PV Capacity Additions by Country

Lou Dobbs Called Out (and Capalearno Blog Catching Some Wreck)

Courtesy of Migra Matters, a great video clip of Keith Olbermann blasting Lou Dobbs' hypocrisy in bashing illegal immigrants while spending millions for his daughters to compete in a sport - equestrian show-jumping - that employs thousands of illegal workers. As Vicky Moon writes in her book, A Sunday Horse: Inside the Grand Prix Show Jumping Circuit, the sport of show-jumping literally could not exist without the scores of Latino illegals who tend to the horses' less glamorous needs (including, according to Moon, shoveling forty tons of horse droppings a day).

Nor is Dobbs somehow ignorant of the existence of these illegal grooms. Not only would that require colossal blindness, but a friend of mine who rode on the Palm Beach circuit reports occasionally seeing Dobbs playing poker with his daughter's grooms.... perhaps trying to win back some of what he pays them? Think he bothered to ask to see their green cards?

Migra Matters also offered a particularly astute comment on the Olbermann clip:

Of course some in the blogosphere have known this for quite some time...go check em out and show a little comment love for once again doing the work the MSM (except Keith) refuse to do.

Bustard Blog

Capalearno

Damn right! Circulate this clip and hopefully it can move others to publicly denounce Dobbs' hypocrisy.

Carbon or Carbon Dioixde?: Where to Find Sound Climate Policy

Gristmill explains an importance difference: the precise conversion between carbon and carbon dioxide:

The atomic weight of carbon is 12 atomic mass units, while the weight of carbon dioxide is 44, because it includes two oxygen atoms that each weigh 16. So, to switch from one to the other, use the formula: One ton of carbon equals 44/12 = 11/3 = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide. Thus 11 tons of carbon dioxide equals 3 tons of carbon, and a price of $30 per ton of carbon dioxide equals a price of $110 per ton of carbon.

Thus, when CTC recommends for 2009 a tax of $37/ton of Carbon - rising gradually to become $370/ton of Carbon by 2019 - this works out to a 2009 tax of $10/ton of CO2 and a 2019 tax of $100/ton of CO2.

The above two sites are careful enough to explain this distinction, which is why there are terrific
sources of information on climate policy. As to official sources, Peter Orszag's CBO Director's Blog is a gem on all matters of public finance, but is particularly strong on climate change. Orszag understands the challenge of climate change and under his leadership CBO has already issued a hugely useful policy study (key finding: for a given amount of economic cost, a carbon tax will achieve roughly five times the carbon emission reductions as a cap-and-trade system.... for the wonks: though the comparison varies depending on how cap-and-trade is structured - whether there is a price "safety valve" for emissions permits, whether permits are bankable - emissions reductions from even the most efficiently designed cap-and-trade system are far more expensive than what is achieved under a carbon tax.

Orszag's leadeship at CBO is estimable, and I take pride that one of his former students - international taxation expert Kim Clausing - taught me at Reed college! We even worked together on a summer research project. Ah, the glory in lineage.

Carbon Tax Center

I just wanted to explain a bit more about the Carbon Tax Center.

CTC's goal is to build public support for a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions, meaning a tax on carbon emissions coupled with a reduction in the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. CTC's preferred tax begins at $37/ton of carbon, and is scaled up over ten years to $370/ton of carbon. Structuring a carbon tax so that it is revenue-neutral offers several advantages:

a) coupled with reductions in the payroll tax, a carbon tax will not make the U.S. tax code more regressive

b) revenue-neutrality will be critical to attracting the political support necessary to get the per unit tax rate high enough where it can make a sufficient dent in emissions

c) existing U.S. subsidies to alternative energy have wrought only harm - namely a boom in corn ethanol that raises food prices, brings no net reduction in carbon emissions, and distorts incentives for producers of genuinely clean energy - thus it makes more sense to return extra revenue to the taxpayers rather than to let lawmakers pursue more wrongheaded subsidies

Read more about these points on the CTC website; maybe even think of someone to fund our conference!

