The Futurist

A Few Electoral Statistics

Congratulations are in order to Barack Obama for becoming the 44th President of the United States.  When he first emerged at the 2004 Democratic Convention, no one thought he could topple Hillary Clinton, and go on to win the general election, just 4 years later.

And while I did not vote for him, his success proves once again that America is truly the land of opportunity, far more so than any other nation on Earth. 

Now, there are a few electoral statistics that reveal where the Democrats made the biggest gains relative to their losing effort 2004 (all data from CNN.com). 

First, in income :

What is remarkable is the the highest income bracket, earning $200,000 or more, has swung 17 points towards the Democrats.  Given that Obama wants to tax this group, this swing is remarkable.  By contrast, those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 have swung just 7 points towards Democrats.

Now, onto race :

Black turnout rose enough for them to become 13% of the vote, vs. just 11% before.  The 7-point swing in favor of Obama relative to what Kerry got is unsurprising.  But where the GOP took the biggest damage is in the Latino vote.  A 13-point loss is huge, and resulted in states like Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado shifting from the red column in 2004 to the blue column in 2008.

Lastly, we move onto ideology :

The GOP lost 6 points of the conservative vote.  That is appalling, and if McCain was able to maintain the same 84% of conservative votes that Bush captured in 2004, the whole 2008 election would have been much closer.  This also shows that Sarah Palin, as much as we may like her, did not enable  McCain to net Bush's 2004 share of the conservative vote.  Some may contend that Palin is the reason McCain got even 78% of the conservative vote, but this is impossible to prove or disprove. 

Conclusion :

For the Republican Party to return from the wilderness in a future election (whether 2012 or 2016), they must achieve at least three of the following four objectives.

1) Win at least 55% of the votes of those earning over $100,000 a year, including at least 60% of those earning over $200,000 a year. 

2) Win at least 15% of the black vote.  Blacks are the most loyal Democratic vote bank, but this also means Democrats are so dependent on the black vote that they cannot afford to let the GOP have even 15% of it.

3) Win at least 45% of the Latino vote.  This group is growing quickly, and without it, the GOP has no future.

4) Always win at least 85% of conservatives.  A party that cannot win 85% of its own base is in trouble.  Now that Obama has won 20% of the conservative vote, he has to do their bidding as well, which is a topic I have discussed here, and is bad news for leftists. 

So, of these four, pick any three.  These four points do overlap with each other, particularly points 1 and 4, so courting multiple groups can be done simultaneously.  But until at least three of these four are accomplished, the GOP will not win again.

Ten Myths in America

I feel compelled to dispel ten myths that I see as pervasively present in American society. These are beliefs that are repeated so often, and with so little opposition, that they are taken as fact. However, they fail to stand up to mathematical analysis, logical reasoning, or both.  These combined myths have cost the US economy trillions of dollars in direct and indirect losses.  In no particular order, let me evoke John Stossel and proceed to puncture these oft-unchallenged myths.

1) School Teachers are Underpaid in America : In any free-market setting, no major profession will be perpetually underpaid, relative to output produced, or the profession simply will not attract any new entrants.  Another clue is that private school teachers actually earn less than public school teachers.  As a private school is a business that has to pay market wages to teachers, something is seriously amiss with public school teacher salaries.

An average public school teacher earns about $54,000 a year, but this is for 9 months of work.  Thus, they earn about $6000 per month.  Most teachers have a BA degree in education, and some have an MA degree.  A wage of $6000/month compares favorably to what people with similar education will earn in a corporate job.  Furthermore, a public school teacher is shielded from economic conditions, and thus has higher job security than, say, engineers have during recessions. 

So no, teachers are not underpaid, on a monthly or hourly basis, relative to professions that require a similar level of education.  To compare teacher salaries to the wages of doctors and lawyers is false, as the educational qualifications, hours worked, and stress levels are entirely different. 

2) Women Earn Less than Men in America : It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do.  It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds.  Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?  Because men are too afraid to challenge the false statement. 

If women truly did earn 20% less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 20% on employee salaries relative to his competitors.  Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to forego billions of dollars of profit?  Women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business, but we don't see this happening.  Individual cases of discrimination may exist, but it cannot possibly be a universal norm in a profit-driven economy.  Market forces would correct such mispricings, if they actually existed. 

This myth is closely tied to Myth #1, with the same people propagating both.  It is sad that the feminists reciting this myth are devaluing one of the most important roles in any society, that of a mother with the responsibility of cultivating the next generation of citizens, who chooses to work part-time.  The backlash of this will punish feminists greatly, as immigrants from countries quite unsympathetic to feminist notions move to the US and reproduce prolifically. 

3) Whites Prevent 'Minorities' from Achieving Economic Parity : Many of the points from Myth # 2 also can apply here.  But let me also add that the leftists who spread this myth go to great lengths to avoid revealing that Asians actually earn more than Whites in America today.  This inconvenient reality will become harder to conceal as Asians grow in number and visibility.

Furthermore, if Whites are the reason that Blacks still earn less than Whites in 2008, is it not fair to point out that Whites created a system where immigrants from poor countries like India, China, and VietNam can come to America and do so well that they surpass their White hosts, economically?  Fair is fair.  If Black poverty is due to Whites, then Asian success is also due to Whites.  If this is not acceptable, than the only other explanation is that each group's outcome is primarily due to their own actions, rather than the invisible hand of the white majority. 

Lastly, people have always migrated away from places where they are discriminated against, and into places that are relatively better for them.  Yet, we see Mexicans coming to the US by the millions, even at great personal risk.  Blacks from the West Indies, Africa, etc. also immigrate into the US in large numbers.  At the same time, we never see African Americans voting with their feet by going to some country where they might be able to earn more.  Where is the evidence of an African American exodus to Canada, Sweden, Britain, Jamaica, South Africa, etc.?  In fact, Liberia was a country created specifically for this purpose, but Liberia clearly is not able to entice any African Americans to relocate or even vacation there. 

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has become wealthy by pretending to be a man from a race he does not belong to, who is oppressed by people from the race he does belong to.  Amazing.  I am both infuriated and envious at the same time. 

4) Healthy Foods are Expensive, and Unhealthy Foods are Cheap : While I think America is the best country in the world in most ways, in dietary terms, America is sadly one of the worst.  Most Americans are so alien to the concept of regularly consuming fresh fruits and vegetables, that I wonder if they even know what people ate before the 20th century.  That the 'poor' people in America have much greater rates of obesity than higher-income people is shocking to most of the world, and also leads Americans to assume that fast food is the cheapest available choice. 

