments could adequately address the economic demands of previously excluded social groups.

    Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman also argue that the transition paths also affect the evolution of the political institutions by which economic demands and policy dilemmas are addressed. In the non-crisis cases, new democratic governments often had to deal with the persistence of nondemocratic enclaves, the autonomy of the military establishment, and links between political groups and business elites. Efforts to address political legacies risked to unravel the democratic bargain and make the respective societies more at risk to return to authoritarianism. On the other hand, the crisis cases exhibited a different set of institutional dilemmas. The overall economic circumstances encouraged executives to concentrate their authority. Such a pattern has been evident where economic issues require complex stabilization packages. Divergent forces within the party system also increased the difficulty of sustaining support and strengthened the incentives for executives to govern in an autocratic manner. Democratic institutions may also be undermined by a failure to take swift and effective action in the cases of severe economic crises. However, the absence of institutionalized consultation with legislators and interest groups deprives executives of needed feedback that may be essential to correct past policy errors.

    In conclusion, Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman explore the impact of economic crises on democratic transitions in “The political economy of democratic transitions.” Their case study includes several different countries from Latin America and Asia and focuses on factors such as economic performance and the types of transitions towards democracy in each country. Through their study of the experiences of each country, Haggard and Kaufman conclude that economic policy and performance serves as a way to influence both transitions towards democracy and the future success of newly established democracies.

  • Andre Gunder Frank & Dependency Theory

    Andre Gunder Frank & Dependency Theory

    In the book “The development of underdevelopment,” Andre Gunder Frank discusses the factors that have resulted in underdevelopment in certain areas of the world and rapid development in others.

    Dependency Theory is a concept based on the global relation of economic domination and exploitation by the more economically powerful countries over the less economically powerful countries. As a result of the unequal distribution of power and resources, some countries have developed at a faster pace than others. Frank further argues that we cannot formulate an adequate development policy for a majority of the world’s population without knowing how their past economic and social history influenced their current underdevelopment. Additionally, he states that we tend to believe that their history tends to resemble the history of the more developed countries and that such assumptions lead to misconceptions about contemporary development and underdevelopment.

    The ideas regarding development that Frank expresses in “The development of underdevelopment” go directly against the ideas that Rostow explored in “The Stages of Growth.” Frank rejects the idea that underdevelopment stems from an individual country’s isolation from the larger world and due to the influence of more traditional societies. On the contrary, Frank believes that underdevelopment results from the unequal distribution of resources and exploitation of the less developed and emerging countries by the more developed countries through the so-called “metropolis-satellite relations” theory. Additionally, Frank rejects the development belief promoted by Rostow that an accurate way to explain development is to look at the past experiences of countries in North America and Europe. On the other hand, Frank believes that holding such views creates numerous misconceptions and prevents an accurate view of contemporary development from emerging.

    Dependency Theory is the idea that resources flow from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former.

    Additionally, it can be argued that the development theory proposed by Andre Gunder Frank is dissimilarly promoted by Seymour Lipsett in “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” In his work, Lipsett argues that economic development and the level of democracy go hand in hand and that increased economic development will, in turn, result in increased democracy and political freedom. Furthermore, Lipsett requires that studying democracy requires the scholar to look at the conditions that caused democracy to emerge in specific countries. Much like with Rostow’s theories, Frank would reject this view because it requires looking at past experiences in certain countries as a way to generalize the belief of economic development and democracy. Moreover, Lipsett’s theory ignores the relationship between powerful (core countries) and the less developed (periphery) countries and the fact that the developed countries taking advantage of the less developed ones resulted in an unequal balance of power on the international stage.

    Andre Gunder Frank asserts that Latin America experiences its highest rates of industrialization during the period between the end of World War 1 and the beginning of World War II. As a case study, Frank focuses on the economy of Brazil and describes how its capital, Sao Paulo, became one of the largest and most developed industrial hubs in Latin America. Despite the rapid development of Brazil, Frank argues that Brazil will not break out of the cycle of underdevelopment due to its continued reliance on the more developed nations as a way to export its resources.