Bloomberg on Congestion Pricing

This morning’s Crain's Breakfast gave Mayor Bloomberg a chance to make a final push for his congestion pricing plan before the March 31 deadline, when the NYS Legislature must either approve the plan or lose $354 million in federal transportation funding.

Bloomberg’s speech was effective: after laying out the costs of traffic in Manhattan’s central business district – an estimated $13 billion in lost time and fuel, reduced business productivity, increased emissions of carbon monoxide (asthma) and carbon dioxide (global warming) – the Mayor addressed four criticisms of his plan. He argued that: a) congestion pricing fees will raise significant revenue specifically for mass transit improvements (estimated that the revenue stream would bond out to $4.2 billion, and that without this stream MTA capital investments will require again raising fares) b) congestion pricing won’t create parking lots on the boundaries of the central business district (no parking spaces in these neighborhoods anyway) c) congestion pricing scheme is not regressive (the small minority of New Yorkers who drive to work are on average well above median income d) exemption of congestion fees for New Jersey drivers is reasonable since they already pay $8 tolls to the Port Authority to get to Manhattan, and half of that money goes toward New York transportation needs. Bloomberg concluded by noting that he was meeting with Patterson and other officials in Albany this afternoon to urge action on his plan.

Bloomberg was followed by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who urged approval of congestion fees, noted their success in other cities, and made a somewhat confused observation about the number of hours NYC residents spend in traffic each year (either than the average resident spends 49 hours a year in traffic (which seems low), or that congestion fees would reduce time per resident spent in traffic by 49 hours).

In the Q&A with journalist Bloomberg gave feisty responses, describing an objection by Congressman Weiner to congestion fees as “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” (Weiner argues that congestion pricing will have no benefits, because whatever money NYC raises through fees will be offset by declines in federal transportation grants at the demand of anti-New York Republicans. Bloomberg responded that – it is Weiner’s job to help secure such funds, Democrats control Congress, and by Weiner’s logic New York City should eliminate all taxes and wait for federal money to fill the void).

In response to a question, Bloomberg acknowledged that a logistically easier way to reduce Manhattan congestion and raise revenue for mass transit would be to simply place tolls on East River bridges. He explained his reluctance to pursue this strategy by noting that “toll politics are extremely difficult”, but suggested that in the city’s gloomier economic climate citizens might become more open to formerly taboo revenue-raising measures.

All in all a good breakfast – let's hope its message was heard in Albany. Not only is Bloomberg's congestion plan strong on the merits, it represents a crucial test of New York elected officials' willingness to embrace market-based solutions to public problems. When people drive into Manhattan's central business district at peak hours they are using a scarce public resource, not to mention causing harm to others in the forms of delayed travel and polluted air; why souldn't drivers be forced to pay for this privilege?

LA Debate

Despite the absence of important issues (climate, energy), one hell of a debate. Either one of these candidates will make a formidable general election candidate and terrific President....

.....and we celebrate this with the blather of my fellow Dalton alum Anderson Cooper

LA Democratic Primary Debate

Final Hillary-Obama Showdown..... and nothing about energy policy? Nothing about climate change? Yet we have time for "sex and violence in Hollywood", with panning shots of Steven Spielberg? We've got ice sheets melting people!

The first step in improving political discourse...... replacing Wolf Blitzer.

History at Carnegie Hall

One of the thrills of living in New York City is the daily opportunity to brush up against history. For example, tonight I will be hearing the soulful a cappella ensemble Sweet Honey in the Rock at Carnegie Hall. The power of these vocalists makes for a memorable experience whatever the venue.

Today, however, WBGO dedicated an hour to celebrating the Voice of America's 1957 recording of the Thelonious Monk Quartet with John Coltrane. The VOA recording captures Monk and Trane playing together at Carnegie Hall, exactly fifty years ago today.

For non-jazz fans, the VOA reels are famous because they represent the only record of a historic collaboration, and because they sat unnoticed in the vaults of the Library of Congress until 2005. NPR tells the story of archivist Larry Applebaum's discovery (and allows you to listen to certain tracks); the New Yorker's Steve Futterman argues that the VOA date may represent both Monk and Trane at his peak. That two frighteningly original artists could team up and each bring out the best in the other - an inspired thought.

Tonight as I glance around the majestic hall, I'll try to imagine how it would have felt to hear "Monk's Mood" floating from the stage. I'll savor the singing a little more knowing that today marks the anniversary of a tour de force by earlier black musicians. And I'll marvel at the incompetence of the VOA in allowing such a brilliant record to collect dust in a library rather than performing its rightful duty of glorifying American culture throughout the globe. It's episodes like this that make you understand why the Cold War took 56 years to win. But that still can't spoil tonight's performance.

Progressive, nee Liberal

Greg Mankiw features a cartoon mocking liberals who have rebranded themselves 'progressives.' Though funny, the criticism is unfair. All should welcome the switch in terminology simply to undo the semantic perversion of making liberalism synonymous with "big government"," thus distorting the word 'liberal' from its original 18th-century meaning.

Hillary Clinton explains her preference for 'progressive' in a response to a question during the CNN/YouTube debate:

QUESTION:

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

Clinton's explanation is entirely correct. From its historical meaning, someone such as Greg Mankiw (who in policy debates consistently supports more "freedom of choice" irrespective of inequality in outcomes) is more 'liberal' than Hillary Clinton.

So let those left-of-center speak with historical precision by identifying as progressives. Now, we just need to correct the folly (more pronounced in the U.S. than in Europe) of describing free trade, open capital flows, deregulation, etc. as "neoconservative" policies when - by removing barriers to individual enterprise - they are in fact "neoliberal."

If the precise use of language in politics seems irrelevant to you... William Safire's Political Dictionary offers 930 pages (!) of reasons to think otherwise.

America and the Age of Genocide

Samantha Power's 'A Problem From Hell': America and the Age of Genocide is a remarkable book. She goes through Armenians in Turkey, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam and the Kurds, Rwanda (which in 1994, given a country of just 8 million people, experienced "the numerical equivalent of more than two World Trade Center attacks every single day for 100 days), and Bosnia - each time illustrating the harms of U.S. inaction, as well as profiling the few brave dissenters and many silent onlookers. Regrettably, we already need a second edition of the book to chronicle the twenty-first century's first genocide, Darfur. The worthy and effective protests of SaveDarfur and others notwithstanding, America's reaction to this latest massacre has largely followed the script Power writes for all of her twentieth-century cases (Frontline recently broadcast an excellent history of the Darfur genocide entitled "On Our Watch", in which Power appears).

Though too lazy to provide a proper review of this rich work, let me share two passages which encapsulate Power's depressing thesis. First, from the preface, in which Power describes her fascination with genocide emerging from her experiences reporting from Bosnia for the Washington Post (xxi):

Before I began exploring America's relationship with genocide, I used to refer to U.S. policy toward Bosnia as a "failure." I have changed my mind. It is daunting to acknowledge, but this country's consistent policy of nonintervention in the face of genocide offers sad tesitmony not to a broken American political system but to one that is ruthlessly effective. The system, as it now stands, is working. No U.S. president has ever made genocide prevention a priority, and no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurence. It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on.