On the contrary, if one goes to any no-frills grocery store, several bags of fruits and vegetables can be purchased for under $20.  Tomatoes, potatoes, bananas, carrots, cauliflower, onions, cabbage, green beans, apples, broccoli, zucchini, garlic, celery, beets, kidney beans, lentils, and dozens of other plant foods all cost less than $2/pound, and sometimes under $1/pound.  If all one eats are fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (which in fact is normal in many cultures), one can easily eat their fill for under $4/person/day.  Compare that to $15/day for someone who eats all three meals at McDonald's.  The tens of thousands of dollars of lifetime healthcare costs that a person can save with a fruit/vegetable diet are additional. 

The best kept secret in America is that the cheapest food is actually the healthiest food.  The barrier to eating healthy meals is not cost, but rather knowledge, habit, and culinary skills.  Do you dispute the $4/person/day figure?  Then you haven't actually seen how many pounds of tomatoes, bananas, carrots, apples, cabbage, etc. can be bought with $4 from a modest store.  Try this for 30 days, and the rate at which you fatten your bank account will be surpassed only by the rate at which you shed bodily tonnage.     

5) America's Foreign Policy is the Reason for the 9/11 Attacks : This clearly does not explain why the same group conducted attacks in Bali (twice), London, Madrid, Bombay, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, and dozens of attacks in Iraq and Israel.  They also have massacred schoolchildren in Russia, Indonesia, and Thailand.  How are each of these attacks against unrelated victims due to America, rather than the logical conclusion that this group seems to have a problem with anyone who does not subscribe to their ideology?  Whatever America's flaws, America does not make a terrorist behead his hostages.  It is odd when an anti-American worldview itself is tainted by the US-Centric thought that anti-Americans love to condemn. 

6) Leftists are 'Liberal' and 'Progressive' :  You will notice that on The Futurist, I never refer to leftists as 'liberals'.  Those who were truly liberal at one time became the 'neoconservatives' of today, while the fascists of yesteryear became the leftists of today.  They are illiberal, intolerant, opposed to free speech, and incapable of defending their claimed beliefs in the face of incisive questions.  In the modern era, the Left can best be described as a vehicle through which people can fancy themselves as intelligent without having to put in the effort previously required to become intelligent, simply by believing a set of agreed-upon dogma.  The cost-benefit analysis of this approach is attractive, but this strategy falls apart spectacularly when a leftist is confronted by an informed non-leftist in a debate, hence the efforts to silence informed non-leftists through extremely illiberal means.  Ace of Spades has a superb article about what attracts people to Leftism. 

7) Republicans are Less Intelligent than Democrats :  This is the natural extension of Myth # 5, reinforced by George W. Bush's subpar oratory skills.  I simply have to point you to the voting trends by income bracket as reported by the CNN website.  Let me repost the table here :

Income certainly does not corelate exactly to intelligence, work ethic, and determination, as someone in college may have all of these things but still not yet be earning a high income.  But to believe the 'leftist' view that Bush supporters are stupid is to believe that intelligence is inversely corelated to an ability to earn a high income.  This is vastly more difficult to logically accept. 

This, more than anything else, explains why the Democrats have failed to get 50% of the vote in the last seven Presidential elections since 1976, while the GOP has achieved this feat 4 times (1980, 84, 88, 2004).  The median-income voter does not like being told that he/she is stupid. 

8) Democrats Have a Better Record on Racism than Republicans : It is an utter failure of the GOP's branding efforts that this myth has gained traction, despite :

• Abraham Lincoln being a Republican

• FDR's interning of Japanese Americans

• George Wallace running for President as a Democrat as recently as 1976

• Robert Byrd, a former leader in the KKK, still acting as the seniormost Democrat in the Senate, even to this day.

• Strom Thurmond running for President on a segregationist platform as a Democrat, becoming a Republican only 16 years later. 

• The first two black Secretaries of State being appointed by George W. Bush

Clearly, a foreign visitor with no prior exposure would not possibly conclude that the Republican Party is somehow more racist than the Democrats.  That the GOP has gotten stuck with this label despite the facts above, is remarkable.  The GOP also has some unfortunate racial incidents in the recent past, but they certainly have not done more than Democrats have.  I guess that Democrats say this partly because the GOP lets them. 

9) Houses Always Rise in Value : Here on The Futurist, we identified the Real Estate bubble back in April of 2006, when it was heresy to suggest that home prices could not detach from incomes.  Real estate is an investment class, just like stocks, bonds, art, wine, gold, and Internet domains are.  Yet, you never see people nagging you about how you 'must own stocks', or 'must invest in art'.  Residential real estate is the only investment category where emotion dominates quantitative analysis.  Remarkably, such a belief does not exist for commercial property, but somehow the existence of a kitchen and shower bestows a structure with magical immunity to price declines.  Emotions about residential real estate reveal the following two major errors that many proponents consistently make :

a) The failure to distinguish between high prices and rising prices :  A good school district or California weather can certainly justify high prices, but as these factors are the same from one year to the next, there is no reason for them to result in home prices rising faster than the salaries of workers in that area.  Is the school getting dramatically better each year?  Is California weather improving each year?

b) The failure to account for cost of capital when calculating a home price gain :  Otherwise intelligent people who fully grasp the concept of inflation still manage to think that if their home price is flat for 5 years, that they 'at least didn't lose money'.  If one's cost of capital (a mortgage rate can suffice) is 6%, then 5 years of flat prices are effectively (1.06)^5, or a 34% real loss.  On a $1 million home, 5 years of flat valuation is a $340,000 effective loss to one's net worth. 

It will take a decade for home owners to fully accept that homes are not guaranteed to rise in price any more than stocks, art, wine, or antiques are. 

10) High Oil Prices Will Create Permanent Long-Term Poverty : This belief is thoroughly debunked here.  One must have very little faith in market-driven technological change or human adaptability to believe that the world of 2020, 2030, or 2040 will be so poor that car ownership will be rare. 

Notice a common theme in these 10 myths.  Myths 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 betray an ignorance of free-market economics or even an active attempt to suppress evidence of it.  Myths 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are propagated by the same ideology, indicating a total inability of that ideology to actually generate compelling ideas.  Myths 1, 2, 3, and 9 are derived from a sense of entitlement and unwillingness to accept personal responsibility.  Believing myths 2, 3, 4, and 5 require having never ventured outside of the hotel in any non-Western country.   

