Declining Rio Grande reservoirs aren't all Mexico's fault

They're Texas' as well.

Note to Strangeabbott et al? It's called climate change.

As for the degree this might have been New Mexico's fault, before a Texas-New Mexico settlement that a 6-3 SCOTUS majority rightly nixed?

Note to Tiffany Lashmet Dowell, who I thought was better than this? The feds rowing their oar in on the Texas-New Mexico Rio Grande deal is not some new version of Agenda 21 or something.

Given that the Texas-New Mexico water settlement could affect "deliverables," which in turn might affect treaty obligations, even if the Supreme Court ruling in the case didn't explictly mention the US-Mexico treaty of 1944 covering both the Rio Grande and the Colorado, it DID mention the nation of Mexico, and thus, the empirical issues behind that treaty. The majority opinion was the right one.

Blame the special water master for not looping the feds in from the start, as the feds had requested.

To use an analogy? And to take it from conditions on that other river of international treaty?

Assume, hypothetically, that there are still portions of the All-American Canal that are not lined by concrete. Picture the state of California claiming that leakage water flows into Mexico. (It probably flows more into the Salton Sea, if there is any, but play along.) Picture, whether as part of negotiations to extend and update the Colorado River Compact, or just a unilateral California declaration, it telling the other six states in the compact that it thinks that water should count as part of US deliverables to Mexico under treaty and so it will increase its take.

The six other states would, in general, laugh. Well, Aridzona would get irate, not laugh.

The feds would also laugh — and then row their oar into the issue. The analogy is complete because both the Colorado River Compact and the original Texas-New Mexico deal on the Rio Grande were completed before the US-Mexico treaty.

There's also the framing issue. Below El Paso, this isn't "Texas" delivering water to Mexico; it's the US. I didn't really care for Dowell going there; it felt close to Texas exceptionalism. The analogy holds here, too. Below Yuma, it's not Aridzona delivering water to Mexico, it's the US.

And, Lashmet also doesn't tell you, which NPR does (though ignoring why Mexico is holding some bits of water) that it has one full five-year cycle after a current one when it's behind the curve to make up a water deficit. As for that why, otherwise? Mexican president Lopez Obrador has been water-stingy since Strangeabbott started putting the razor wire in the river.

The war criminals governing the US and the UN Security Council

In response to a comment on a piece by a Polish emigre, Henryk Kowalczyk (who himself tries to do cultural essentialism on Russia and the Mongol occupation centuries but ignored me when I reminded him that Poland put a puppet Tsar on the throne in Moscow 400 years ago), I dropped the bomb on who’s the war criminal, when said commenter said “Putin, blah blah blah”: 

You mean, like US war criminals waging war on free and sovereign Iraq?

Or the US war criminals waging war on free and sovereign North Vietnam?

Or the US war criminals waging war on free and sovereign Panama?

Or the US war criminals waging war on free and sovereign Cambodia?

Or the US war criminals waging war by coup on free and sovereign Honduras?

Or the US war criminals waging war by coup on free and sovereign Iran?

Or the US war criminals waging war by coup on free and sovereign Guatemala?

That’s all just the tip of the iceberg, John.

Again?

#Boom

And, yes, the US has basically consistently for decades been governed by criminals under international law definitions.

That’s just one of the reasons the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court.

Again?

#Boom

And, per Amnesty International and the New York Times, in addition, Ukraine as well as Russia has committed war crimes. 

This has more importance yet with the NAFO fellas et al moaning yesterday about how Russia was going to take over the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council.

None of the laundry list of American president war criminals ever kept the US from heading the UN Security Council. Nor did individual war crimes committed on their watch. Nor did Trump's pardoning of convicted war criminals.

==

I earlier did that "own" on the OP, and no, he hasn't responded yet. It was an "own" in part because the comment to which I was responding claimed that Merika didn't know East European history.

My hot take on the Iran nuclear proliferation deal — and #oilprices

Well, it looks like the US and partners have finally gotten Iran to sign off on a nuclear energy non-proliferation deal.

Among the good news is that the non-enrichment period is now 15 years, not 10. That's long enough for Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, to have died, and hopefully, the whole Supreme Guardian Council system to start crumbling. (Khamenei turns 76 this week.)

Verification procedures are supposed to remain in place forever.

That said, there are issues of concern.

One the story notes is what access the International Atomic Energy Agency will have to dissident-type scientists inside Iran.

Another, which is more guesstimate than anything else, is to what degree leading world powers would restore sanctions if Iran got intransigent? The US and EU would likely act strongly. China and Russia, not.

It's not a treaty, so President Obama can veto any no vote in either house of Congress. Will that happen? I'd say about 50-50.

And, for the neocon foreign policy division of wingnuts, this becomes a new 2016 electoral issue. Let's see what an über-warhawk like Lindsey Graham does; he's already, er, gone ballistic about the deal.

Beyond that, there's one neocon foreigner to worry about: Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. I'd venture there's about a 5 percent chance that — without consulting with all his cabinet — he engages in some sort of major covert action against Iran. Not just "any" but "major." Short of that, he's going to try to get a veto-proof no in at least one house.

(Unfortunately, some hawkish Dems, like Sen. Bob Menendez, D-Corruption, are leaning no as well.)

Was this the best we could have gotten? Short of bombing Iran, it's at least in the 80th percentile, if not 85 or better, in my opinion. And, our European allies seem to agree. They note that sanctions were likely to erode in the future, and the odds of getting even tougher sanctions to push Iran into a "better" deal were almost nil.

Other "winners" include:
1. President Obama's reputation
2. World peace
3. Middle East stability

Other "losers" include
1. Wingnuts
2. Texas oil producers; this will already get factored into world oil prices, and even more so, once more Iranian oil starts getting exported

I'd venture now that not only does West Texas Intermediate stay below $65 for the rest of this quarter, it might stay below $60 for all of the fourth quarter.