After surveying U.S. apathy toward five genocides (each case featuring some gallant proponents of intervention), Power diagnoses the following framework (508):

In each case, the U.S. policymakers in the executive branch (usually with the passive backing of most members of Congress) had two objectives. First, they wanted to avoid engagements in conflicts that posed little threat to American interests, narrowly defined. And second, they hoped to contain the political costs and avoid the moral stigma associated with allowing genocide. By and large, they achieved both aims. In order to contain the political fallout, U.S. officials overemphasized the ambiguity of the facts. They played up the likely futility, perversity, jeopardy of any proposed intervention. They steadfastly avoided use of the word "genocide," which they believed carried with it a legal and moral (and thus political) imperative to act. And they took solace in the normal operations of the foreign policy bureaucracy, which permitted an illusion of continual deliberation, complex activity, intense concern. One of the most important conclusions I have reached, therefore, is that the U.S. record is not one of failure. It is one of success. Troubling though it is to acknowledge, U.S. officials worked the system and the system worked.

There you have it. The sins of comission - introducing desicive measures that could go wrong -are less politically risky than those of omission - simply tolerating another genocide. Inaction in the face of slaughter is the result of American political leaders achieving, rather than missing, their aims.

This is a compelling argument. Since elected leaders take their cues from individual citizens, we too bear blame for giving leaders more incentive to dither and obfuscate than to commit to humanitarian action. The Frontline Darfur documentary shows that outspoken individual citizens can indeed pressure their governments into taking some punitive actions agaisnt genocidal regimes. We citizens just need to get better at not waiting until hundreds of thousands have already died before demanding that our government do something. In other words, Presidents and Senators will only risk political capital saving the lives of non-Americans when the political consequences of inaction outweigh those of (inevitably risky and uncertain) prevention.

Another worthy point Power makes is that policy responses to genocide need not be a binary choice between acquiesence and "unilaterally sending in the marines." As U.S. policy in Darfur belatedly illustrates, there are a bevy of measures short of military intervention which can help deter perpetrators and protect innocents. Simply using the bully pulpit to decry the crimes and threaten the criminals can be efficacious. After stressing that the U.S. must share the burden of preventing genocide with our allies and relevant international institutions, Power enumerates a list of responses she believes the U.S. should direct toward every instance of genocide (514, paraphrased here):

publicly identifying and threatening the perpetrators with prosecution, demanding the expulsion of represenatives of genocidal rimes from international institutions such as the United Nations, closing the perpetrators' embassies in the U.S., calling on allies of the regime to use their influence. When warranted, the U.S can establish economic sanctions, freeze foreign assets, deprive foreign killers of the means of destructions. With allies, settin up safe areas for refugees, protected with peacekeepers, airpower, or both. Given the affront genocide represents to America's most cherished values and to its interests, the United States must also be prepared to risk the lives of its soldiers in the service of stopping this monstrous crime.

The last proposal in this list - endangering American soldiers to protect non-American lives -is bound to generate the most controversy. Yet all the items which precede it will in most cases generate widespread support. Rather than charting a policy of genocide prevention by trying to decide first on the most politically contentious issue - as is almost always done - we should pressure leaders to exhaust the full spate of non-groundforce measures, and only when necessary begin to deliberate armed intervention. In other words, we should not allow U.S. leaders to justify inaction in the face of genocide by claiming that the U.S. public "won't accept another Somalia." Powers astutely notes that "If everyone in government is motivated to avoid 'another Somolia' or 'another Vietnam,' few think twice about playing a role in allowing 'another Rwanda'" (510).

The same distortions from hyper-vigilance against "quagmires" afflict the American public at large. Regrettably, as Ron Brownstein and Matt Yglesias have argued, our media rewards journalists for stoking controversy rather than consensus. Thus, discussion of U.S. response to genocide takes its cues from cable news headlines - "SHOULD THE U.S. COMMIT GROUND TROOPS TO DARFUR?" - while largely ignoring less costly policy measures which nonetheless can be useful in saving lives. Until mainstream discussion of genocide prevention corrects this obsession with controversial measures - irrespective of their necessity at the time - public debate will fail to generate effective pressure on public officials. We don't start discussions of health care costs by asking whether we should have a mandatory age of death - why do we start anti-genocide discussions by immediately debating the use of ground troops? This is why a group like SaveDarfur has been so useful for keeping the anti-genocide ball rolling; its campaigns frame the debate in terms of concrete measures - economic sanctions against Sudan, divestiture, enforcement of a no-fly zone, deployment of U.N. peacekeepers - that can reduce killing without having to involve U.S. forces. One hopes the coalitions that comprise SaveDarfur will be a models for future activists.