Clearly, a couple of unsavory philosophies have managed to disguise themselves and dupe a majority of mainstream Americans (and the foreigners who watch our television news) into believing things that are simply illogical.  As citizens, we must fight to overturn these myths, lest they give rise to even more absurdities that cost trillions of additional dollars. 

The Culture of Happiness

This is a supplement to my article from Demember 2006 titled The Culture of Success.  In that article, I make a detailed case on how certain cultures are far more likely to produce economic prosperity than others.  A recent chart from The Economist, however, adds another dimension to this thesis.  Economic prosperity is not always a guarantee of happiness.  So which cultures generate greater happiness?

It appears that happiness corelates moderately, but not exactly, with economic prosperity, as Japan and South Korea are less happy than Brazil.  However, happiness certainly does corelate with Western values.  The oldest Democracies, such as the US, Britain, Denmark, etc. are also the happiest countries. 

India warrants special mention.  While India is a genuine democracy, human development indicators reveal India to be one of the least successful societies in terms of wealth creation, even as it was once the world's wealthiest society for over two thousand years.  However, we additionally see from the above chart that India is one of the unhappiest societies in the world.  Suffice it to say that Indian culture, with thousands of years of accumulated baggage calcifying into a rocklike rigidity, has mutated into the most efficient machine imaginable for stripping away human happiness.  One could scarcely invent a more sophisticated infrastructure for extinguishing the basic joys of life if they tried.  The typical American, Australian, or Dane cannot even begin to imagine the sheer variety of obstacles to the pursuit of happiness that can be constructed around the human soul. 

Much more will be written on this subject in the future.

Related :

The Culture of Success

Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030, v2.0

One of the most popular dinner party conversation topics is the possibility that the United States will be joined or even surpassed as a superpower by another nation, such as China.  Let us assess the what makes a superpower, and what it would take for China to match the US on each pillar of superpowerdom.  Two years ago, in May 2006, I wrote the first version of this article, and it became the most heavily viewed article ever written on The Futurist.  The comments section brought a wide spectrum of critiques of various points in the article, which led me to do further research, which in turn strengthened the case in some areas while weakening it others.  Thus, it is time for a tune-up on the article. 

A genuine superpower does not merely have military and political influence, but also must be at the top of the economic, scientific, and cultural pyramids.  Thus, the Soviet Union was only a partial superpower, and the most recent genuine superpower before the United States was the British Empire.  Many Europeans like to point out that the EU has a larger economy than the US, but the EU is a collection of 27 countries that does not share a common leader, a common military, a uniform foreign policy, or even a common currency.  The EU simply is not a country, any more than the US + Canada comprise a single country. 

The only realistic candidate for joining the US in superpower status by 2030 is China.  China has a population over 4 times the size of the US, has the fastest growing economy of any large country, and is mastering sophisticated technologies.  But to match the US by 2030, China would have to : 

1) Have an economy that matches the US economy in size.  If the US grows by 3% a year for the next 22 years, it will be $30 trillion in 2008 dollars by then.  Note that this is a modest assumption for the US, given the accelerating nature of economic growth, but also note that world GDP presently grows at a trend of 4.5% a year, and this might at most be 6% a year by 2030.  China, with an economy of $3.2 trillion in nominal (not PPP) terms, would have to grow at 11% a year for the next 22 years straight to achieve the same size, which is already faster than its current 9-10% rate, if even that can be sustained for so long (no country, let alone a large one, has grown at more than 8% over such a long period).  In other words, the progress that the US economy would make from 1945 to 2030 (85 years) would have to be achieved by China in just the 22 years from 2008 to 2030.  Even then, this is just the total GDP, not per capita GDP, which would still be merely a fourth of America's. 

The subject of PPP GDP arises in such discussions, where China's economy is measured to a larger number.  However, this metric is inaccurate, as international trade is conducted in nominal, not PPP terms.  PPP is useful for measuring per capita prosperity, where bag of rice in China costs less than in the US.  But it tells us nothing of the size of the total economy, which could be more accurately measured in commodities like oil or gold.  Nonetheless, in per capita GDP, the US surpasses any other country that has more than 10 million people (and is thus too large to rely solely on being a tax haven or tourist destination for GDP generation).  From the GDP per capita chart, we can see that many countries catch up to the US, but none really can equal, let alone surpass, the US.  An EU study recently estimated that the EU is 22 years behind the US in economic development.  The European Chamber of Commerce estimated that the gap between the EU and US was widening further, and that it would take 75 years for the EU to catch up to the US.  Again, these are official EU studies, and are thus not 'rigged by America'.         

The weak dollar leads some who suddenly fancy themselves as currency experts to believe/hope that the US will lose economic dominance.  However, we see from this chart that the US dollar comprises a dominant 65% of global currency reserves (an even greater share than it commanded in 1995), while the second highest share is that of the Euro (itself the combined currency of 21 separate countries) at just 25%.  Furthermore, the Euro is not rising as a percentage of total reserves, despite the EU and Eurozone adding many new member nations after 2001.  Which currency has any chance of overtaking the US, particularly a currency that is associated with a single sovereign nation?  The Chinese Yuan represents under 2% of world reserves, and China itself stockpiles US dollars.  Clearly, US dominance in this metric is enormous, and is not dwindling in the forseeable future. 

2) Have a military capable of waging wars anywhere in the globe (even if it does not actually wage any).  Part of the opposition that anti-Americans have to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the envy arising from the US being the only country with the means to invade multiple medium-sized countries in other continents and still sustain very few casualties.  No other country currently is even near having the ability to project military power with such force and range, despite military spending being only 3% of US GDP - a lower proportion than many other countries.  Mere nuclear weapons are no substitute for this.  The inability of the rest of the world to do anything to halt genocide in Darfur or other atrocities in Burma or Zimbabwe is evidence of how such problems can only get addressed if and when America addresses them.

3) Create original consumer brands that are household names everywhere in the world (including in America), such as Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, Citigroup, Xerox, Microsoft, or Google.  Europe and Japan have created a few brands in a few select industries, but China currently has almost none.  Observing how many American brand logos have populated billboards and sporting events in developing nations over just the last 15 years, one might argue that US cultural and economic dominance has even increased by this measure.

4) Have major universities that are household names, that many of the worlds top students aspire to attend.  17 of the world's top 20 universities are in the US.  Until top students in Europe, India, and even the US are filling out an application for a Chinese university alongside those of Harvard, Stanford, MIT, or Cambridge, China is not going to match the US in the knowledge economy.  This also represents the obstacles China has to overcome to successfully conduct impactful scientific research. 