  • South Korea & Structuralist Development Theory

    South Korea & Structuralist Development Theory

    In the realm of economic development at the global level, there are a multitude of theories that can be used to explain the development policy of certain countries. Each of the different development methods focuses on several factors, ranging from the history of growth to the factors that have resulted in growth in some countries and underdevelopment in others. Two examples of development theory are Structuralism and Institutionalism. Institutionalism focuses on the importance of formal government and economic structures and considers reliance on both to be critical to economic stability. On the other hand, structuralism attempts to explain the structural aspects that have had an effect on economic policy in individual states.

    Structuralist development theory emerged in the 1950s as a response to the perceived failures of Classical Liberalism, in particular, the belief that economic stability and growth stems from a stronger reliance on the free market as opposed to the governments of individual states. On the contrary, Structuralism attempts to identify specific inflexibilities and intervals of the structure of developing economies that affect economic changes and the choice of development policy. Structuralism also serves as a way to explain the failures of the free market to address issues such as the uneven distribution of income and the balance of payments disequilibrium in developing countries. The methodology of Structuralism is based on the belief in a dual economy and the concept of complementarity in demand, which underlies the theories of balanced growth. The idea of the dual economy stems from the observation that development operates unevenly both between and within different sectors of the economy due to inherent structural inefficiencies. Additionally, Structuralism argues that the differences between both developing and developed countries will not disappear overnight. Instead, the structural differences between the developed and less developed countries call for an entirely new analytical approach than the one offered by proponents of alternate theories.

    One such country that Structuralism can be applied to is South Korea. Shortly after the end of the Korean War, the South Korea government set up policies that encouraged domestic savings and opened up the country to international trade. South Korea’s economy is defined by a high-level government intervention in the economy, and its political system was characterized by an authoritarian system until the late 1980s. As a result of government-led economic planning, South Korea’s economy grew at a rapid rate since the early 1960s and the country served as a model for successful state economic planning. In 1997 however, the South Korean economy experienced a severe downturn that came about as a result of a shortage of foreign currency. In the years since the financial crisis, South Korea has taken steps to restore confidence in its economy and to reform its previously lax regulatory structure.

    The economic experiences of South Korea can be used to both evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Structuralism. For example, Structuralism promotes the belief that the state must play a significant role in fostering economic growth and development. It can be argued that as a result of government intervention in the economy, the South Korean economy was able to undergo unparalleled success and emerge as one of the strongest economies in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, the fact that South Korean political leaders failed to heed the warnings that led to the 1997 financial crisis highlights the belief that structuralist theory may not adequately address issues such as market failure and may not be the best way to explain the causes behind financial collapses.

  • “FDR’s Folly” Book Review

    “FDR’s Folly” Book Review

    Throughout the 2003 book FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, Jim Powell argues that the policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal did little to restore the American economy during the height of the Great Depression and that they only contributed to the stagnant economic situation and high rate of unemployment. In addition, he argues that the New Deal necessitated a heightened level of government intervention in the economy through the establishment of a myriad of regulations in nearly every aspect of economic life. To back up his argument, Powell examines the long-term effects of the New Deal and analyzes President Roosevelt’s policies in order to assert that they had an adverse impact on the economy overall. In the introduction, Powell attempts to clarify what went wrong during the Great Depression, declaring that it would have been “avoidable” with better governmental policies. He determines that “chronic unemployment persisted during the 1930s because of a succession of misguided New Deal policies.”