Power is now a foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign. Reading her book, as well as watching her on Charlie Rose, gives me only one thought - this woman must be part of the next Presidential administration. Perhaps as Ambassador to the United Nations with a potential promotion to Secretary of State, a la Madelaine Albright?

To grasp why Power would be a valuable addition, consider that too often U.S. policymakers have justified inaction to genocide with appeal to strategic considerations (what Power terms the "fear of jeopordizing" case against intervention). These have ranged from the disgusting - continuing to recognize Pol Pot's genocidal Khmer Rouge because Zbig Brezinksi and others wanted a counterweight to North Vietnam and China - to the merely misguided - such as in 2004-2005, when some State Department (and U.N.) officials warned that pressuring the Sudanese too hard on Darfur would scuttle Khartoum's acceptance of the recently negotiated settlement to Sudan's longstanding North-South civil war (a conflict unrelated to Darfur) - warnings that failed to appreciate how Khartoum was deliberately dragging its heels in regard to the peace agreement in order to buy time to finish the massacre in Darfur.

Power is intimately familair with these strategic justifications, and why they always fail to hold water. If America is ever to begin honoring its pledge of "Never Again,"giving her the President's ear wouldn't be a bad start.

Gisele's Monies

BBC reports that Brazilian model Gisele Bundchen has asked Proctor and Gamble to pay her in Euros (Gisele's spokeswoman denies the arrangement). Frantic as ever, on Nov. 7 CNBC’s Jim Cramer blamed news of Gisele’s request for fueling a market sell-off.

Lost in the jokes about supermodels becoming arbiters of international finance is this reality – Gisele’s request makes no sense. The reason is that eleven trillion dollar a day entity known as the foreign exchange market. On the forex one can instantly translate dollars into euros for miniscule transaction fees. Thus, if Gisele is genuinely worried that further declines in the dollar will erode her purchasing power, she could just take her lump-sum payment and immediately convert it into euros.

Alan Greenspan made this point a few months ago in his 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl. In one of many futile attempts to divine Greenspan’s views about the market, Stahl mentioned Greenspan’s multi-million dollar book advance and asked, if he had the choice, what currency Greenspan would prefer to be paid in. Greenspan made the above point that the possibility of currency conversion made the currency of payment inconsequential; the choice with real economic consequences, he noted, is in what currency-denomination one holds one’s long-term assets (e.g. U.S. stocks versus European stocks). Unsurprisingly, Greenspan recommended diversifying one’s assets among several currencies to hedge against depreciation risk.

By the way, I’m assuming that Gisele gets a lump-sum payment akin to a book advance. If her P&G contract is pro-rated over several years, then her request to be paid in euros at least has some logical grounding. As a practical matter, however, Gisele still risks shifting into euros at the wrong time. Over the past year the dollar has already lost more than 70 percent of its value against the euro (today it takes $1.46 to buy a euro; a year ago it took 84 cents). Over, say, the next year, can the dollar really fall much farther? Goldman’s Jim O’Neill doesn’t think so, and he is not a prognosticator to be taken lightly. Rather than dabbling in currency speculation, the safest way for Gisele to protect her income is simply to have P&G index her salary to America’s C.P.I. or some other measure of price inflation.

On more substantive currency matters, yesterday's NYT informs us that the dollar hasn’t fallen nearly as much against the Yen (or other Asian currencies) as it has against the Euro. I, for one, hadn’t realized this – and it’s a useful reminder that currency pairs do not all move in tandem.