5) Become the center of gravity for all types of scientific research.  The US conducted 32% of all research expenditures in 2007, which was twice as much as China, and more than the 27 combined countries of the EU.  But it is not just in the laboratory where the US is dominant, but in the process to deliver innovations from the laboratory to the global marketplace.  To displace the US, China would have to become the nation that produces the new inventions and corporations that are adopted by the mass market into their daily lives.  From the telephone and airplane over a century ago, America has been the engine of almost all technological progress.  Despite the fears of innovation going overseas, the big new technologies and influential applications continue to emerge from companies headquartered in the United States.  Just in the last four years, Google emerged as the next super-lucrative company (before eBay and Yahoo slightly earlier), and the American-dominated 'blogosphere' emerged as a powerful force of information and media.  Even after google, a new batch of technology companies, this time in alternative energy, have rapidly accumulated tens of billions of dollars in market value.  It is this dominance across the whole process of university excellence to scientific research to creating new companies to bring technologies to market that makes the US innovation engine virtually impossible for any country to surpass. 

6) Attract the best and brightest to immigrate into China, where they can expect to live a good life in Chinese society.  The US effectively receives a 'education import' estimated to be above $200 billion a year, as people educated at the expense of another nation immigrate here and promptly participate in the workforce.  As smart as people within China are, unless they can attract non-Chinese talent that is otherwise migrating to the US, and even talented Americans, they will not have the same intellectual and psychological cross-pollination, and hence miss out on those economic benefits.  The small matter of people not wanting to move into a country that is not a democracy also has to be resolved.  The true measure of a country is the net difference between how many people seek to enter, and how many people seek to leave.  The US has a net inflow of immigrants (constrained by quotas and thus a small fraction of the unconstrained number of people who would like to enter), while China has a net outflow of native-born Chinese.  Click on the map to enlarge it, and see the immigration rate to America from the world (which itself is constrained by quotas in the US and forcible restrictions on fleeing the country in places like Cuba and North Korea. 

7) Be the leader in entertainment and culture, which is the true driver of societal psychology.  China's film industry greatly lags India's, let alone America's.  We hear about piracy of American music and films in China, which tells us exactly what the world order is.  When American teenagers are actively pirating music and movies made in China, only then will the US have been surpassed in this area.  Take a moment to think how distant this scenario is from current reality.  Which country can claim the title of #2 in entertainment and cultural influence?  That such a question cannot easily be answered itself shows how total US dominance in this dimension really is. 

8) Be the nation that engineers many of the greatest moments of human accomplishment.  The USSR was ahead of the US in the space race at first, until President Kennedy decided in 1961 to put a man on the moon by 1969.  While this mission initially seemed to be unnecessary and expensive, the optimism and pride brought to anti-Communist people worldwide was so inspirational that it accelerated many other forms of technological progress and brought economic growth to free-market countries.  This eventually led to a global exodus from socialism altogether, as the pessimism necessary for socialism to exist became harder to enforce.  People from many nations still feel pride from humanity having set foot on the Moon, something which America made possible.

China currently has plans to put a man on the moon by 2024.  While being only the second country to achieve this would certainly be prestigious, it would still be 55 years after the United States achieved the same thing.  That is not quite the trajectory it would take to approach the superpowerdom of the US by 2030.  If China puts a man on Mars or has permanent Moon bases before the US, I may change my opinion on this point, but the odds of that happening are not high. 

9) Be the nation expected to thanklessly use its own resources to solve many of the world's problems.  It is certainly not a requirement for a superpower to be benevolent, but it does make the path to superpower ascension easier, as a malevolent superpower will receive even more opposition from the world than a benevolent one, which itself is already substantial.  If the US donates $15 billion in aid to Africa, the first reaction from critics is that the US did not donate enough.  On the other hand, few even consider asking China to donate aid to Africa.  After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2008 cyclone in Burma, the fashionable question was why the US did not donate even more and sooner, rather than why China did not donate more, despite being geographically much closer.  Ask yourself this - if an asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth, which country's technology and money would the world depend on to detect it, and then destroy or divert it?  Until China is relied upon to an equal degree, it is not in the same league. 

10) Adapt to the underappreciated burden of superpowerdom - the huge double standards that a benign superpower must withstand in that role.  America is still condemned for slavery that ended 140 years ago, even by nations that have done far worse things more recently than that.  America's success in bringing democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, and defending local populations from terrorists, is condemned more than the UN's inaction in preventing genocide and slavery.  Is China prepared to apologize for Tianenmen Square, the genocide in Tibet, the 30 million who perished during the Great Leap Forward, and the suppression of news about SARS, every day for the next century?  Is China remotely prepared for being blamed for inaction towards genocide in Darfur while simultaneously being condemned for non-deadly prison abuse in a time of war against opponents who follow no rules of engagement?  The upcoming 2008 Olympics will be an event where political demonstrations are going to grab headlines perhaps to a greater degree than the sports themselves, and the Chinese leadership will be tested on how they deal with simmering domestic discontent under the scrutiny of the world media.  The amount of unfairness China would have to withstand to truly achieve political parity with America might be prohibitive given China's history over the last 60 years. 

Economically, is China prepared to withstand the pressures that the US presently bears?  How long before the environmental movement (at least the fraction of it that is actually concerned about the environment) recognizes that China is a bigger polluter of the atmosphere than the US is, and that the road to pollution reduction leads straight to China?  How long before China is pressured to donate aid to Africa in the manner that the US does?  What happens when poorer nations benefit from Chinese R&D expenditures, particularly if those are neighboring countries that China is not friendly with? 

Furthermore, China being held to the superpower standard would simultaneously reduce the burden that the US currently bears alone, allowing the US to operate with less opposition and more equitable treatment than it experiences today.  Is China prepared to take on the heat?  Arguably, there is evidence that the Chinese public has not even begun to think that far. 

Of the ten points above, Britain, France, Germany, and Japan have tried for decades, and have only achieved parity with the US on maybe two of these dimensions at most.  China will surpass European countries and Japan by 2030 by achieving perhaps two or possibly even three out of these ten points, but attaining all ten is something I am willing to confidently bet against.  The dream of anti-Americans who relish the prospect of any nation, even a non-democratic one, surpassing the US is still a very distant one. 

A point that many bring up is that empires have always risen and fallen throughout history.  This is partly true, but note that the Roman Empire lasted for over 1000 years after its peak.  Also note that the British Empire never actually collapsed since Britain is still one of the most successful countries in the world today, and the English language is the most widely spoken in the world.  Britain was merely surpassed by its descendant, with whom it shares a symbiotic relationship.  The US can expect the same sort of very long tail if it is finally surpassed, at some point much later than 2030 and probably not before the Technological Singularity, estimated for around 2050, which would make the debate moot.   

