During the 2004 presidential elections, Democrats tried to persuade the American public that job creation was the worst since the Great Depression and the country was in a downward economic spiral. In order to make the case, Democrats had to employ statistics creatively. We could no longer look at the unemployment rate, the traditional measure, because it was too good. Instead, they used other Bureau of Labor statistics that notoriously lag the economic growth that was beginning even in 2003 and 2004.
There was a downturn beginning in late 2000 and early 2001 as the country entered a mild recession. This was cyclical response to the growth at the end of the 1990s and the collapse of the “Dot.Com Bubble.” Then after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the downturn grew deeper as the national mood soured and the stock market plunged. The combination of a loose money supply provided by the Federal Reserve and President Bushs tax cuts pulled us back to prosperity. Inflation stayed low, unemployment fell, the economy roared back and since 2003 stock market values have reached new highs. In 2004, the fullness of the recovery was not yet as obvious as it is now. Democrats can no longer complain that the overall economy was not doing well. Instead, they have to try to provoke class warfare with erroneous complaints that the benefits of economic growth have not been wide spread. These statistics on income and wealth inequality cited are just as misleading that those previously used by Democrats to disguise rebounding employment.
There is at least one other economic index whose rebound has been hidden. One of the largest complaints by the Democrats now was that tax cuts increased the federal deficit. Now the size of the deficits may be large, they are not large with respect to the economy. Indeed, as a fraction of the Gross National Product (GNP) they have already been decreasing. Unfortunately, relative measures, though more meaningful, are more difficult to explain. It seems now that federal receipts are growing so rapidly that the nominal deficit may soon disappear and the one remaining Democratic economic complaint will evaporate.
The value of the nominal federal deficit over last decade is shown below. This is a plot of the twelve-month running average in the federal deficit in billions of dollars. The month-to-month numbers are noisy. Note, that the plot shown is a “following” running average. The value for the current month is the total deficit for the last 12 months. This plot would tend to be a lagging indicator.


Indulgences for Sale
Sunday, February 25th, 2007Catholic theology has a well-considered and well-developed sense of sin. Sin can be parsed into serious and deliberate “mortal” sins, that remove one from the state of grace or the more pedestrian “venial” sins. And, of course, there is “original” sin which we inherited through the foolish transgressions of Adam and Eve.
Fortunately, Catholic theology has an equally well-developed concepts of forgiveness and redemption, as well as procedures for obtaining pardon. Confessing to one’s priest and performing appropriate penance can relieve the guilt of sin. The burden of guilt, especially considering the prospect of post-death punishment, becomes tolerable if there is a realistic way of absolving guilt. In order to avoid “Purgatory” or even “Hell” some sort of retribution or “temporal punishment” is required
Since retribution is often performed by acts of good, the notion arose that good works can be deposited into a spiritual bank to offset sins. Present good works might be used to offset future transgressions. Once the idea that good works are fungible gained currency, it was a short step to abuse. Churches and monasteries performed good works. People could offer “alms” in the process of requesting an “indulgence” to escape temporal punishment for sins. This quickly degenerated to the effective sale of indulgences. In effect, the affluent could buy themselves out of the effects of sin.
The process grew so pervasive, that the Reformation began in large measure in response to this and similar abuses. In protest, Martin Luther posted the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences (a.k.a. the 95 Theses) on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg in 1517.
It is difficult not to see the analogy between the 16th century sale of indulgences and sale of greenhouse “offsets.” Affluent people who fancy them selves as “green,” the equivalent of holy in the religion of environmentalism, might find it difficult to do the good works necessary for ecological salvation. After all, they need to maintain their large homes and travel habits. Just as 16th century sinners could purchase the good works of monks, the modern day eco-minded affluent can purchase green offsets.
How far can we carry this analogy? In eco-theology, is flying in a private jet a mortal sin, while flying coach only a venial transgression? Does the CO2 present in the atmosphere when we are born considered original sin?
Even worse, many of these offsets do not directly reduce CO2 emissions, but may provide money to variety of organizations who engage in environmental advocacy or do research in energy alternatives. It is becoming an industry of its own, not immune from abuse,
Some environmentalists are now questioning the greenness of these offsets. Adam Ma’anit, co-editor of Left-wing New Internationalist Magazine, has posted his own version of the 95 Theses, complaining about the abuse of these eco-indulgences. ``For about $150 you could make a Hummer a zero-emissions vehicle just by buying offsets, Of course, the reality is you are still driving an insanely inefficient car and belching carbon like you were a finalist at the Texas annual chili eating festival every time you pop down to the local Wal-Mart for some Hot Pockets.” You have to admire Ma’anit’s formulation. He manages to snidely criticize Hummers, Texas chili, Wal-Mart and Hot Pockets in a single coherent sentence. That statement reeks of Leftist elitism.
Now far be it for any Conservative to condemn free and open markets. In may be the case, that direct CO2 markets may provide an efficient means of reducing CO2 emissions. However, we can object to the hypocrisy of the affluent living lavish lifestyles that emit disproportionate amounts of C02 pretending they are environmentally friendly.
One difficulty in reducing CO2 emissions is that the economic consequences may fall most heavily on the poor. It is a difficult trade-off that serious people must weigh. However, when the affluent buy CO2 offsets they are implicitly saying that dealing with messiness of reducing CO2 is beneath them. They have people who do that for them.
Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »