Alaskan Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution Defeated in Senate in Favor of EPA and Clear Air Act.

Yesterday, there was an announcement of the Senate rejection of Murkowski’s resolution. Earlier, Alaskan Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced a resolution to block the authority of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce global warming emission. The potential impacts of the passage of this resolution is well expressed below:

“Friend – Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, with strong support from the big oil companies, has introduced a resolution that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas pollution — and dismantle the bipartisan Clean Air Act. If her measure becomes law, the effects would be immediate. Nearly every step President Obama has taken to promote clean energy would be repealed. It would wreak havoc on the President’s landmark clean vehicle standards that ensure cars go farther on a gallon of gas, and it would block requirements that force large power plants and factories to use new technology and clean energy to reduce their pollution.” -BarackObama.com-

Along with Ms. Palin’s beloved slogan, “Drill Baby Drill,” Murkowski’s resolution may be the joint façade of Alaskan politicians toward oil and environmental issues. Thankfully, as of yesterday, June 10, 2010, the Senate functioned very well to block the passage of Murkowski’s resolution, clearing the passage of the Clean Air Act.

Let’s be clear. We don’t want to give up, sacrifice our and our kids’ chances for recovering, maintaining clean air, water, stable climate conditions, safe living environments, just to help those short-sighted Alaskan politicians’ self-indulged, personal ambition to maintain their political posts, get campaign money, and get rich by playing special interest politics while tricking public in ambiguous ways with the “What-Happens-After-That?-Who-Knows?”-Attitude. Right? I just wish to take back the old times of relaxed, comfortable living with high school or college diplomas and decent salaries that can easily meet all the living expenses and leave slight extra dollars for savings, combined with the convenience of current fancy gadgets. You don’t want that?

Now, I have to take kids out to The Park.

“The Senate Votes in Favor of Science, Oil Savings and Climate Action.”:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-beinecke/the-senate-votes-in-favor_b_608109.html

The Earth, Climate Change, Poor People’s Suffering

(Revision of “Climate-related Death and Clean Energy Climate Bill.”)

The Earth has undergone several mass extinctions of living species since its creation. I remember an old article of Time magazine asserting that, since the beginning of human civilization, “Climate Change” is the most dire crisis of human existence, more dangerous than any wars that human has fought, any natural disasters that human has encountered, or any epidemics that killed many of us throughout history.

Since the late 2008, we have undergone the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s: crisis with health care system and the  meltdowns of housing market and financial sector. These are tragic social, political problems that we have encountered cyclically but can be solved depending on what kind of politicians voters chose to put in power. But none of these problems are as fundamental as the current challenge posed by “the Crisis of Climate Change.”

Sadly, poor people always seem to be the targets of natural or man-made disasters or any kind of misfortunes. For example, recent political history showed that health care crisis, housing market meltdown, recession and unemployment hit the less privileged, poor people hardest while the rich always seem to find ways to avoid any kind misfortunes. Even “Global Warming” is expected to hit the poorest people in poor or developing countries or those in the United States of America instead of rich people, rich countries.

The future victims of climate change will include not only those poor people in Asia or Africa but also the American poors who live in poor rural areas or disindustrializing US cities and towns. Now they are suffering from job losses and fewer jobs available due to their declining home town industrial bases and growing poverty. Their problems are not only increasing poverty, hunger, and homelessness but also their inability to cope with drastic weather changes including heat waves, droughts, flooding, water shortage, spread of diseases and so on that will drive them to near or actual death.

There have been severe criticism that rich developed countries and recent fast developing countries (in the chorological order of industrial revolutions of Western European countries, the United States, China, and India) have caused “Global Warming” as their phases of industrialization have been directly associated with the amount of carbon dioxide emission that they have poured into the atmosphere. However, it is most poor people in the world who have suffered and will suffer from the consequences of “Global Warming” but the countries that have caused “Global Warming” have not taken their share of responsibilities to curb “Global Warming.” International, multilateral negotiations of political issues, no matter whether it is about trade issues or climate issues, have been always slow-moving and often dissolved into few effective agreements. It’s countries’ national policies that can be quickly agreed upon within shorter timeframes and smaller scales and get into effect fast to control emission levels even. In this regard, I respect Senator John Kerry’s or anybody’s tackling on “Climate Issue” and “the American Power Act,” or any kind of efforts to curb and reverse Climate Change.

