Late Night Laugh: Try The Veggie Platter

The Top Ten Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems

Reason Magazine:

Copenhagen, May 30—Where in the world can we do the most good? Supplying the micronutrients vitamin A and zinc to 80 percent of the 140 million children who lack them in developing countries is ranked as the highest priority by the expert panel at the Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Conference. The cost is $60 million per year, yielding benefits in health and cognitive development of over $1 billion.

Eight leading economists, including five Nobelists, were asked to prioritize 30 different proposed solutions to ten of the world’s biggest problems. The proposed solutions were developed by more than 50 specialist scholars over the past two years and were presented as reports to the panel over the past week. Since we live in a world of scarce resources, not all good projects can be funded. So the experts were constrained in their decision making by allocating a budget of an “extra” $75 billion among the solutions over four years.

Number 2 on the list of Copenhagen Consensus 2008 priorities is to widen free trade by means of the Doha Development Agenda. The benefits from trade are enormous. Success at Doha trade negotiations could boost global income by $3 trillion per year, of which $2.5 trillion would go to the developing countries. At the Copenhagen Consensus Center press conference, University of Chicago economist Nancy Stokey explained, “Trade reform is not just for the long run, it would make people in developing countries better off right now. There are large benefits in the short run and the long run benefits are enormous.”

Nobelist and University of California, Santa Barbara economist Finn Kydland noted that unless the economies of developing countries grow, they will still be mired in the same problems of poverty ten years from now as they are today. “By reducing trade barriers, income per capita will grow, enabling more people in developing countries to take care of some of these problems for themselves.”

The remaining top ten priorities addressed problems of malnutrition, disease control, and the education of women. For example, the number three Copenhagen Consensus priority is fortifying foods with iron and iodized salt. Two billion people do not have enough iron in their diets which results in energy sapping anemia and cognitive deficits in children and adults. Lack of iodine stunts both physical and intellectual growth. More than 30 percent of developing country households do not consume iodized salt. Correcting these mirconutrient deficits would cost $286 million per year. The other seven of the top ten solutions include expanded immunization coverage of children; biofortification; deworming; lowering the price of schooling; increasing girls’ schooling; community-based nutrition promotion; and support for women’s reproductive roles.

Take solution number seven, lowering the price of schooling. Nobelist and Chapman University economist Vernon Smith emphasized that this solution is not about lowering the cost of schooling, but reducing the price faced by poor parents who have to choose between sending their kids to school and having them work to supply household income. Ways to reduce the price is to supply vouchers or channel more public funds to schools. When Uganda cut school fees by $16 per year (60 percent), enrollment nearly doubled, with most of the increase in enrollment being girls. Smith pointed out that research shows that educating girls increases average productivity more than does educating boys. The cost for this proposed solution is $5.4 billion per year.

So what proposed solutions are at the bottom of the list? At number 30, the lowest priority is a proposal to mitigate man-made global warming by cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases [emp-SC&A] This ranking caused some consternation among the European journalists at the press conference. Nobelist and University of Maryland economist Thomas Schelling noted that part of the reason for the low ranking is that spending $75 billion on cutting greenhouses gases would achieve almost nothing. In fact, the climate change analysis presented to the panel found that spending $800 billion until 2100 would yield just $685 billion in climate change benefits.

Noting that he has been concerned about climate change for 30 years, Schelling argued that tacking climate change will take public policy responses such as carbon taxes to address the issue. Schelling added, “The best defense against climate change in the developing countries is going to be their own development.” He explained that funding education to create a literate labor force boosts the productivity of a country enabling economic growth. Economic growth produces wealth that helps people address and adapt to the problems caused by climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, pointed out that funding research and development of low-carbon energy technologies is ranked at a respectable number 14 out of the 30 solutions considered.

Also low on the list of priorities are proposals to reduce outdoor air pollution in developing country cities by installing technologies to cut the emissions of particulates from diesel vehicles. Other low ranked solutions included a tobacco tax, improved stoves to reduce indoor air pollution, and extending microfinance. These are not bad proposals, but other proposals were judged to provide more bang for the 75 billion bucks available in the exercise.

The experts chose not to bother ranking any of the proposed solutions to the challenge of transnational terrorism. This is not surprising. Even the scholar (funded by grants from the Department of Homeland Security) who did the benefit cost analysis for the Copenhagen Consensus project found that we get just nine cents of value for every dollar spent trying to stop terrorists. Interestingly, the number 1 priority identified by the experts in the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus was combating HIV/AIDS. That dropped to number 19 in the 2008 ranking.