Also, Paul Krugman has a fine blog post explaining why he is skeptical of prophecies that the dollar’s decline will seriously reignite U.S. inflation (he cites a combination of relatively low pass through from exchange rates to U.S. import prices, plus imports only totaling about 15 percent of U.S. GDP). Always refreshing to see Krugman make the case for stability rather than crisis.

Stahl Disappoints in Greenspan Interview

This is a bit dated, but for a frustrating spectacle of puff piece journalism, watch Leslie Stahl’s interview with Alan Greenspan (or read the transcript). Over the twenty or so minutes, Stahl devotes more time to Greenspan’s love of the bathtub than she does to his 2001 Congressional testimony that basically endorsed the 2001 Bush tax cuts as fiscally sound (on the specious grounds that Congress had to do something to prevent the government budget surplus from getting too large). She spends more time joking with Andrea Mitchell (Greenspan’s wife) about Greenspan’s adorable nerdiness – mostly in regarding his appetite for sundry obscure economic data (e.g. the price of Canadian versus U.S. timber) – than she does exploring Greenspan’s dubious and narrowly economic rationale for supporting the Iraq war. In his memoir, Greenspan recounts telling President Bush that he had to invade Iraq to prevent Saddam from taking over the Straits of Hormaz and disrupting world oil shipments.

On the Iraq point, Stahl could have challenged Greenspan’s rationale in several obvious ways:
a) What was the evidence that Saddam was actually planning to do commandeer the Straits of Hormaz
b) Even if there was such evidence, were there not means short of war to deter Saddam from acting?
c) Why do the potential harms from Greenspan’s nightmare scenario justify the sacrifice of thousands of American and Iraqi lives?
d) Hasn’t the invasion done its own damage to world oil supplies?

Greenspan’s twisted history aside, my aim here is primarily to show that Leslie Stahl is a lightweight. Whether speaking with liberal or conservative figures, she consistently drifts toward the trivial. It’s disheartening to have to rely on such an unserious journalist to interview our most important public figures But such figures manage to survive (thrive!) in American journalism. One factual mistake - a la Dan Rather - you're out. Steady production of boring, largely uninformative fluff - you're golden.

Atrocities of Saudi Justice.... and Weak U.S. Response

This article exposes the inhumanity of Saudi Arabia's Wahabbi-based legal system. Not only do the courts sentence a rape victim to lashings - evidently the young woman's crime was being alone in a car with a man unrelated to her - but on appeal the court doubles its punishment! How dare this woman have the temerity to protest her punishment for being raped.

With Wolf Blitzer's questions in last night's Democratic debate about balancing national security with human rights, nowhere is America's selling out of human rights more egregious than in Saudi Arabia. Damn our dependence on Saudi oil! Hillary Clinton famously argued in her 1995 U.N. Beijing address that protecting women's rights is inseparable from protecting human rights; John Edwards now frequently makes the same argument. What will really impress me is when one of these candidates uses the debate platform to blast our shameful alliance with Saudi Arabia, and commits herself to policies that will enable us to sever this alliance with minimal economic harm. Tom Friedman's $1-a-gallon 'patriot tax' on gasoline would be a decent place to start.

If a gas tax is politically impossible, at least use the bully pulpit to call international attention to the horrors of Saudi justice. Perhaps persuade the Europeans to join us in telling the Saudis that neither Boeing nor Airbus will sell aircrafts to Saudi Arabia until it liberalizes its penal code - at the very least ending lashings for rape victims. This probably seems wishful thinking to self-proclaimed 'realists'. but I think it's worth a shot. As DKos argues today, promoting human rights abroad bolsters rather than undermines America's long-term national security.

Vig?

Whether used by Tony Soprano or your friend with a gambling habit, the term "vig" is everywhere.

Wikipedia offers a good definition. Beyond merely it's Yiddish origin, however, the term is an interesting study in tax incidence. Who "pays" the vig depends on assumptions about the gamblers: whether each gambler has a target amount he is willing to win, a specified amount he is willing to risk, or a tendency to bet more when he believes himself to have an edge.