“Let’s Go, Special Interests Conjure Up New Distortions to Say No.“, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/president-obama-says-lets_b_590869.html?show_comment_id=48508748#comment_48508748

Global Warming: Nuclear Energy Replacing Coal? – Four Reasons to say “Nay, Not a Good Idea !”

There was a Huffington Post blog by Mr. Steve Kirsch that suggests to focus the available financial resources for reducing emission on replacing coal with nuclear energy source, instead of introducing “Cap and Trade” bill or other alternatives. There are several issues that don’t welcome this idea.

First, my scientist husband says that (A) nuclear energy source is not actually cost-efficient at all. Generating electricity with this energy source alone may be cheap. But dealing with the after mess of nuclear wastes after producing electricity is another costly process, which makes this energy source expensive.

Second, we have witnessed the troubles caused by Iran and North Korea. Iraq was attacked by the Bush administration under the false suspicion of this issue. “Nuclear Weapons!” (B) The proliferation of nuclear energy technologies endangers world peace as these technologies can be easily switched to produce nuclear weapons. When President Obama is endeavoring and having hard time to put Iran and North Korea under control and restrict their development of nuclear weapon, “Why On Earth,” anyone wants to take the risk of distributing, delivering the same dangerous technology worldwide?

Considering above (A) and (B), don’t we think (C) safe and endlessly available wind and solar energy would be better? Until these energy sources can be developed to be mature, consumer market competitive pricewise (which takes time),  the government can subsidize the companies of these renewable energies to let them set their market prices low/competitive, or impose higher taxs on other types of energy products. This kind of government subsidy may be more productive for this country’s economy and future than other types of subsidies.

Third, in terms of reducing emission, exploring multiple methods, including cap and trade, to reduce emission would be better than introducing one or a few methods. So, in case one method doesn’t work, still we can resort to others. There’s no such a thing with 100% certainty !

Fourth, (D) malfunctioning US politics. During the first year of Obama administration, we have seen the chaos and the destruction of special interest politics in sabotaging the health care and financial sector reforms. Under this torturously twisted political system of this country, do you believe a reform in energy sector will be smoothly achievable?

UPDATE Two:

It appears that the administration is going to announce loan guarantees to develop nuclear power industry, in continuation of Congress’s approval of $18.5 billion for nuclear loan guarantees in 2005. Please check below wetsites.

Obama Administration To Announce Loans For Nuclear Power

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/obama-administration-to-a_n_405948.html

UPDATE One: There were several comments to my above comment at the Huffington Post Blog by Mr. Steve Kirsch. Some are informative, so I present them here with the commenters’ nicknames.

“sethdayal” comment: Husband didn’t read Steve’s article.

All previous generation nuclear waste is fuel for the IFR. The IFR itself produces a tiny amount of waste so low level that is it really the same as high grade uranium ore. Put it back in the mine.

It would be extremely difficult and far too expensive to make nuclear weapon from a power reactor so nobody ever has. North Korea will sell you a cheapo Chernobyl type reactor design for a few bucks to make a bomb.

99% of the worlds energy comes from countries who already have nuclear weapons or are unlikely to make them (Canada). The rest can buy their reactor fuel from Canada.

Solar/wind costs 10 to 30 times nuclear and generally produces more greenhouse gases than they save. We are as little as ten years from a civilization ending climate/peak/ air pollution crisis. Only nuclear can save us in time.

Nuclear is 100% certain- been using it for 50 years now. Renewables will never be cost effective except in remote applications. Cap n trade is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic – useless.

Republicans love nuclear. Only Democrat politicians like Obama need reeducation.

“The Husband” (my real husband): Show me one IFR that has burned up any nuclear waste yet. There are none. Europe has shipped waste between countries for reprocessing. It created more waste than was there to begin with.

