What America needs to do to remain competitive

America obviously remains the world’s strongest economy, despite recent setbacks like the dollar’s slide against the Euro, inflation, and rising unemployment. And while many aspects of the economy (including, surprisingly, manufacturing), remain as strong as ever, other aspects of the economic engine are set to likely stall soon. There are thus three measures, one short term, one long term, and one moderate term, all of which are very likely to keep the American economy in relatively steady growth for years to come.

Long term: America needs to seriously reinvest in its infrastructure and capital, at all levels. This doesn’t mean simply renovating roads and bridges. It means investing more in its citizens through expanded education and research money. Where would it come from? Well, one part would be directing better military research. The other would be less military spending and (unfortunately) higher taxes. A smarter citizenry will be a smarter workforce, becoming more attractive to employers. Companies will want to come to the United States not just to sell, but also to hire.

Moderate term: Green up America. Become environmentalist. There are several benefits. First, the necessary spending will obviously help the American economy. Secondly, the new environment friendly United States would save resources, allowing the country to be more efficient and thus better overall. Lastly, a cleaner environment makes the United States as a whole better for everyone, increasing tourism, agriculture, and other environment dependent industries.

Short term: The most immediate way to boost the American economy is to change immigration policy. First, make it vastly easier for skilled workers to come to the United States. This is much better than the alternative, which is to watch as American companies leave America to find skilled workers elsewhere. This would increase the inflow of skilled workers and help increase U.S. economic performance. Second, the United States should increase the limit on unskilled workers to make labor costs cheaper for businesses close to the margin. Some say this might put Americans out of work, but that is already happening as it is. The difference now is that the money being lost by Americans stays in America and can help them out in some way, whereas with off-shoring and illegal immigrants all of America’s money leaves its borders.

These are three short solutions to economic problems in the United States. They are by no means comprehensive or necessarily well-detailed, but they are a start.

Gun rights in the United States

Just as a note, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that individuals in America have a right to bear arms.

This was not to be unexpected, as such a right has been the general interpretation of courts and politicians for quite a long time now. The actual real world implications might be few and far between.

I am curious, however, as to why the United States is semi-unique in its protection of the right to keep weapons. Do a lot of other Western countries (or just countries in general) also carry this as a legal right? It seems more of an American phenomenon.

Free trade

It is clear that free trade is the path of the future. Despite the best efforts of governments and individuals everywhere, the trend for the foreseeable years ahead is the lowering of barriers to trade and the increase in the exchange of goods, labor, and capital across the planet. Some might decry this as necessarily a bad thing, but instead it must be viewed as a positive asset, primarily through its increase of material wealth and standards of regulation.

Obviously, increased trade brings about increased material wealth. This is fact. Despite the uneven distribution of such wealth, its spread across the globe has still brought millions of individuals out of poverty. Globalization has resulted in the greatest decrease in poverty since the Industrial Revolution, and thus it is clear that globalization has had obvious benefits.

What is not obvious is the benefit towards policies on the environment and labor. On the surface, it would appear that increased globalization has made it so that countries have lowered their economic policies and made labor regulations weaker. There are two counters to this problem. First, increased material wealth makes it more possible for poorer and developing nations to care about and protect environments and their working forces. Second, increased globalization has also brought increased international attention through the media, and thus has helped focus a spotlight on environmental and labor abuse in developing nations that would otherwise go unnoticed. Such international attention has helped to reduce the overall problems of environmental damage and labor force abuse.

It is clear, then, that globalization has been a force for good in this world. Not only has it brought about increased material wealth, but it has also helped protect global environmental and labor standards. Despite the sacrifices that have been made, the inexorable march of free trade and globalization is poised to make the planet a better place to live in.

The unfortunate price of oil

Some records are extremely difficult to break. The world records for many feats, such as the fastest time in the 100 meters, are considered accomplishments that will take years to beat. The record for the most home runs hit in Major League Baseball took 37 years to beat. However, some records have become infinitely easier to break, one of them being the price of oil. Oil is once again approaching record high prices, as the high of $139 set on June 16th is about to be shattered after recent troubles in Nigeria. Oil prices have made a staggering rise this year, and the possibility of even $200 crude oil is likely to occur by the end of this year and most assuredly by the end of next. Prices for oil do not seem likely to abate within the next 5 years.

This is not to be unexpected. By the very nature of oil the supply must be finite, but demand is infinite. It was obvious that as more was wanted the price would go up. Yes, it is possible to discover new sources of oil, but such sources can only be supported by current oil prices, so any increases in production would not necessarily lead to decreased prices, especially as demand continues to rise in the developing world. Despite the possibilities of new streams of oil and certain free market economists’ arguments, the general trend will be a drastic increase in the price for oil.