    Overall, Powell’s assessment of President Roosevelt’s economic policies represents a new interpretation of U.S. economic history. The conventional belief among historians is that the New Deal reforms ultimately saved the U.S. economy from ruin and that the Great Depression was primarily caused by the lack of government regulation in the economy. For example, in the introduction to “The Great Depression: America 1929-1941,” historian Robert McElvaine argues that the Great Depression was caused primarily by the lack of government regulation and oversight in the economy, further stating that the policies of the New Deal ultimately succeeded in their goal to prevent another economic collapse as severe as the Great Depression. Additionally, McElvaine argues that President Roosevelt was too cautious with spending on the New Deal and that increased spending would have made the New Deal programs more efficient. In contrast, Powell argues that the Great Depression was caused in part by changes in monetary policy by the Federal Reserve in 1929 and due to the Federal Reserve’s failure to adequately respond to the subsequent drop in consumer demand. 

    Powell mentions that President Roosevelt harmed the economy by increasing taxes during his term in office. To end the Great Depression and restore economic stability in the U.S., Roosevelt sought to increase government influence over the economy by requiring higher taxes. Initially, Roosevelt pushed for higher excise taxes on products such as tobacco, liquor, and gasoline during his first year in office, and further sought to increase income taxes beginning in his second year. The 1934 Revenue Act impacted higher-income individuals, through raising taxes on all incomes above $9,000 annually. Additionally, the Social Security Act of 1935 introduced the payroll tax, which increased the cost of hiring people and prolonged high unemployment. The implementation of a variety of tax increases by the Roosevelt administration reduced the spending power of both average and wealthy Americans and prolonged the difficult financial situation.

    Powell argues that the New Deal resulted in increased costs for consumers through the enacting of numerous federal regulations. Powell cites the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which set up the National Recovery Administration (NRA), as an example of a New Deal program that established new economic regulations. The primary goal of the NRA was to bring business, labor and government together to create codes of fair practices and to fix prices to reduce competition from monopolies. The NRA also implemented regulations requiring businesses to reduce output and keep established prices to increase the wages of their employees. In reality, the policies of the NRA increased the cost of consumer goods and did little to cure persistent unemployment. Additionally, the NRA created government-sanctioned cartels between industries through the establishment of uniform codes businesses had to follow. Ultimately, the NRA was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935. After the NIRA had been overturned, economists declared that “the NRA on the whole retarded recovery” by increasing regulations on businesses and raising the costs of consumer goods.

    Powell then goes on to explore the economic effects of the public works program established through the New Deal such as the Public Works Administration (PWA), which was established to construct complex and large-scale public works projects such as highways, bridges, and dams. As a result, most PWA projects tended to employ skilled workers as opposed to poorer and unskilled workers affected most by the Great Depression. Much of the money allotted for relief and public works programs were also used to promote favoritism and patronage towards supporters of the Democratic Party and President Roosevelt, thus encouraging corruption at the highest levels of government. For the Democratic Party to attract the loyalty and votes of states such as Nevada and Utah, Powell contends that the Western region benefitted most from the New Deal public works programs even though the area was affected less by the Great Depression than the South and larger urban centers in the Northeast.

    Powell contends that the recovery from the 1937-38 Recession was worsened by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which specified a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour. The implementation of a minimum wage depressed the economy by increasing the cost of hiring new employees and necessitating an increase in wages that many employers could not afford. The minimum wage particularly impacted African American agricultural workers in the South. For example, the Labor Department reported in 1938 that some thirty to fifty thousand workers, primarily southern African Americans, lost their jobs within two weeks of the implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result of the economic downturn in 1938, many Americans began to turn against the New Deal, and it increasingly looked like President Roosevelt did not have a clear economic policy.

    Despite the factual basis of Powell’s argument, there are several instances of bias throughout the text. For example, Powell shows bias towards the economic belief that reducing taxes and government spending is the primary factor that leads to economic recovery. Powell exhibits this conviction in the final chapter when he is comparing the recovery from the Great Depression with recoveries from preceding economic downturns. Powell mentions that the reason the U.S. recovered from the 1837 Recession and the 1920 Recession was through reductions in government expenditures and taxes. However, his comparisons may not be entirely valid, as at the time such economic downturns took place, the U.S. economy lacked the 1930s-levels of industrialization and globalization.