In principle you are right: IFR and other options (Thorium, accelerator driven sub-critical reactors) can solve many of the problems with conventional nuclear energy, including limited fuel, nuclear waste, and to some extent proliferation.

In practice the nuclear monopoly has not delivered, is only interested in maximizing their profits at the expense of public safety and health, and will be the last place I would look for a solution to the climate crisis.

You need to read up on solar, wind, and other renewable energies. Your statements are ridiculously out of date. If you put the same subsidies into renewables that nuclear has enjoyed, they will be cheaper than coal very soon.

Finally, the fact that Republicans love nuclear is a direct consequence of the fact that it is run by a (quasi-)monopoly, not because it helps the climate, which (so far) it does not.

“Sethaday” comment: Actually nuclear waste is burned all the time as MOX in France, the Soviet Union and Canada.

The Idaho IFR burned nuclear waste as part of its thirty years of testing but Clinton shut it down after complaints and campaign donations from Big Oil.

Indian just dropped the dome into place on its version of the IFR.

Any mythical nuclear subsidies have been paid for already, lets enjoy the benefitd.

Lets form a national nuclear public power company and build the plants on the site of existing coal operations. We can save the big profits for ourselves.

Goggle Arcadia solar and Texas wind china and get yourself up to date with the latest real costs of solar and wind power $35B/Gw and $12/Gw respectively + $12/Gw in natural gas plants required to load balance the things. Far more costly than new nuclear.

Wind and solar are already getting hundreds of billions in subsidies wordlwide through massive 2 to 15 times market rate feed in tariffs.

For whatever the reason Republicans love nuclear so if only the much more intelligent Democrats can get educated, a “Nuke the Nation” bill saving the lives of millions of Americans by eliminating coal plants should easily past through congress.

“The Husband” comment: Yes. Twice through is better than once through ‘cycle’. And there are current and former test reactors.
It is all far from being at a scale where it has an impact. (I am not arguing that it is impossible, just saying that clean nuclear technology is not at all widespread whereas dirty nuclear technology is.)

“Lets form a national nuclear public power company and build the plants on the site of existing coal operations. We can save the big profits for ourselves.”
I would like that. But short of a revolution that installs a benevolent dictator, how are we really going to get there?
The Republicans surely will drop their support when you talk about public anything.

I don’t know what your numbers mean for the cost of wind and solar power (installation cost? Operation for a certain number of years? With what assumptions?) It is rather difficult to honestly compare the costs of different technologies. I do think that wind and solar are becoming competitive. The key is to use the right renewable energy for a given purpose in a given area. Not one shoe fits all.

Load balancing is a big deal. But nuclear power can not be ramped up or down quickly either. (Accelerator driven sub-critical systems would be different.)
We have to upgrade the grid to use non-local storage capacity. Pumping water to high lakes, pressurized air in caves, using excess capacity to generate hydrogen for transportation, etc.

“vakibs” comment:

Mikyung Lim, (A) Dealing with nuclear waste is not at all costly. It is only a very tiny fraction of electricity produced by nuclear. Secondly, the kind of nuclear reactors that Steve champions (the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR) produce no long-lived nuclear waste. They eat existing nuclear waste and depleted Uranium to produce power.

(B) Nuclear weapons are proliferating without nuclear power. The newer version of reactors (like the IFR) are more proliferation resistant than the older ones. Secondly, using nuclear power inside the developed countries (which already possess stockpiles of nuclear weapons) is unrelated to the proliferation issue.

(C) Wind and Solar power have serious limitations in the quantity of power they can produce, they are not endless. These limits are dictated by the power-density, and because of the finite amount of land that we possess. They also use a lot more raw material, metals and freshwater than nuclear.

(D) Multiple options should be explored. But cap™ is just a serious delusion with too many loopholes. We need a straight-forward carbon fee÷nd.

“The Husband” comment: (A) The nuclear waste currently in the US is already exceeding the capacity of the only repository that was planned and now has been found to not be feasible. It is eating huge amounts of money and resources.
You are right on the IFR. However, the nuclear power industry is not pushing it. They just want to prolong the profits they make with existing technology.