Worse still, new sources of oil present their own problems. Nigerian and other new African sources happen to fall into areas of growing political instability and brutality (like Sudan). South and Central American sources of oil are somewhat growing, but nationalistic economic policies mean that Venezuela, Mexico and Brazil, barring some drastic change in policy, will be unable to increase output and might actually have a decrease in output in the future. The Middle East now falls under the renewed specter of terrorism, which is likely to make oil from that region more dangerous to acquire. Other, novel sources of oil, such as the tar sands of Canada, have their own economic consequences.

This might be why the current high oil prices are good in the long term. Speculation in the oil (both because of a weak dollar and increasingly unstable supply) are likely to continue pushing prices higher. Thus, countries and individuals will be more likely to turn to alternative sources of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars or ethanol. These sources are much friendlier towards the environment in general and can help combat global warming.

The most feasible combination of energy use for the future comes from a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and nuclear power for homes and business uses combined with ethanol cars. The former technology merely needs greater investment and the continued high prices of oil. The latter will be trickier. Already problems have arisen from using corn ethanol, instead of the much more efficient sugarcane variety, which have resulted in high food prices. The world must push further for sugarcane ethanol and learn to make it truly more efficient.

High prices of oil are an unfortunate reality of life. In the short term, there will be some suffering. The moderate future will likely see a drastic reduction in demand; both from measures such as using less energy in general, more fuel efficient cars, and alternative energy. In the future, as the market effectively teaches its lesson, the next energy marketplace will not rely upon a single resource for powering the world’s energy needs. It is a shame, however, that we cannot simply jump to that future right now.

Contradictory political parties

Oftentimes, especially in the American political system, one major party likes to call out the hypocrisy of the other. Sometimes it’s Democrats accusing Republicans of being contradictory when it comes to being pro-life and yet in favor of the death penalty, and sometimes it can be Republicans accusing Democrats of hypocritical stances in freedoms, except when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. However, odd as it may be, these seeming contradictions might be a necessary function of both parties.

The major parties are big tent groups. They have to encompass many different constituencies in order to stay in power. However, while they might be able to get most of these constituencies to agree on a broad range of issues, they cannot possibly encompass enough citizens by one single stance. They must pick contradictory positions on issues that do not seem the least bit related in order to get as many people to vote for them as possible, hence the divide and seeming hypocrisy on some issues.

Parties who do not do this, such as the Libertarian party, are stuck forever in a smaller role. Single issue parties do not gather the necessary momentum in order to become major groups. In the American political system, only political parties that are broad, all-encompassing, and yes, even contradictory at many points can truly survive.

Nationhood and international sports

Even among us callow Americans, the UEFA Euro Cup has attracted significant attention. The excitement surrounding association football matches (or as real citizens of the US call it, soccer) is finally penetrating one of the last holdouts in the world. However, despite the lighthearted (and thanks to Spain, World Cup Champion Italy-less) atmosphere of the approaching semifinal rounds, soccer matches highlight an interesting dynamic of the world- that of nationhood, sovereignty, and international recognition.

Everyone is aware of the national teams of many of the world’s countries. However, even countries who do not have recognition, such as Tibet and Chechnya, have national football teams. FIFA cannot sanction these teams, because they are not recognized as countries, and yet they play anyway in multiple different non-FIFA tournaments, such as the FIFI World Cup, as well as under the auspices of groups such as the NF-Board. Such competitions help both to maintain a sense of nationhood and legitimacy.

Soccer is a fun game. It does, however, have real international relations implications. Here’s to Euro 2008.

How now, European Union?

The European Union’s latest steps towards greater unification were repelled by Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon treaty. This is an unfortunate result that came about primarily through a referendum vote whose highlights included spurious claims that the Lisbon treaty (which seeks to consolidate the powers of the EU together and create a unified foreign policy for the Union) would raise taxes from the opposition compared to a lackluster effort on the part of the pro-treaty sides to support it.

The treaty itself was essentially the most important aspects of the Constitution for Europe condensed into yet another unreadable document. The original Constitution itself was well known for being too long and complex for the average European to understand well, one factor that lead to its original defeat. This defect was not corrected with the Lisbon treaty, whose general summaries were also almost just as confusing as the original constitution was. Barring that, there was really no opposition to the bill that would have been of significance.

Europe’s leaders, if they want to accomplish their original goals, must be more forthright about what they want to do with the Union. It is clear they want greater unification, a consistent foreign policy, and less bureaucracy within the EU. These advances aren’t necessarily hard sells for European citizens. Their leaders, however, have to be more honest with the claims.