How does the ranking of solutions by the participants in the Youth Forum compare to the experts’ ranking? Youth Forum participants also ranked supplying vitamin A and zinc to poor children in developing countries as their number 1 priority. In general, the Youth Forum placed a stronger emphasis on solutions aimed at preventing disease and malnutrition. Here’s the list of the Youth Forum’s top ten in order, followed by a number in brackets indicating the experts’ ranking of the same solution: vitamin A and zinc supplements [1]; malaria prevention [12]; borehole wells [16]; immunization [4]; health and nutrition programs [not ranked separately by experts]; community-based nutrition promotion [9]; iron and iodine fortification [3]; tuberculosis treatment [13]; total sanitation campaign [20]; HIV combination prevention strategies [19].

The biggest difference between the two rankings is that Youth Forum gave the Doha trade negotiations a low priority. Speaking with several participants revealed that trade ended up near the bottom because the youths were concentrating on how to allocate the $75 billion budget. Trade was considered by many to be an issue of “political will” which did not fit into any budgetary category. Interestingly, the experts basically agree with that perception because they deduct no costs from the $75 billion budget when allocating expenditures among their top priorities.

The Copenhagen Consensus process is certainly not perfect. However, its use of benefit cost analysis helps concentrate the attention of policymakers, charitable foundations, and members of the public on the relative urgency and costs of the world’s big problems. As the final press release quotes economist Finn Kydland, “It’s hard to see how one could do any better in terms of coming up with a well-founded list of where to start for the purpose of the betterment of the dire conditions in much of the rest of the world.”

The complete ranking of the 30 proposed solutions to ten of the world’s greatest challenges by the Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Conference are available here.

Punish Big Oil? Why Not Punish State Capitals?

More to think about:

…The average state sales tax on gasoline is 28.6 cents a gallon, according to the American Petroleum Institute. That’s a dime more than the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents a gallon.

And while the federal rate hasn’t increased since 1997, the amount drivers pay in state taxes can jump every year — or even every day — inching up as the price does.

Some lawmakers have talked about providing relief by suspending the gas tax, but few proposals have gone anywhere. States rely on gas tax dollars to build and repair infrastructure. With many roads and bridges crumbling, elected officials are reluctant to give that money up.

Some warn that cutting the tax revenue — even temporarily — can deepen the woes.

“There’s a need here and if we don’t take care of it will only get worse,” said Patrick Natale, executive director the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The roughly three dozen states that use only a flat tax on gas may face declining revenues as motorists pinched by high fuel prices try to drive less.

In the dozen or so states where the tax is tied, at least in part, to the price at the pump, the skyrocketing prices have meant an unexpected windfall.

California, which has the highest gas tax in the nation according to a survey by the American Petroleum Institute, would rake in $5 billion this year if the price at the pump remains at $4 a gallon. That’s more than double the $2.1 billion the state took in gasoline tax revenue in 2003, state revenue officials said.

And what exactly did the state of California do to earn that windfall profit? Does California pay taxes on that windfall?

Do you really believe your state wants to lower their tax take by way of lower gas prices? Have you heard your state representatives clamoring to lower the gas tax?

Something to think about.

Some earlier thoughts on how to get out of the energy ‘crisis.’

$50 Million, Tax Free

Americans are not victims of an energy crisis. We are the perpetrators of an energy crisis.

Rather than sit back and blame the Arabs, oil companies and every other conceivable energy bogeyman, now is the time to announce a national initiative on energy.

The Manhattan Project was the result of a Herculean wartime effort.

Man walked on the moon because John Kennedy made that effort a national goal.

This nation ramped up wartime production that saved Europe from annihilation.

The ravages of Polio were defeated because research laboratories made that effort a priority.

This nation can no longer afford to be victimized by others. Energy independence must become a national obsession and priority. The effort must be multifaceted.

We must find way to further conserve energy.

We need to develop more energy efficient technologies.

We need to develop alternate sources of energy and the technology to exploit that energy efficiently and safely. That means developing clean coal and safest possible nuclear energy programs.

We must drill for oil in ANWAR and off the coasts. Technology today makes for cleaner and less environmentally intrusive drilling.

Finally, we must let the free market do what it does best: Innovate.