(B) You are right, but between “more proliferation resistant” (IFR and similar) and “completely unrelated to nuclear technology in any way” (solar, wind, waves, geothermal, etc.) the second category wins.

(C) No, you are wrong here. The solar power input to the earth surface is on average 1000 W per square meter. This is a _huge_ amount. It means: If we would cover just a tiny fraction of the Arizona desert (or, equivalently, suitable roofs in every city), we could easily generate more energy than the entire United States is using. With existing technology, with all the losses and the current level of efficiency.
While some early solar cells were fabricated by using harmful chemicals, there is now a multitude of technologies for both wind and solar using friendly materials and processes. To argue that wind and solar are environmentally harmful is plain silly.

(D) Yes. I agree 100% with the statement that multiple options need to be part of the solution. No single technology has the potential to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions singlehandedly.

Reference: ”The Most Important Investment that We Aren’t Making to Mitigate the Climate Crisis” by

Steve Kirsch, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/the-most-important-invest_b_402685.html

Copenhagen: Clash between Developing and Developed Countries in Reducing Emission Levels

There appears to be conflicts between developing and developed countries in Copenhagen Climate Summit. The Obama administration and developed nations try to make China, India, and other developing countries commit to significant, binding actions of reducing carbon emission as fututhey are expected to be the major polluters of the world (accounting for 97 percent of the future growth in emissions). Developing countries insist that, because developed countries caused the current conditions of global warming via their industrial activities throughout history, they have to take more aggressive actions of cutting emissions and provide financial/technical support (i.e., $10 billion per year) of clean energy technologies to developing nations (Reference: “Copenhagen Explained: A Game of Double jeopardy “ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/copenhagen-explained-a-ga_n_388790.html).

At this point, I would like to get into an “Essential”, potentially useful, side track of experimenting with multilateral negotiations of climate change in conjunction with the mechanism of world trade, “Cooperation of Global Climate and Trade Regimes” ! (at least, it sounds eloquent !). If the current Copenhagen Summit does not deliver desirable agreement of cutting emission levels, what about working with the World Trade Organization (WTO) to further facilitate climate negotiations and obtain developing countries’ (expecially China and India) strong commitments to this global cause?

What is the merit of involving WTO in climate talks? Developing countries, such as China and India, have achieved their economic growth that have been mainly fed by exports. Therefore, their need to meet WTO conditions to maintain, secure their favorable trade positions may provide vital negotiation / bargaining leverage in maneuvering climate talks if they are tied to WTO talks. In this way, WTO may provide strong, additional bargaining power to Climate Deals. Does this sound convincing?

I talked about the potential WTO effect on Climate negotiations on my Apr 26th, 2009 blog at mybarackobama.com website.

http://mikyunglim.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/thoughts-of-connecting-energy-climate-issues-with-the-commercial-trade-rules-of-wto-as-fair-conditions-for-global-trade-and-industrial-competitiveness/

Thoughts of Connecting Energy, Climate Issues with the Commercial, Trade Rules of WTO as Fair Conditions for Global Trade and Industrial Competitiveness

-This blog was posted on mybarackobama.com website on Apr 26th, 2009.-

There has been news about Republicans and some Democrats’ skepticism about current Energy Proposal that emphasizes the increasing supply of renewable energy and “cap-and-trade” measure to control CO2 emission. Their claim of opposition is that these measures “increase costs for consumers, send jobs overseas, and hurt businesses.”

I also read, the administration reportedly intends that the energy bill does not conflict with international trade rules to prevent any disruption on US exports. And there has been the suggestion of negotiating a new “international climate change agreement” to obtain nations’ long term commitment to control emission. As President is scheduled to meet the world leaders of major economies to discuss the energy crisis, “EU calls on US to help lead global fight for climate change”, and small nations ask for more drastic measure from industrialized economies to control extreme weather changes including flood, rising sea levels, and extreme weather changes, there seems to be a increasingly better chance to get international agreements and support on energy and climate issues.

As I observe the changing international and domestic politics, and as the current opposition to the energy legislation is labeling this bill as a potential source of increasing energy costs and taxes, and weakening US industrial and trade competitiveness of, I would say, “tradable goods” in both world and domestic markets along with domestic jobs, I would like to discuss the alternative ways of dealing with these problems.