Wikipedia's vig discussion makes these points very clearly.

NYT Environmental Blogs

Continuing my practice of simply stealing material from the Times, check of NYT reporter Andrew Revkin's new blog on climate change. Take note, Jason Islas, this will be a good source of information on the environment (though its use of phrases such as "clean air" may require some explaining to you Angelinos).

This NYT blog covers the environment from a business perspective. Also good.

Leonhardt on Why Market Losses Shouldn't Rile the Young

David Leonhard pens what some other blogger termed a "delightfully contrarian column." Damn right. Leonhardt notes that applauding every rapid rise in the stock market - and bemoaning every decline - is somewhat senseless for people at the beginning of their investment life-cycle (e.g. the young).

Assuming that asset prices cannot climb ever upward at a fast pace, the optimal path is for asset prices to appreciate in an orderly, predictable fashion. From the perspective of a young person in the first ten years of contributing to her 4o1(k), better to have the market increase each year rather than have a massive run-up in the early years (when she won't have as much invested), and then be stagnant for nine years. Though we all want stock markets to rise, for a young person it's better for the bulk of that rise to be concentrated in later years when we have more invested.

Thus, fear not when Jim Lehrer reports the S&P to have a flat day. Just more time to pile in your investment monies before the market swings up again!

Candidates on Chalie Rose

Charlie Rose's The Candidates series is giving Presidential hopefuls a full hour to discuss their plans for America. The News Hour completed a similar series about a month ago, but the interviews were only about fifteen minutes. Ray Suarez also cannot match Charlie Rose as an interviewer.

Bill Richardson last night, Mike Huckabee last week. Finally some significant air time for the dark horses! It will be interesting to see whether these interviews attract many viewers.

Eating Well in the Rose City

Continuing my theme of contrasting Portland, Ore. with New York City, let me point out two NYT dining columns on the Portland restaurant scene. The first proclaims a "golden age" of dining in Portland and points to the city's relatively low rents and proximity to fresh ingredients as creating an environment hospitable to experimental young chefs (note also the accompanying slide-show of Portland eateries).

The article's emphasis on cheap access to local ingredients suggests Portland's thriving restaurant scene to be a positive byproduct of the city's Urban Growth Boundary, which preserves agricultural land on the urban hinterland. While some criticize UGB building restrictions for pushing up housing prices, evidently Portland rents remain cheap enough to attract cooking talent! And chefs describe these low rents as enabling them to take risks that would be impossible in a city such as New York, where the need to attract investors arguably produces a bias toward cuisine whose appeal is already well-established.

The second article profiles Michael Hemmeroy's new "One Pot" venture in Seattle. Hemmeroy is an intriguing figure - a master of hype and evidently also of reinventing himself. I only regret coming to Portland too late to sample his homemade gins.

Whiny Frannk Bruni and the 2000 Election

One never knows where one will come across jarring historical artifacts. Lately the Times Dining Out section has been especially fertile ground. Frank Bruni's column yesterday on "restaurantspeak" reminded me that George W. Bush in 2000 was perhaps the luckiest candidate in American political history.

First a bit of background. Now the Times' Restaurant critic, Bruni was the NYT reporter assigned to cover the Bush campaign in 2000. Bruni's coverage of Bush was famously soft, as is evidenced by his memoir of the campaign Ambling into History: The Unlikely Odyssey of George W. Bush. Publishers Weekly describes Bruni's book as focusing

on the seemingly trivial aspects of Bush's personality, small moments that he believes "reveal every bit as much about Bush as large ones": Bush sticking his fingers in Bruni's ears to indicate something is off the record. Or Bush holding his pinkie to the corner of his mouth … la Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies.