We propose a $50 million dollar tax free prize be awarded to anyone, scientist or backyard engineer, who can develop an energy source that doubles the energy output of a particular energy source. For example, if you can come up with a way to double the energy out of the best (same sized) wind power generator today, you get a $50 million check. If you can double the output of a the best (same sized) solar panel or energy storage system, there is $50 million waiting for you.

Give us an internal combustion engine that gets 100 miles to the gallon (in the same sized car that currently gets 30 miles to the gallon) and you get $50 million, tax free. Come up with a viable alternative energy efficient technology and $50 million and mai tais on a Tahitian beach are yours.

Rules are simple- same size box, so to speak, double capacity and you win.

All finalists must be economically viable and safe as determined by industry and government experts.

That’s $250 million to reclaim our nation’s energy independence- less than half the cost of one new Coast Guard cutter.

Think about it.

How Exactly Is Barack Obama Like Ronald Reagan?

How exactly is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan? According to the Obama campaign, the senator from Illinois ought to be compared to the former president.

Is he promising to cut taxes?

Is he promising to help small business?

Is he promising to make government smaller?

Is he promising to keep government out of people’s lives?

Is he promising to stand up to dictators and tyrants and fight them if necessary?

Is he promising to strengthen our military?

Is he promising to introduce supply side economic policies?

Is he promising to lower federal income tax rates?

Is he promising to fight terror wherever our interests are threatened?

Is he promising to demand that tyrants ‘tear down their’ stranglehold on their nations?

Is he promising to put American interests ahead of all other interests?

So once again, how exactly is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan?

The Ecstasy Of Easy Choices

Obama The Trophy Wife, written by Elizabeth Scalia and published at Pajamas Media, is an insightful and somewhat startling look at the Democrat candidate for president candidate and our moth-to-the-flame-fascination with the inexperienced senator from Illinois.

A trophy wife, of course, is the younger, less shopworn, unlined, doe-eyed, and sometimes opportunistic woman some middle-aged men marry upon achieving the measure of worldly success that puts them in more “elite” company. Mixing with a “higher caliber” of people, such men know what they wish to present to the world: energy, a tuned-in trendiness, a certain sleekness of manner, and above all, youth! If they can’t quite project all of that with their comb-overs, their sagging jowls, and their reading glasses, why, a pretty young wife and pretty young children are just the accessories to help the illusion along.

Obama offers Democrats a national ‘makeover,’ painless, without surgery, without risk and without a recuperative period. Overnight, some Democrats believed that American beauty would be restored and that American beauty would sway men and women all over the world.

(That is not to say that some leftists want to make America the global whore, dressed up and servile however anyone likes. In the real world, it is the johns who pay for the services of the whore. In the world of many leftists, America must pay for the privilege of being that whore.)

What they don’t want to tell you is that they desperately want to be loved not for they are they are, but rather for who they look like. They don’t want to be looked at for their values but instead want to be worshiped for their willingness to please- and Hillary simply would not do.

Then they spotted — Obama! He was young, pretty, and had a pleasing voice. He looked good in jeans and had just a touch of edginess about him when he smoked. He seemed born to be looked at. Not much real experience in the hard political world — a few turns around the dance floor with glamorous-seeming men — but he appeared eager to learn, eager to get ahead, and because he stood for almost nothing, he would be easy to lead. He hadn’t accomplished much of note, but trophy wives don’t need thick resumes.

As a trophy wife, Obama would be content to let the Democrats pull out of Iraq; Hillary might actually suggest they stay. Obama would be able to sell the socialized health care Hillary couldn’t pull off. Most importantly, Obama would schmooze and photo-op with the elites for whose approval the Democrats so desperately yearned; Hillary was untrustworthy, there. She might snub Ahmadinejad and, like Bill Clinton before her, pledge to jump into a trench with a rifle to defend Israel. Obama would smile and look good while doing neither.

Obama makes it easy. Obama makes political and moral choices seem effortless, without agony and without consequence. The ecstasy of easy choices-  that is the dream that is being foisted upon us, a fantasy too spectacular and too hypnotic to ignore.

The truth is, Obama is a trophy wife and more. He is the caring  Olivia Walton, silent and long suffering mother of the Walton clan.  Obama silently and with great dignity suffers from the all enveloping white racism on his Walton’s Mountain in the same way Olivia suffered from Tuberculosis. While everything may not always be perfect, there will always be a happy ending and a loving, united family on Walton’s Mountain.