I am not certain about the practicability of this suggestion, and I don’t have specific information on how costly or cheap these new energy sources from wind, sun, waves or other renewable sources can be, especially in the beginning stages of their industrial or commercial applications. Common knowledge has been that new technologies, inventions, developments, and prototypes of newly developed products usually tend to be relatively expensive in their initial stages of development and introduction to market / commercial usages. It usually takes time for industries and markets to get accustomed to new types of technologies and products and refine / reshape their production methods / technologies into commercially cheaper and cost efficient mass production system.

Assuming that these renewable energy sources and technologies may need a bit of transitional period to mature and become mass, standardized, cost-effective energy sources to consumers and industries, and to reduce the possible disadvantage of US manufacturing of tradable goods in the initial stages of switching to these new energy sources if the administration governmental consumption of renewable energy sources, the administration may continues to pursue US consumer, industries, and government to switch to renewable energy sources, I would like to suggest the followings:

1.      In the beginning stage of pushing the consumption of renewable energy to consumer, industrial, and federal and state governments, it may be useful to differentiate and wisely choose the proper target groups with different time schedule of adopting renewable energy sources. In the beginning stage of implementing this energy legislation, the administration may choose individual consumer, industries of non-tradable-goods (such as retailing, medical industry, tourism, other service industries), and federate and state governments as the primary target groups to switch from traditional energy sources to renewable energies. And it would be less hurtful for US manufacturing if the administration provides longer, gradual, flexible time schedules for US industries of tradable goods to switch to renewable energy sources so that they gradually adapt to new energy sources. This flexible adjustment period will reduce the chance that the shift to renewable energy sources partially contributes to deteriorating weakening the global and domestic competitiveness of industries of tradable goods.

2.       During the process of implementing (1) as mentioned above, it would be productive to seek international agreements on harmonizing, equalizing global industrial and trade competitive conditions. This effort may include the phased time schedule of incorporating renewable energy sources and emission control worldwide. Requiring these conditions as the prerequisites or fair conditions for global industrial and trade competitions, negotiating memberships, rules, or terms of World Trade Organization (WTO), regional / multilateral trade agreements, foreign market access / investments / bidding for foreign government contracts or procurements, and serving global common cause of fighting climate crisis could prevent from penalizing the manufacturing competitiveness of countries, who actively pursue the fight for global climate crises, because they adopt these measures to protect environments. It is critical to make nations face the same sets of underlying rules and conditions of international industrial and trade competition including energy and pollution issues, and to prevent from disadvantaging, penalizing specific nations’ manufacturing that adopt climate-friendly production methods are critical.

According to political history of negating regional and/or multilateral trade agreements, dealing with labor or environmental standards have proven to be difficult issues as imposing these standards to economies of different GDP sizes have been tough challenges. And multilateral negotiations have been inefficient, time consuming, and often difficult to reach resolutions / agreements. However, recent international political scenes have shown some positive signs regarding climate issues. For example, there have been news reports such as

“European Union environment ministers called on the United States to help the EU lead and finance the battle against climate change.”

“The EU has been the leader of the international debate. We want to keep on and to offer a co-leadership to the US.”

“We need to build a coalition. It cannot be done unilaterally on the EU side,” “It is not only an obligation of the EU to come with fundings and figures… the United States, Japan and all the developed countries should contribute.”

Although EU showed passive attitude toward the “Global Fight with Terrorism” at NATO meeting, the bloc is showing a positive attitude toward dealing with Global Climate Crisis. When both the US and EU, the largest world markets and have strong leverages in world politics and commerce, are so enthusiastic on working together on climate issues, and many small nations are anxious about taking drastic measures to tame climate crisis as natural disasters such as flood, rising sea level, and drought are threatening their nations’ survival, I believe there is better than ever favorable chance of getting international cooperation on adopting renewable energies and emission issues, along with other environmental issues, to their economies and manufacturing.