    Moreover, Powell at times criticized President Roosevelt in a way that lacks objectivity. For example, Powell compares Roosevelt’s actions regarding economic regulation to the actions of dictators such as Juan Peron and Mao Zedong. Additionally, Powell accuses some of the advisors to President Roosevelt as pushing for socialism through their support of progressive economic policies. Powell then implies that President Roosevelt’s advisors pursued economic policies based purely on a form of idealism that did not take into account the potential negative effects of government intervention in the economy. The chapter titles may also serve as an indicator of Powell’s own bias, as they are worded as questions asking the reader why a particular policy of President Roosevelt and the New Deal negatively impacted the economy.

    To sum it up, Jim Powell argues that the New Deal programs and the economic policy of President Franklin Roosevelt ultimately failed to end the Great Depression and instead worsened the economic situation in the U.S. In order to back up his arguments, Powell cites examples of President Roosevelt’s economic policy such as the low effectiveness of the public works programs, tax policy changes during the 1930s, banking policy, and economic regulatory policy. Overall, Powell makes a compelling case against the New Deal through the factual basis of his opinions, though his own personal bias takes away from the central focus of his arguments at times throughout the text.

  • “The Elusive Republic” Book Review

    “The Elusive Republic” Book Review

    Throughout the 1980 book The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America, Drew McCoy attempts to explore the competing economic visions in the U.S. during the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and how different leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton had conflicting ideas regarding what economic system would be the most suitable for the newly independent nation. Hamilton advocated a commercialized economy in which manufacturing was fundamental. On the other hand, Madison and Jefferson felt that an agrarian economy would be best for the U.S. and would ensure its success as a nation. McCoy explores the relationship between political economy and morality and how this definition shifted during early American history. Furthermore, McCoy argues that the economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were short-lived and that several factors prevented them from becoming permanent.

    In the first chapter, McCoy discusses the debate during the 18th Century over economics and morality and how they would later influence the founding fathers. By the mid-18th Century, Europe was undergoing a commercial and industrial revolution that led to profound changes in its economic conditions. In addition, the rise of industrialization raised many questions about its effect on society and helped to alter the opinion regarding luxury goods. Since the middle ages, luxury was considered to be a corrupting influence in society and a danger to public welfare. However, the 18th Century marked a transitional period in the perception of luxury goods. As a result of increased materialistic impulses, some began to redefine the meaning of luxury and explore the societal implications of the increased emphasis on luxury goods.

    McCoy describes the reaction to the changes in the economy by philosophers during the 18th Century. A major critic of the new social order was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that the commercialization of society would have a harmful effect on society and would promote a multitude of artificial needs and desires in men, to which they would become enslaved. Furthermore, Rousseau felt that the drive for status and wealth would never fully satisfy individuals and that it would increase social inequalities. In contrast, David Hume defended the commercialization of society that came as a result of the industrial revolution. Hume argued that the advancement of commerce, mechanical arts, liberal arts, and fine arts were interdependent on one another. As a result of their interconnection, Hume argued that the advancement of commerce would be beneficial to society by establishing a more refined culture. The differences in opinion regarding the growth of commerce and its effects on society would soon influence the debate in post-Revolutionary America over which type of political economy would develop in the new country.

    McCoy first discusses the economic ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who served as Treasury Secretary under George Washington. The political economy of Hamilton advocated an aggressive expansion of American commercial interests and the development of a strong manufacturing sector with the cooperation of a strong federal government. Hamilton’s economic plan called for a funding of the national debt and the incorporation of the Bank of the United States, which would help the new government establish its credit and encourage the investment of private capital in the development of a commercial sector. Hamilton viewed the development of commercial relations with Great Britain as a way to supply America with the capital and credit that could ignite the economic growth that he envisioned .