Hamas and Israeli truce

Through mediators in Egypt, Hamas, the Islamist party in control of Gaza, and Israel have reached a ceasefire agreement going into effect today. This is good news. Obviously whenever fighting between two parties stops, a positive step has been taken. However, where to go from here is very much unclear. The initial agreement is only for 3 days, and there appears to be little that can be done after that. Israel will allow some additional materials into Gaza if the peace holds, and there will be negotiations for prisoners. These seem like significant steps forward.

Granted, the ceasefire itself was already a huge step in the right direction, but there still is little to no way out of the conflict Hamas and Israel have put themselves in without violence. This is partly because Israel’s primary goal is to replace Hamas with Fatah, the more secular Palestinian organization currently in control of the West Bank. This has raised Hamas’ suspicions, but is relatively reasonable on Israel’s part. Hamas, at best, would only accept the agreement that Fatah is willing to, that is, a 30 year truce with Israel. Given the choice of negotiating with the secular group who appears ore conciliatory or the Islamist whose original aim is to eliminate Israel, it is not hard to see which one the country would prefer to work with.

As a result, this new truce will very likely be only temporary, resulting in little gains for either side. However, this slight reprieve might provide enough time for both sides to eventually realize that coexistence might become necessary, no matter how loath they are to admit it.

International intervention

Under what terms can a country (or countries) claim that a military intervention into another nation’s affairs is both just (ie, the correct course of action) and justified (ie, allowed)? The two questions are interrelated, but it is easier to deal with them separately, though it should be noted that a solution to the former part of the question equals a solution to the latter, but not the other way around (that is, if it’s just to intervene into a country, then it’s justified, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true).

It is tempting to say that a humanitarian crisis justifies an intervention. However, because military interventions by their nature tend to disrupt the peace, a careful analysis shows that only in situations of serious famine, incredible environmental damage, or grave neglect on the part of the nation’s government to the point where widespread killings are likely are military interventions justified.

In most other situations, the only possible justification for a military intervention comes from military conflict. However, the only just time that military intervention can be used is when a conflict is unlikely to resolve well for either party, or if the conflict is likely to escalate. Unless these two scenarios are met, military interventions into other nations are unjustifiable.

By this logic, then, the Iraq War was unjustifiable.

How America treats the world

America’s position in the global sphere is unquestionably that of top dog. Even though recent events have greatly weakened its power economically, politically, militarily and even culturally, it remains the strongest single nation on this planet by any conventional measure. So how America treats the world is vitally important to how the world will function, and especially as America tries to assert itself as the sole superpower before a possible return to multi-polarity in the middle of this century. There are some general guidelines which can be used to both explain and predict American behavior in certain regions of the world.

North America: America tends to treat Canada and Mexico fairly well. However, the Central American and especially the Caribbean countries are treated the same as the South American countries.

South America: Countries in this region are still somewhat subjected to the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary, though not as much in recent times. However, the perception is that the United States will tend to try and interfere in the events of this region. The debate over CAFTA and a Colombian free trade agreement highlight this. America feels that this area of the world is primarily useful for promoting its own economic gains for its countries, and that the antagonism that has resulted from this region is unjustified.

Europe (Western and Central): Countries in this region are generally respected and are treated as near-equals by the United States in terms of geopolitical actions.

Europe (Eastern): Some antagonism still exists between the US and Eastern Europe, though in recent times this conflict has greatly subsided. The main disagreements between America and this region come in the form of corruption and human rights, issues which the US attempts to always bring up but never truly get resolved.

Middle East: Post 9-11, the three criteria by which the US will treat a country in this region depend on the nation’s support of terrorism, its oil supplies, and how repressive the country is to its own people. Generally speaking, if a nation’s actions in this region are likely to affect oil supplies, the US moves to mitigate that risk. Addition actions include pursuing terrorism and promotion reform and democratic values. Generally, the order is to assure oil supplies, hunt down terrorists and then spread American values.

Africa: Northern Africa follows the rules of the Middle East. Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the few places where American policy has generally been positive. However, this region is also where America has committed the fewest military actions, and of those actions there have been some spectacular failures (see, for example, Somalia). Generally, the US prefers to simply send huge amounts of aid to this region for the alleviation of poverty, and relations are what could be considered the noblest between America and the nations of this region.

Asia: America’s policy in this region has been to take advantage of the rising economic power of this continent while attempting to push for human rights. On the former count it has been wildly successful, but on the latter count it has a mixed record.

Oceania and Australia: Much of this region is treated the same as if it were part of Western or Central Europe.