That writing this article is even worthwhile is a tribute to how far China has come and how much it might achieve.  I would not bother to write such an article about, say, India or Germany (the largest of the 27 EU countries).  Nonetheless, there is no other country that will be a superpower on par with the US by 2030.  This is one of the safest predictions The Futurist can make. 

Related :

The Winds of War, the Sands of Time

Who Hates America?

Who Does America View Favorably?

The Age of Democracy

The Culture of Success

US Ideological Distribution, 2008

The Pew Research Center has presented a simple linear chart that places the ideology of the three Presidential contenders and the current President on a left-right scale, along with the median ideology of the voting public. A two-axis chart would be more informative, but this one-dimensional distribution reveals a great deal :

1) The center of gravity of the US public is significantly right of the center, no matter what leftists may say/wish.  McCain, thus, is far closer to the center of gravity than Bush, who in turn is closer than Obama or Clinton. The GOP is far less dependent on centrists to win elections than Democrats are.

2) The notion that McCain is 'not conservative enough' does not stand up to statistical evidence. Those who whine about McCain's support for amnesty of illegals or compromises on judicial appointments forget that even Ronald Reagan did three things that were not purely conservative.

a) Reagan granted amnesty to illegals in 1986

b) Reagan appointed two moderate Supreme Court Justices, Kennedy and O'Connor, and only one conservative, Scalia.

c) Reagan did increase income taxes, after first lowering them

No President will be purely conservative, nor should he/she be.  So I reject the initial conservative hostility to McCain (which seems to have somewhat abated). The job of a political party is to win elections, and the fact that Republicans span a wider ideological spectrum than Democrats should be a source of pride, which brings us to observation #3.

3) The Democratic Party has been enslaved by fringe leftists.  Obama and Clinton are nearly identical in ideology, yet very far to the left of the center of gravity.  The purple oval I have inserted, along with the question mark, represents a vacuum in the moderate left.  A large number of voters clearly reside there, but the Democratic party of today will not nominate someone who resides in the purple zone, leaving these voters as ideological orphans.  Thus, Clinton and Obama have to lie (assisted by a complicit leftist media) to appear more moderate than they are, and hope that the public doesn't figure that out.

Joseph Lieberman, the VP candidate against Bush/Cheney just seven years ago, was run out of the Democratic Party simply for not being opposed to bringing democracy to Iraq.  Bill Clinton's actions of supporting free trade agreements like NAFTA, sending troops to fight proto-Al-Qaeda terrorists in Somalia in 1993, reforming welfare, cutting taxes on capital gains in 1997, attacking Saddam Hussein to remove his WMD programs in 1998, etc. are all actions that the modern Democratic party would not take.

I am a political moderate, in that I care about only three issues.  These are, in order of importance to me :

a) aggresively fighting against terrorists and other enemies of democracy and women's rights,

b) the preservation of free market meritocracy, and the use of market forces to solve problems, and

c) a judicial system that punishes crime, instead of ignoring justice and proceeding to reward the criminal as a poster-child for some perverted cause.

I have a neutral/uninterested position on abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, prayer in schools, and many other domestic issues.  Yet, I am considered 'right wing' by some extreme leftists, on account of holding the above three positions alone.  Until 2001, it did not even occur to me that only one of the two parties still advocates these three basic principles - I assumed that these were values held by any logical person.  I wish I had a true choice between two parties, but I don't.  In the words of once-Democrat Ronald Reagan, I did not move away from the Democratic Party, it moved away from me.

The moderate left died in 1968, when two of their most promising young leaders were assassinated.  Since then, Democrats have only won three of the last ten elections.  After the disaster of Jimmy Carter, Democrats never again won 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts, while Republicans achieved this feat 4 times over that period (1980, 84, 88, 2004).  This is a truly shambolic performance from the Democrats of the modern era.  Jimmy Carter did more to ensure a generation of GOP dominance than Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Rove ever could.

Furthermore, Democrats are not capable of getting a majority of voters who earn over $30,000 a year.  The middle class earning between $50,000 and $75,000 voted just 44% for Democrats.  A party that is soundly rejected by the middle class and upper class is not positioned for long-term success.

2008 is a year where more factors, from a weak economy to an unpopular incumbent, are working against Republicans than at any time since 1976.  Thus, Democrats should be in a position to win by a landslide, but even now are trailing in the polls, and have at best a 50/50 chance of winning the White House in November, with a nominee far more distant from the voting public than John McCain is.  Even if, say, Obama wins, he might repeat the Carter-esqe phenomenon of ensuring another generation of GOP dominance starting from 2012.  If 2008 is 1976, 2012 could be 1980.

Once again, the job of a political party is to attract the votes of 50% of the public, and Democrats can only hope to achieve this by fluke.  If Democrats want to become a national party again, they must move into the purple zone, period.  I sincerely want them to do this, as this will force the GOP to compete to become a better party as well, rather than stagnate into mediocrity with the knowledge that they only have to be better than the most pathetic of opponents.  

When will Democrats purge the leftists and move to the center?

Reverend Jeremiah White,...I mean, Wright

The Futurist, above all else, is devoted to bringing original ideas, observations, and analyses to the blogosphere.  The Jeremiah Wright controversy has been heavily analyzed from a mind-boggling array of angles.  Yet one noteworthy detail just has not emerged in the discussion.  Maybe, as an Indian-American, I am truly a third party, and what was utterly invisible to the two races involved in the discussion, was somehow the very first question that entered my mind. 

What immediately struck me is that Barack Obama, who is half Kenyan and half white, still has a darker skin tone than Jeremiah Wright.  Indeed, in Africa, Barack Obama himself would be considered white.  Could it be that less than half of Mr. Wright's ancestors are black? 

To be fair, one must examine additional datapoints.  Fortunately, this research exercise required no additional effort beyond what I was about to do anyway.  I proceeded to search for photographs of Halle Berry, known to have had one white parent, in order to assess her skin tone.  She, too, appears to be of a similar hue as Barack Obama, but distinctly darker than Wright.  Here is more video footage of Wright.  There just is not enough evidence to believe that even 50% of Mr. Wright's DNA originated from sub-Saharan Africa.  Clearly, more than 50% of his ancestry is white. 