    Additionally, Alexander Hamilton felt that a manufacturing economy was a sign of social progress and that the social inequalities resulting from it were inevitable. Proponents of the Hamiltonian system argued that a growing manufacturing sector would also increase individual liberty by giving people more freedom in choosing an occupation. Hamilton’s economic policy was further pushed forward by the Jay Treaty, signed between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1794. In addition to averting a major war between both countries, the Jay treaty opened up limited trade between the U.S. and several of Britain’s colonies. The resulting increase in foreign trade helped to fuel further the commercial revolution and made its eventual spread to the U.S. increasingly inevitable.

    In contrast to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison advocated a political economy that focused on agriculture and the growth of a household goods industry as opposed to rapid commercialization. The main component of Madison’s political economy was westward expansion and national development across space rather than across time. By encouraging a spread across western lands, Madison argued that the U.S. would remain a nation of industrious farmers who could market their surplus crops overseas to purchase manufactured goods from Europe. As a result, America could remain a young and virtuous country and at the same time offer a market for advanced manufactured goods from Europe. Unlike Hamilton, Madison believed that the rise of industrialization in countries such as Great Britain was a sign of moral and societal decay. He concluded that Hamilton’s plan threatened to subvert the principles of republican government and would lead to the “Anglicization” of the American government.

    McCoy then goes on to describe the political and economic aspirations of Thomas Jefferson after his election in 1800. Jefferson described his election as a return to the original values and ideals of America that were overturned and repudiated under Federalist rule. The main aspects of Jefferson’s political economy included his advocacy of western expansion as a way to encourage the continued strength of a primarily agrarian economy; a relatively liberal international commercial order to offer markets for American agricultural surplus; and a reduction in government spending and the national debt. Through such steps, Jefferson sought to evade the social corruption of an increasingly commercialized society and preserve the republican vision of American society. Jefferson’s political economy was enacted through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. By purchasing the Louisiana territory from France, Jefferson hoped that the addition of new lands would preserve the agriculture-based U.S. economy and add to his notion of a continuously expanding “empire of liberty” across the western hemisphere.

    McCoy main thesis in “The Elusive Republic” is that the political economy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ultimately failed and was not realized in the long term. Overall, the basis of his argument is strong and is based on several key factors. The first two factors were the outbreak of the wars resulting from the French Revolution in 1792 and the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794. Despite the widespread belief that European demand for American exports would decline as a result of the wars, it instead increased dramatically after 1792. McCoy argues that the wars resulting from the French Revolution marked a major turning point in the American economy because it made it profitable for Americans to export goods and materials to Europe. Additionally, the Jay Treaty helped to open the door to increased international trade and cemented America’s economic ties with Great Britain.

    Furthermore, McCoy argues that the Louisiana Purchase augmented the spread of slavery and in turn, undermined the political economy of Jefferson and Madison. Despite the fact that the Louisiana Purchase removed several obstacles to the realization to Jefferson’s republican vision, it also exposed some of the contradictions within his vision. For example, the supporters of Jefferson frequently boasted of the isolation and independence of the U.S., but in reality American republicanism depended on both an open international commercial order and the absence of any competing presence in North America. The U.S., McCoy argues, could isolate itself from foreign influences only if it were to resign itself from international trade and westward expansion (204). In addition, the Louisiana Purchase fueled the spread of slavery as the U.S. expanded westward. The Jeffersonian political economy had hoped by the controlled exploitation of land would reduce the need for slavery and that it would eventually die out. In reality, the demand for slave labor increased dramatically as the agricultural industry expanded westward (252).
    In conclusion, Drew McCoy explores the competing economic visions in early America in The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America. The major figures in the debate over political economy in America were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Ultimately, the political economy of Jefferson and Madison did not come to define the U.S. in the long-term, and several diverse factors prevented it from becoming permanent. Furthermore, McCoy discusses the implications of the shift towards a highly commercialized economy and the changing moral beliefs regarding luxury goods throughout the 18th and early 19th Centuries.