I also believe, it would be more effective to get international agreements on climate issues if these issues are negotiated along with commercial / trade issues, later of which have been regulated by WTO and regional trade negotiations and have been major economic concerns to both developed and developing countries. I expect that this combination of issues is more likely to motivate both developed and developing countries whose economies are keenly related to exports. Although current global economic downturn may have negative effects on this endeavor and consensus is often tough to reach, the timing and international political environments for negotiating energy / climate issue are more favorable than before.

Climate: No Arctic Ice in 30 yrs. – My love, you are disappearing so fast

This blog was posted on mybarackobama website on Apr 3rd, 2009 . Because this issue is unchangeably important, I post it again.

This morning, I read that Arctic sea ice is melting so fast that they wouldn’t be around in the Earth in next 30 years. And the disappearing Arctic ice means that the sunlight-reflecting, Earth-cooling effect of its white surface will disappear and sunlight will be all absorbed through the newly exposed dark ocean, increasing the temperature of Earth further. Disappearing Arctic ice, along with fossil fuels, are the major causes of global warming, according to the report.

All of us, all societies, and all nations have our, their own individual universes with different orders of priorities, what’s the most or least important. In mothers’ universes, what their kids ate this morning, whether they are sick or play with which toys or books, that kind of things are the most important things above anything elses. Anybody who don’t agree with them are strangers. For teenage girls, makeup, clothes, boys, parties, drinking, and going wild come first before anything else in their universes. For business men, drug dealers, or any kind of entrepreneurs, money, profits, promotion come first before anything else at any costs. For hungry people, food comes first. For sick people, medical service comes first. For artists, art comes first. During good times, whether we are richer, thinner, have bigger cars or houses, have more fun and entertainment of life than others come first. During recession, economy comes first. To terrorists’ world, attacking their enemy nations comes before their own lives and peace. For nations, which countries have the strongest military or economic power, or how to put pressure or threaten other countries to get what they want come first before anything else, etc.

While all of our universes are colliding with each other without finding common grounds, consensus, and concessions, the world have become a chaotic, uncontrollable place. In the process, our only common home, the Earth, have taken the backseat all the way, while we have been consciously and/or unconsciously trashing it close to the point of no-return, it increasingly becoming inhabitable for us anymore. But still it doesn’t seem to be important enough to get proper amount of our attention and to do something about it. We are in life-threatening crisis. Just we don’t think so.

Planet Earth: Are We Deserting You?

We live in a crazy world.

Politics has gone mad. People’s lives have gotten out of control. Now, climate is getting out of control.

Many people don’t believe this if they could not see it right now, at this moment. They believe, if it did not happen now, it could not have existed. They take every trivial matters serious, which actresses lost how much weight and wear what kind of dresses at Oscar Award, which athlet got how many mistresses, who gets expensive NY apartment, which vain couple pursued the ultimate vanity of crashing into White House Dinner. But they can not seriously take the fact that this planet is increasinly plunging into becoming an inhabitable place for human race if serious actions are not taken soon. Please read the below quotes from an article  ”56 Papers in 45 Countries Publish Joint Editorial” by Editor & Publisher. How stupid, ignorant are we, or the entire civilization is if we have been the source of our own destruction.

“The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea.“

Full Text: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004051277

Unemployment: Blaming it on Wrong Causes? Why don’t we Blame it on Wrong Industrial Structure?

There was a comment to a blog about unemployment disaster by Adrianna Huffington. A person, nicknamed as Gatormouth, commented as below:

“ This obsession with pushing job creation as the central problem by pundits and politicians is a possibly deliberate distraction. The problem has been with retention of domestic investment capital and the exportation of existing and newly created jobs. Fair and reciprocal trade has been slandered as “Protectionism”. But “Free Trade” as practiced amounts to the equivalent of unilateral disarmament, a form of National suicide.”

My answer to this person is as below:

“Your comment is interfering with my Thanksgiving meal preparation and doing other fundamental living/bear- necessities.

This obsession with “Caring only for reducing Budget Deficits and Costs of doing whatever,” and “Having Nothing To Do /Doing Nothing” for “Recovering Economy and Helping with Unemployed People” as the central problem by “Misguided” politicians and people is a “Deliberate distraction for this country”.