Reverend Wright has built a career out of being a leader to a community from which less than 50% of his ancestry comes from, while condemning a race that apparently more than 50% of his ancestry comes from.  He could just as easily have been a pastor in a white community, where the average skin tone would be closer to his own.  White Americans have become so post-racial that it has entirely escaped their notice that the man can scarcely be considered black.  His defenders claim that his anger is a byproduct of the racism he experienced in the Jim Crow era, yet he is actively applying the one-drop rule to himself. 

It is curious that a man who refers to this country as the "U.S. of KKK-A", managed to attend the University of Chicago, and will soon reside in a 10,340 square foot mansion that his church has provided to him.  Most white people are not fortunate enough to live in homes of that size.  Indeed, most Harvard graduates don't manage to acquire such an impressive residence.  Far from shame America, he has demonstrated how generous, to the illogical extreme, this country is.  Nowhere else can someone with light skin pretend to be black, then condemn whites who are closer to his own skin color, and in the process achieve wealth from a nation while simultaneously condemning the same nation through the worst possible insults. 

It appears that Reverend Wright identified a profitable niche, positioned his career accordingly, and reaped a rich bounty.  As appalled as I am as an American, I am just as impressed as an entrepreneur. 

Only in America......

We shall close with a poll.  Choose multiple answers if desired (poll closed 4/21/08).

A Rebuttal to 'Peak Oil' Doomsday Predictions

At The Oil Drum, a detailed article by 'Gail the Actuary' speculates on how declining production of oil combined with rising demand will cause an economic catastrophe, leading to the global economy contracting so severely, that by 2040 it is much smaller than it is today.  The author actually believes that in 2040, most people will no longer be able to afford cars, electricity will be unreliable, and goods and services will be fewer and rarer than today. 

Another article submitted by an different contributor on The Oil Drum arrives at the same pessimistic conclusion, stating that 'economic growth will end one way or another'.  Most of the commenters on both articles are in a groupthink state of agreement that can best be described as a Maoist-Malthusian cult. 

I would normally not bother to rebut something like this, except that this particular essay is so stunningly wrong and annoyingly pessimistic, despite the seemingly meticulous research the author has conducted, that I am compelled to disect how insulated groupthink can spiral into a zone where even the most extreme conclusions are accepted. 

Note that I happen to be someone who actually does believe in Peak Oil theory, but that such a condition generates long-term positives that outweigh short-term negatives. 

The assumptions that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday scenario makes are :

1) That rising oil prices do not cause a long-term downward adjustment in demand.  Oil demand may be inelastic in the short-term, but in the long term, people will buy more efficient cars, carpool, ride bicycles, reduce discretionary trips, conduct more commerce online, etc.  To assume otherwise is to ignore the most basic law of economics.  This is before even accounting for the indirect benefits of declining oil demand such as a drop in traffic fatalities (which cost $2 million apiece to the economy), less wear and tear on roads and tires, less pollution, less real estate consumed by gas stations, less competition for parking spaces, etc. 

2) That rising grain prices will not move consumption away from increasingly expensive meat towards affordable grains, fruits, and vegetables, thereby reducing grain and water demand.  This, too, is economic illiteracy.  If the price of beef triples while the price of rice and potatoes does not, consumption patterns shift.   

3) That there will be very little technological innovation in alternative energy, automobile efficiency, batteries, or information technology from this point on.  In fact, there is innovation in all of those areas, so we have multiple layers of protection against the doomsday scenario, as detailed by these articles :

A Future Timeline for Energy

A Future Timeline for Automobiles

Batteries Set to Advance, Finally

Solar Energy Cost Curve

Terrorism, Oil, Globalization, and the Impact of Computing

4) That most economic growth is now in knowledge-based industries, which consume far less energy per dollar of output.  The US economy today produces twice the financial output per unit of oil consumption as it did in 1975, with information technology rising as a portion of total economic output. 

5) That a major economic downturn, featuring skyrocketing food prices for people in poorer countries, will somehow not translate to a lower birth rate that inhibits population growth and hence curbs demand, and that population projections will somehow not change. 

6) That there will be no humans living beyond the Earth (whether in orbit or on the Moon) by 2040.  The reason this point is relevant is because a society cannot advance in space travel without simultaneous advances in energy technology.  I say that advances in photovoltaic efficiency make Lunar colonies closer to viability by that time. 

7) That we are going to have over 30 years of negative growth in World GDP, despite not having had a single year of negative growth since 1973, and despite the trendline of growth solidly registering at 4.5% a year even today.  I happen to think that by 2040, the world economy will be 4 times larger than it is today.  Even the Great Depression was only 5 years of negative growth, followed by a recovery that elevated prosperity to levels higher than they were in 1929, at a time when World GDP was only at a trendline of 2% annual growth, or less than half the level of today.  Yet Gail the Actuary thinks car ownership will no longer be affordable to most people by 2040. 

Peak oil may be on the horizon, but the US economy has already adapted to oil at sustained prices of $70 or $80/barrel (which is the biggest story that no one is noticing yet), and will soon adapt to $100/barrel.  I want oil to hit a sustained $120/barrel by 2010 to start a virtuous cycle of technological and geopolitical chain reactions that make the world a better place in the long term.  If oil hits $200/barrel, that will cause a deep recession that could last several years, but after that point, we will have adapted out of the oil burden almost entirely, and World GDP growth will resume at 5% a year. 

Could I be wrong and they be right?  Well, let us first see if oil rises substantially above $120/barrel, and if that year has negative World GDP. 

Does anyone feel like defending the doomsday prediction from The Oil Drum?

'Outsourcing' - What a Non-Crisis That Turned Out to Be, v2.0

I wrote version 1.0 of this article on November 26, 2006.  16 months later, it is time for version 2.0 to provide more historical context on how misplaced the hype over some fashionable issues eventually turns out to be, and why what once appeared to be a harbinger of doom is now all but forgotten. 

In the 2001-03 economic downturn, the aftermath of the technology bust resulted in hundreds of thousands of software engineers and assorted high-tech workers losing their jobs.  A jittery public was vulnerable to influence from isolationist politicians, with the likes of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan fanning the flames in the media.  As a result, the simple business practice of moving certain components of daily operations to a lower-cost location, if only to keep up with competitors already doing the same, became a dirty word - 'outsourcing'. 