This type of anecdote-obsessed coverage was typical of Bruni's reporting throughout the campaign. From the start he seemed smitten with Bush's back-slapping, hail-fellow-well-met persona.

All of which brings me to Bruni's restaurant column yesterday, which he basically devoted to complaining about servers using the word "enjoy" too liberally - as in "are you done enjoying your entree" or "would you like to enjoy some coffee with dinner." Bruni bristles at waiters presuming him to be "enjoying" his dish without even asking. Fair enough. But is this really so annoying as to merit an entire column?

I think this column is noteworthy for exposing Bruni's pettiness, a fixation on style over substance that characterized all of his 2000 campaign dispatches. Bruni seems to simply that a few phrases from the waiter can mar an entire meal, irrespective of how tasty the actual meal is. Similarly, one can imagine him taking a shine to George W. because he was a funny guy - irrespective of his lack of experience or policy knowledge.

Just read the Bruni column and ask yourself: was this really the reporter whom the newspaper of record designated to cover a Presidential candidate? Karen Hughes probably spun Bruni simply by forbidding the campaign flight attendants from telling him to "enjoy" his diet cokes!
Seriously though, Bruni's restaurant criticism's sensitivity to irrelevant details (I thought a restaurant critic was supposed to write about food) does give some insight into his weakness as a political reporter.

Bruni's caprice struck me becuase I read the "restaurantspeak" column just after completing a post about media coverage of Gore in 2000. Bush was incredibly fortunate to draw Bruni as his NYT campaign tail rather than the very critical Kit Seelye. And this accident of history mattered. Did it determine the outcome of the election? Certainly not. But in a contest as close as the 2000 Presidential election, NYT coverage almost certainly influenced some voters' in Florida (and other swing states) toward Bush. Hopefully future journalistic historians will mine Bruni's restaurant columns for insights into his misguided reporting in 2000.

Economic Advisers to the '08 Candidates

NYT's Louis Uchitelle details to whom the candidates are turning for economic advice. Most of the names will be familiar: Rubin, Sperling, Lindsay. To the econ majors among you eager to know whom your textbook authors are supporting, we find out that Harvard's Greg Mankiw advises Mitt Romney, while David and Christina Romer of UC Berkeley speak exclusively to Barack Obama (take note Reedies who have survived Macro Theory. Your beloved Romer Lounge resides firmly in the Obama camp).

Uchitelle's most notable (if unsurprising) finding is that most liberal professional economists are skeptical of the increasingly populist Edwards campaign. Despite admiration for certain of Edwards' stances (such as his vocal support for closing the hedge-fund/private equity tax loophole), the absence of credentialed academics among Edwards' circle troubles me. He evidently consults on economic matters chiefly with Leo J. Hindery, a cable-television entrpreneur turned private equity guy. More disturbing, Edwards also listens to Clyde V. Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, whose views on international trade Paul Krugman sharply criticized over a decade ago.

The Congressional battle over the Peru free trade agreement once again exposed the deep rifts over economic policy within the Democratic party. To mediate these disputes, we need a President who gets advice from the best the economics profession has to offer. At least in his circle of advisers for the primaries, Edwards is failing that test.

Though I'm too lazy the summarize the entire argument, Edwards' choice of Hindery and Prestowitz gives new salience to Paul Krugman's famous distinction between professional economists and what he terms "policy entrepreneurs" (e.g. Arthur Laffer, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Reich, Lester Thurow). Usually without academic training, policy entrepreneurs address contemporary economic problems for a general audience, but without the theoretical or empirical rigor of professional economists. They thus end up peddling simplistic solutions (tax cuts always good; government should intervene more to protect "high-value added" industries) to complex problems. For Krugman's classic formulation of the issue, see pages 10-15 of Peddling Prosperity.

For anyone wondering what economists actually say to political candidates seeking their counsel, see Alan Blinder's interview with Charlie Rose (Uchitelle lists Blinder as yet unaffiliated, though in the interview he mentions talking to Obama).