The problem has “NOT” been with retention of domestic capital investment and the exportation of existing and newly created jobs. It has been the wrongly structured Economic Activities / Industrial Structure of this country, in which the major economic activities and growth have occurred in trading money in financial sector and having people enjoy good lifestyles via service and retailing sectors while US competitiveness in marketing and production of manufacturing goods have been staggeringly, delusively deteriorated by continuously producing goods that less and less people get interested in buying. Keep investing on businesses, production capacities or financial services, in which the executives keep producing products that nobody wants to buy, or legally robe investors’ money, does it help?

As far as I remember, the US government’s imposing “Tariffs” on international trade around the 1930s was one of the main causes of “Great Depression” !!! (apology if I were mistaken; there’s a saying that dog trainers don’t train female dogs because they forget their learned tricks after delivering puppies)

(Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/will-the-unemployment-dis_b_368329.html?page=2&show_comment_id=35184189)

Job Creation: Do we need the Second Recover Package and Other Measures?: Comment to Adrianna Huffington’s Blog

In her blog, “Will the Unemployment Disaster be Obama’s Katrina?” published on November 23, 2009 at Huffington Post blog, Ms. Adrianna Huffington talks about the need of 2^nd Economic Recovery Package for the goal of creating jobs. In the blog, she presents four prevalent ideas of alleviating the current unemployment situations as below:

1.  Use Wall Street bailout funds left in the TARP program to bail out Main Street (using money for small businesses, public services).

2.  Enact a one-year payroll tax holiday (creating a moratorium on Social Security, Medicare, and FICA taxes will encourage businesses to hire new workers).

3. Expand the Small Business Association’s lending programs (45 percent of all job losses have been at small businesses).

4. Offer businesses a tax credit for every new job created over the next 12 months, or have the government pay a portion of the salary of new workers hired over the same period.

From my perspective, I agree Suggestion #1. I think that the government should even require the refund of some portion of the bailout money from “Big Banks” and the return of those banks’ bonuses to their Executives, which were overpaid unjustifiably or through loopholes. These executives failed in their jobs and don’t deserve to be rewarded for their failures; they should not be even called as “Talents” when they actually drove their companies into bankruptcies. What kind of strange definition of “Talents”?

Suggestion #2 sounds good, but with side effect. The government needs money to support states or public projects or in case of further need of another recovery package in future, in addition to current huge budget deficits. If the government enacts payroll tax holiday, where the government will make up for its huge (I guess) income loss? As Dr. Krugman suggested, borrow money from other countries at low interest rates?

Suggestions #3 and #4 sound good. But the focal point at this point seems to be “how to stimulate consumer spending / consumption”, which is predicted to be continuously sluggish even in 2010. Without consumer spending starting to resume at their normal rate, helping out with supply, business side alone may have limited effect on job creation.

(Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/will-the-unemployment-dis_b_368329.html?show_comment_id=35184189#comment_35184189).

Bailouts, Economic Recovery Plan, Government Interventions are Bear-Necessities. But Without Loopholes Please!

“The words, “Too Big to Fail,” seem to be in every news media pages these days. Regarding this issue, Ms. Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post criticized the US systematic failure of punishing immoral financial business practices that legally schemed and robbed their victims or unjustifiably awarded their executives even after their failed businesses, letting these legal crimes and their players escape without taking responsibility. This systematic loophole in existing (or non-existing) rules and regulations that govern financial sector sets the foundation of recurring similar business schemes over and over.

Ms. Huffington cited two such cases. The first case was JPMorgan’s scheme on bribing the officials of Alabama’s Jefferson County to obtain billion dollar contract and then persuading them to switch from fixed rate bonds to bonds hedged with risky derivatives, which drove the County on the verge of bankruptcy. Another case was Merrill Lynch’s reward of $3.6 billion bonuses to its executives, without informing its shareholders, even after their $27 billion-losing-business failure and on the blink of being acquired by Bank of America. Ms. Huffington’s blog post on this issue is listed at the end of this writing….”

Read more at:

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/11/bailouts_economic_recovery_pla.html