The cover story of Wired Magazine's February 2004 issue was on the outsourcing of software jobs to India.  Within the article, a core theme was the supposedly tremendous hardships that white-collar Americans were about to experience due to a 'giant sucking sound' of jobs going to India.  In the same month, then Presidential candidate John Kerry screamed about the practicies of "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who outsource American jobs to India, hoping to gain the support of isolationists and the economically ignorant.  Elsewhere, very uncharitable things were said by leftists about brown-skinned Indians, due to their rapid adoption of capitalism and globalization at the expense of the leftist plantation where Indians were required to symbolize Gandhian non-violence, zen spirituality, yoga, curries, and the glorification of poverty. 

Let's call February 2004 as time when the bubble of 'outsourcing' fears reached a fevered peak.  Now, what happens whenever a bubble of psychology reaches a peak?

A quick glance at a few economic indicators from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the 4 years since then reveals the following :

So 7.5 million jobs were created in this short time, the unemployment rate is lower than it has been for 33 of the last 37 years, and wages have risen while real GDP has grown at a 3.2% clip.  There is thus no evidence of job losses, wage erosion, or underemployment over this period.  Take that, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, and other assorted demagogues, who have no ability whatsoever to truly grasp the trends that shape our world. 

India, in the meantime, has benefited greatly as well.  GDP growth has averaged 8% a year over this same period, pulling 100 million people out of poverty.  Political ties with the US have strengthened in a manner unlike any previous episode in the last 50 years.  The faster these ties broaden, the better the world will become.  A prosperous India is a critical component to the US achieving favorable outcomes in both the War on Terror and with China, as seen from where India resides on this particular map.  Anti-Americans become apoplectic when they learn that India is the most pro-US country in the world. 

What does the future of outsourcing hold?  Is there still a risk of jobs vanishing from the US at a rate faster than they can be produced, as pessimists still maintain?  Unlikely, even though Internet backbone bandwidth has quintupled in the last 4 years, and many more people in India have PCs and Broadband connections today than in early 2004.  This is because aggregate demand growth has saturated even India's vast labor pool.  Salaries in India have been rising at over 12% a year due to labor shortages, causing their cost advantage to erode.  The Wired article from 2004 stated that the average salary of an Indian programmer was $8000 a year; today, it is closer to $15,000 a year in US dollars.  India itself has started outsourcing to Bangladesh and Eastern Europe, which are much smaller labor pools and will also saturate quickly.  Indeed, the trends favor more job creation in America and India. 

Now that we are in another recession, phony issues like this one emerge again.  Democrats are still speaking in protectionist tones, bashing NAFTA and opposing free-trade agreements with Columbia.  But other than a few pessimists, socialists, and racists, it is unlikely to gain much traction, as Americans have seen that the benefits have outweighed the costs by a handsome margin.  BusinessWeek also had an article from 4/24/07, six months after version 1.0 of this article was post, on how misrepresented the outsourcing issue is.

Thus, the bubble of fashionable pessimism has moved to the next topic, which happens to be the decline of the dollar.  This, too, will turn out to be a passing concern that the economy adjusts to after a brief period of pain.  Among other things, a competitively priced dollar has led to Europe outsourcing jobs to the US, and is also working towards reducing US dependence on oil.  A debunking of the 'weak dollar' fad will be posted on another day. 

Related :

Terrorism, Oil, Globalization, and the Impact of Computing

Why I Want Oil to Hit $120 per Barrel

Outsourced Education - the Latest Flattener

US Recession Began in December 2007

The US government usually declares a recession only several months after it has begun.  I find the Economic Cycle Research Institute to be a vastly more reliable source of leading indicators.  While the ECRI has still not declared a recession as 'unavoidable', the economic data of the last week tells me that it is, indeed, not just unavoidable at this point, but that it actually began in December 2007.  It is far too late for any 'stimulus' to prevent a recession, nor will the EU manage to avoid hardship of its own. 

When I identified the pervasive nature of the Housing Bubble way back on April 13, 2006, I stated that housing may do poorly in inflation-adjusted terms even for the next 20 years (until 2026).  Few were convinced then, now only somewhat more are.  But supporting data for my prediction of the housing bubble being an event of generational duration is accumulating steadily. 

Furthermore, when the US economy was not at any risk of recession on November 4, 2006, I wrote an extended piece to refute the broken clocks who always insist the US is on the brink of collapse.  I declared that if recession does not happen by the end of 2007, then the housing bubble will no longer be a cause of recession, due to the housing correction being lengthy (hence digestible) rather than sharp.  As the recession began in December 2007, we missed passing into the safety zone by just a hair. 

As the question of recession is now in the past, the next question is when a recovery may take place.  The drop in economic conditions between October and January was so steep, and the Federal Reserve's reduction in rates in January, while belated, was so large in magnitude, that GDP recovery may arrive as soon as Q4.  But I am not making a prediction on recovery timing yet. 

Update (3/20/08) : The ECRI has officially declared the economy to be in recession, six weeks after The Futurist. 

(Crossposted on TechSector).

Related :

The Housing Bubble - 20-Year Gains May Never be Repeated

Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics

Bobby Jindal has become the new Governor of Louisiana.  In order to understand why is this important to anyone outside of Louisiana, consider the following points, in combination :

1) Bobby Jindal is only 36 years old, and has become one of the youngest ever Governors in US history.  Prior to this, he has served in the US House of Representatives, was a Rhodes Scholar, and was employed at McKinsey & Company.  His success in so many different areas reflects deep intelligence and competence, rather than just a fluke.

2) As Governor of a medium-sized state, he has gained an Executive Branch position, and thus has already accomplished more towards creating a Presidential resume than Barack Obama, 10 years his senior, has.  Barack Obama has just 4 years of Senate experience and no executive experience.  Note that no US President has been elected without Executive (either Governor or VP) experience in the last 11 elections since John F. Kennedy in 1960. 

3) That he could win so handily on a GOP ticket in Louisiana shows that whatever perceived disadvantages he may have had for being a Catholic, or for being non-white, were not barriers.  In other words, if he can win there, he can win over a majority of America. 

4) As by far the most prominent Indian-American in US politics, he has exclusivity in garnering political support from what is the highest-income ethnic group in the US.  This elevates the visibility of a dark-skinned group that has a higher average income than whites, and thus reduces self-limiting perceptions of imagined 'racism' that many minorities still hold.  This also grants the GOP a pathway to conduct a campaign to attract high-income, fiscally and socially conservative minorities, which the GOP presently does a shockingly poor job of. 