Obama is the perfect candidate for a nation raised on television and who believes that intellectual pursuits can be sated by PBS. That expensive taxpayer funded outlet is a lot like Thanksgiving on skid row. Legions of ‘caring’ volunteers from the suburbs show up once a year to spoon out pudding and dressing to wretched forgotten souls, just so they can say they are better than most. Many of these people are fervent Obama supporters. They truly believe that one vote, like one meal, will change hard realities, both seen and unseen.

Scalia’s point is well taken. The ‘trophy wife’ analogy is representative of a culture that is throwing a tantrum. It’s all about instant gratification of all kinds. We want our cake and we want to eat as much of that cake as we want- and if we put on weight, well, we’re going to sue you and make cake illegal (That’s a lot like the Muslim sheikhs who demand all women (not just Muslim women) cover themselves from head to toe because men can’t control themselves- and women are no more than ‘uncovered meat’ who get what they deserve if they don’t tow the line. What happened to ‘uncovered’ women in banlieues in France for decades are an example of that kind of  political expression)

Disagree with Obama and you are a racist. Campaign against Obama and you beat your wife and children.

The Obama Democrats would have you believe that politics is like factory beer when in fact, politics is ever evolving and refining. No one candidate, no one political party or political ideology will provide all the answers- and those who promise otherwise ought to raise more than a few eyebrows.

The differences between Francis Fukuyama and Marshall Berman best define the political divide of our time.

Fukuyama, the proponent of democracy, sees progressive politics in keeping and continuing to learn from our past. Berman, the unabashed socialist, believes that we must reject whatever preceded us and start from scratch, with little or no tolerance for ideas that deviate from socialist Utopia.

The Leftists today would have you reject everything that preceded their ascendancy. They want the trophy wife and care little for those whose ideas facilitated their rise. They openly admit their revulsion for those who blazed the trail and who now are in the way of their exercising their lustful desires for power and self gratification. For them, it is not enough that Hillary Clinton be rejected. She must be vilified and painted ugly as well.

In a blog post, Scalia remarked that

I find it interesting that – in my world – these people are entitled to their thoughts and opinions, and even to full respect for them, while in their worlds I am entitled to no thought or opinion that dissents from theirs, and I should not be allowed to speak – hell, I’m barely human to them. And they think they’re the liberals, eh? Not by any definition I ever learned.

There is a name for people who hold such views, but liberal is not it.

Newsflash, people, when you are making bigoted sweeping generalizations about Christians, when you’re incapable of moving beyond sneering snark and name-calling and you’re writing lines like

“you…[conservatives and Christians] are not human to me”

well…you’re not a liberal. You’re very, very far away from liberal thinking. And you should be afraid of where you’re permitting yourself to go, because it’s a bad, restricting, joyless and stagnant sort of place that has absolutely no connection to liberty or individuality. I wish better for you.

Of course, Elizabeth Scalia is really addressing a bigger issue. There are those for whom the self and their beliefs trample over the beliefs of others. Believe what we believe they say, or be ostracized by the community, expelled even. Hillary Clinton is walking proof of that. She had the audacity to challenge Barack Obama. Now she is paying for her sins.

Now, to be clear, we are not talking about the right to dissent or challenge. We are talking about ‘ultimatum politics,’ that new genre of expression that is the equivalent of playing ‘chicken’ on a highway. That of course is derived from ‘ultimatum agendas,’ the ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ idea that you must accept a particular agenda in it’s entirety, or you are the enemy.

Believing in Barack Obama or any other candidate for the right reasons is a wonderful thing. In free societies, leaders usually rise from adversity into greatness. Certainly America has had leaders that have emerged into greatness. Lincoln, Truman, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, to name few, came to prominence because of their record of achivements. That said, all the noble ideas and inspiring speeches in the world are not the same as a record of achievement.

Supporting Barack Obama or anyone else for the wrong reasons, no matter how attractive or appealing that candidate might be is a recipe for disaster that only serves to undermine free societies.

Scalia, once more:

We live none of us to ourselves, and everything we do, even if we are not “thinking” about it, not acting consciously, has a ripple effect, it reaches out and touches other lives, sometimes imperceptibly. Nature uses everything…We think we’re going along in our own little spheres and that nothing we do matters…for good, or for evil…but it all matters…

Politics isn’t about one party or candidate winning over their opponents. In a free society, politics is about elevating society- and as Elizabeth Scalia points out, selecting leaders based on their ‘trophy wife’ qualifications actually demeans the process.