Is "Conservative" the new "Gay?"

I was going to go with "Is Obama the true Conservative President?" But then I realized that after eight years of Bush, the word "Conservative" like "gay" now means something much different than it did before.

Under Bush, the whole notion of a state deciding what's best for that state just got in the way of his"conservative" party's big government dreams.

Now Obama lets loose with this little gem. He's going to reverse the W doctrine and let states dictate their own emission and fuel efficiency standards. I have no idea what the economic, environmental, employment or any other ramification of this action is, good or bad. But I do know that I like the idea of letting states figure this out for themselves, and I especially like the idea of following each state as they experiment with it and trying to then figure out what's best for my state of Colorado. I recall something from civics class about having each state find its own path though difficult decisions being part of some kind of "Grand Experiment."*

Seems like that used to be the "conservative" view. But now its coming from what the knee-jerk media calls the "Liberal" President.

So nothing about W fit the old definition of "conservative" and the first days of the "liberal" president have been about restoring "conservative" ideals. So since "conservative" clearly doesn't mean what it used to mean, what does it mean now? And is it dirty?

I'm not sure what's going on, but so far, I'm having a gay old time.

*A free one-year subscription to Hydrablog if you can find the reference somewhere.

China Syndrome

OK Global Geopolitics Geeks (that's right I'm addressing the G3 posse) here's your fix. Todays topic? China.

Before everyone anoints them the new Superpower, riddle me this. What's China's path to Superpowerdomehood? And here are the rules.

1. China's currency, the renmimbi is pegged to the dollar. This gives them a tremendous edge in production cost, especially when exporting to the worlds largest consumer nation (that us).

2. China growth depends on energy, and more specifically gas, and more specifically, cheap gas. Can't grow without it. As all those hundreds of billions of people start movin' on up, or really, before they can even imagine that deluxe apartment in the sky, they need need cheap go-go juice.

3. The current generation of Chinese have never, ever experienced an economic downturn. All up, and big ups at that.

4. 1.3 BILLION people makes for an amazing market that everyone wants to play in. And when times are great, 1.3 billion people are a great form of leverage for growth, and it makes you the absolute belle of the ball. But when things go bad, that's 1.3billion people to go bad with, and gives you leprosy. Leverage cuts both ways folks.

So now, we know that the Chinese have a great demand for oil which is driving up price. But what's also driving up the price of oil is the fact that its priced in dollars, and has the dollar falls, the price of oil goes up.

And now you have China's knot.

Increasing gas prices will kill their growth. They must have cheap gas. Killing the renmimbi peg will give relief from rising gas prices, but losing the peg kills the production cost edge that drives the economy.

If China keeps the peg it must spend huge chunks of its dollar reserve to prop up our dollar, while also spending huge amounts to subsidize its citizens cost of gas. China does have a massive cash reserve (about 1.2 trillion, most of it dollar backed) but a double whammy like the one above can whip through it, fast. Not only that, but if the reserve looks low enough, speculators will attack the peg, forcing China to again dip into its reserves to protect it, or let it go. If it then fails, China will find itself having blown through hundreds of billions of dollars for no real reason, maybe they can call Bush and start a support group.

If it drops the peg without defending, China's production costs will immediately rise. Cheaper gas, but mores expensive goods. That's a huge risk. Again, 1.3 billion people have hopes of improving their lot in life. If the economy takes a dive, or potentially even pauses, then that's 1.3 billion ticked off citizens. How does any government manage that? While no expert, my brief rundown of revolutions leads me to think that most of them are economically based. When living conditions fall low enough, the people revolt. Now that China's citizens have tasted growth and success, how much of a shock does it take to start splintering the country? Even without that dire prediction, how do you pull 1.3 billion people out of a recession?

Either path has looks like a loser.

The dollar's fall is big news here, but it must be giving China night sweats.

PS. Did you know that the dollar is now worth .97 Canadian dollars. Are things really so bad that we have the cute little currency in North America?

Oh well, I suppose the good news after eight years of disastrous republican economic policy is that it may slow China down.

Pandering

Bush knows that the science isn't with the global warming Chicken Littles. Climatology is an extremely young science and the adults of the scientific community have just started checking up on these kids. What they've found is a room littered with unsupportable theories and broken methodologies so full of holes study after study has to be thrown out. With the huge number of variables that go into any predictive climate algorithm it is silly that anyone would believe that human carbon emissions is the main driver of change. Why weren't these people stamping out butterflies when chaos theory argued our colorful little pals can be the cause of hurricanes? That would have made as much sense as pinning all climate variation (in the positive direction anyway) on fossil fuels. Buy anyway, back to pandering...

Bush seems to know this and he was right to ignore the silly Kyoto agreement which has proven to be even a bigger farce than the critics predicted it would be. So why this pretend, "we need to do something about global warming so how about..." speech? Pandering. Give the people what they want even if what they want is foolish. Its a shame when the mob must be appeased even though the mob is wrong. Of course that's the definition of populist. But if Bush ain't anything its a populist so why waste all our time? He probably is just trying to define a compromise position since the conversation has been dominated by the hysterical since its inception. But I still say that's wrong. If your friend is wrong about something, what good is achieved by becoming a little wrong yourself just so you can meet him halfway?