5) India is one of the most pro-US countries in the world, and is also a rare country that is more supportive of Republican politicians than America itself is (very few people know this).  Indo-US ties are the most rapidly widening economic and political ties between any two large countries in the world today, and with the Indian economy set to grow at 8-11% a year for the next 13 years, Indo-US trade will amount to as much as $400 Billion by 2020 (from $32 Billion in 2006, and just $5 Billion in 1990).  Bobby Jindal is already a household name in India, and thus is superbly positioned to maximize this imminent wave of Indo-US geopolitical alignment and economic integration. 

6) I repeat, he is only 36 years old.  How much had any of the big name politicians of our era accomplished at that age?  He has 20 years to go before he is even 56, and thus has ample time to lay the groundwork for multiple shots at the Presidency or Vice Presidency. 

However, there is still along way to go, and the path is strewn with many traps and pitfalls.  In order to advance to the highest echelon, Bobby Jindal has to work on the following three things :

1) Oversee the reconstruction and recovery of New Orleans into a city that is better than it ever was before.  This is a monumental challenge, but success here will immediately receive nationwide applause.  This is the accomplishment that he could ride to the Presidency. 

2) Honing his speaking skills.  While a competent speaker, he is not as electrifying at the big occasion as Barack Obama is, and this does matter immensely.  This is a learnable skill, however, that almost anyone can gain through diligent practice. 

3) Stay as scandal-free as possible over a very long period.  One scandal can derail higher political ambitions permanently. 

When Bobby Jindal rises to national prominence as a Presidential candidate at some point between 2016 and 2036, remember what you read here on The Futurist in October of 2007, and observe how a unique convergence of multiple megatrends elevated an unlikely man to the greatest heights of political power. 

Why I Want Oil to Hit $120 per Barrel

Here on The Futurist, we have a long tradition of seeking permanent independence from oil-drunk dictatorships and theocracies, with the pursuit of long-term gains taking precendence over the avoidance of short-term pain.  I refer you to :

Why $70/barrel Oil is Good for America (February 1, 2006).

$70+/Barrel Oil, the Non-Crisis (April 25, 2006).

Terrorism, Oil, Globalization, and the Impact of Computing (August 22, 2006).

When oil first hit $70/barrel nearly two years ago, there were widespread fears of the US economy tipping into recession.  I pointed out that a much smaller piece of the US economy has exposure to oil than was the case in 1974 or 1981, which were the last times such high prices were seen (in inflation-adjusted terms).  Google, Oracle, and VMWare are far less vulnerable to oil prices than General Motors and Federal Express.  Sure enough, after 2 years of oil prices hovering around $70, the US economy has successfully adapted to it.  The specter of the $70 barrier is behind us, permanently.  This chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the annualized rate of oil price inflation over the last few years. 

Notice how the rise from $20 to $80 led to import price inflation (the blue line) touching 10% for three years.  However, that rise is now behind us, with the settled price of $70/barrel or more no longer causing further inflation in the price of imported products.  Even more striking is the shrinkage in the US trade deficit.  Despite oil imports being as much as one third of the US trade deficit of about $60 Billion/month, the trade deficit has actually shrunk since the peak of 2006, contributing positively to GDP growth for the first time in over a decade (chart from BusinessWeek).  That the US economy can now take $70 and even $80 oil in stride is the biggest story that no one has noticed yet. 

However, $70 oil also fattens the coffers of the world's notorious 'Petrotyrants'.  From Iran to Venezuela to Saudi Arabia to Russia, one can note that there is a rather close corelation between an economy being heavily dependent on oil exports and the leaders of that country resisting or even rescinding democracy. 

Thomas Friedman has many interesting articles on the subject, such as his 'Fill 'Er Up With Dictators' :

But as oil has moved to $60 to $70 a barrel, it has fostered a counterwave — a wave of authoritarian leaders who are not only able to ensconce themselves in power because of huge oil profits but also to use their oil wealth to poison the global system — to get it to look the other way at genocide, or ignore an Iranian leader who says from one side of his mouth that the Holocaust is a myth and from the other that Iran would never dream of developing nuclear weapons, or to indulge a buffoon like Chávez, who uses Venezuela’s oil riches to try to sway democratic elections in Latin America and promote an economic populism that will eventually lead his country into a ditch.

But Mr. Friedman is a bit self-contradictory on which outcome he wants, as evidenced across his New York Times columns.

Over here, he says :

In short, the best tool we have for curbing Iran’s influence is not containment or engagement, but getting the price of oil down

And here, he says :

So here’s my prediction: You tell me the price of oil, and I’ll tell you what kind of Russia you’ll have. If the price stays at $60 a barrel, it’s going to be more like Venezuela, because its leaders will have plenty of money to indulge their worst instincts, with too few checks and balances. If the price falls to $30, it will be more like Norway. If the price falls to $15 a barrel, it could become more like America

Yet over here he says :

Either tax gasoline by another 50 cents to $1 a gallon at the pump, or set a $50 floor price per barrel of oil sold in America. Once energy entrepreneurs know they will never again be undercut by cheap oil, you’ll see an explosion of innovation in alternatives.

As well as over here :

And by not setting a hard floor price for oil to promote alternative energy, we are only helping to subsidize bad governance by Arab leaders toward their people and bad behavior by Americans toward the climate.

All of these articles were written within a 4-month period in early 2007.  Both philosophies are true by themselves, but they are mutually exclusive.  Mr. Friedman, what do you want?  Higher oil prices or lower oil prices?

But forget about Mr. Friedman wanting it both ways.  Instead, I am going to go with the second choice, that of higher oil prices.  I see this as a golden opportunity for permanent, far-reaching, multifaceted geopolitical change.  The US economy has successfully adapted to a permanent $70/barrel oil price with almost no real pain, and thus it is the time to take the bull by the horns, and lure the Petrotyrants into the ultimate irreversible trap. 

It is time to hope that the price of oil rises to $120/barrel by 2010, and stays above that level permanently. 

Why, you may ask?  Won't such a high price make Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Nigeria, Sudan, Kazakhstan, and others even wealthier, without them having done anything to earn it?  Won't it make Sudan more genocidal, and Iran more able to equip terrorists?  Won't Saudi Arabia be able to fund even more Madrasas across the world? 

Sure it will, for a time.  But consider the perils of burning the candle at both ends.

But won't this also cause economic suffering in the US?  For a time, yes.  Gasoline will be at $5/gallon, and the trade deficit will temporarily widen.  I claim the possible recession will be brief, if there even is one at all, as the run-up from the present price of $80/barrel up to $120/barrel is already less of a shock than the jump from $20 to $80 that we already have successfully sustained.  I say all of this is worthwhile short-term pain, for when the quietly toiling engine of technological innovation emerges from its chrysalis, it will