And, if Tom Kloza of OPIS is right about the return of $2 gas by the end of the year, oil will indeed be at or below $60. So, add the Texas budget to the list of "losers," even as this is yet another argument for an every-year legislature in the Pointy Abandoned Object State. (And, I'll give at least 2-1 odds he's right.)

That said, probably not a lot of Iranian oil is going to come online immediately. However, the deal also provides Middle East stability.

And, more oil from Iran WILL come online in 2016 and beyond. Yet one more reason Texas needs an every-year legislature.

Iran punks Dear Leader on nuke deal

Couldn't you see this one coming from a mile away, after Iran said a couple of weeks ago that it wouldn't sign any written deal immediately, but only a couple of months later?

Iran now says that it won't sign off on any plan to send nuclear fuel outside its borders for enrichment.

And, the “meta” angle is the big one:

If an accord allowing Iran to retain the fuel is reached, the Obama administration is expected to argue that it would not constitute a serious risk, particularly if it is regularly inspected. So far under an interim agreement negotiated in 2013, Iran has complied fully with a rigorous inspection process for the stockpiles of its fuel, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

That is really of no surprise, that Dear Leader's going to argue for this treaty no matter what.

This Foreign Policy piece has noted that, through all twists and turns, President Obama has slavered after this deal like Pavlov's dog hearing a CD of bell ringing. It's very much worth a read in looking at the big picture in the Middle East, as is the first, NYT piece to show just how skeptical we should be about Dear Leader's salivating trust in Iran.

Frankly, no deal in which a direct representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as the "secular" government, is not participating, isn't worth anything anyway.

Besides, as the Washington Post shows, sanctions are having their bite. The ball's in our court to wait out Iran as they bite further; no blind salivating needed. More proof they're having their bite? To the degree he, and the mullahs of the Guardian Council in general, are involved with negotiations, Khamenei wants sanctions removed immediately and fully if a deal is reached.

Also, a real deal would work toward getting closer to normalization of US-Iran diplomatic relations. And, it would have the US admit to the Mossadegh coup, and "deplore" it, while Iran did the same for the Argentina synagogue bombing, at a minimum.

$40 oil, or why Glenn Hegar could be even wronger than rain

I've already dissected how I think Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar's biennial budget estimate is probably $2 billion too high, if not more. (See new poll on right to vote on where you think oil will be on March 31.)

That said, that was based on the possibility that oil would not get above the low $50s in the first half of this year, and not break the middle $60s before the end of the year.

Well, what if even THAT was too optimistic?

What if oil sits in the low-mid $40s for 4-6 months, and doesn't break a flat $60 on a regular basis until the end of the year? That's especially if market psychology (as well as general first-quarter lulls) says  "keep it there."

The EIA has also weighed in, expecting the average 2015 price to be about $55.

What if even THAT is too optimistic. What if, per new estimates by British Petroleum, oil stays below $60 for three years?

Oops in spades. And that's the starting point of this post and some speculative thinking.

Add in that even more flush U.S. shale oil operators may not have money to buy out the weakest, at least not right away. Add in that major banks, both Texas-based and even bigger national players, are likely to tighten lending wallets, especially on "market mentality."

Add in that it, per the first link, with more info here, could take 4-6 months to soak up most the current excess supply.

That's especially true when, per the first link, nobody in the US has actually started sopping up any excess yet:

Oil output, however, is still at a record level. In the week that ended on January 2, when the number of rigs also dropped, it reached 9.13 million barrels a day, more than ever before. Oil companies are only stopping production at their worst wells, which only produce a few barrels a day – at current prices, those wells aren't worth the lease payments on the equipment. Since nobody is cutting production, the price keeps going down; today, Brent was at $US47.43 per barrel and trends are still heading downward.

So, yeah, 4-6 months is probably the correct time frame, for, let's say, mid-40s prices. Well, the state of Texas, Glenn Hegar, and even more so, the one responsible adult running Texas government, Speaker Joe Straus, had better hope that 4-6 months — and not something worse — is the correct time frame.

Because we haven't tackled one last point. 

And, the biggest issue. Financial reserves, not monetary ones.

The petrostates of the Middle East, in general, are flush with cash and can afford to burn money for some time. And, Saudi Arabia can really afford that much burning. Plus, some of the Gulf states have lower per-barrel prices than it.

Russia is also a petrostate, but cannot afford such money-burning.

The US is not a "petrostate," even if it's producing as much or a bit more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Publicly traded companies have shareholders to whom to answer, and debt to service to third parties — those Texas and national banks. Privately traded companies still have debt to service.

Yes, both of them also have leases to keep active. But, smaller companies, per my note above, may have to take a hard look at their lack of financial reserves, and negotiate lease buyouts.

Or, like subprime home mortgage holders facing balloon notes, some of the smaller oil companies may have to swallow even harder and do the equivalent of tossing the front door keys on the kitchen counter or in the mail slot.

That's what could be afoot. And, if that's what's up?

Well, in that case, Hegar's biennial revenue estimate could be off by $3 billion, not $2 billion. Beyond a deepened loss of oil and gas revenue will be lost sales taxes from oilfield-related businesses. And, there will be new unemployment claims, as the layoffs are already starting. And less retail, dining and entertainment spending.

Meanwhile, a note to the American Petroleum Industry: now is not the time to be greedy on a wish list.

That said, I'll end this with one last thought. Older Texans remember the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. I'm not saying that this will be anything like that. But, as compared to previous oil price slumps, because shale oil requires more investment, political leaders should not bank on any "rosy scenarios" offering easy relief. And, they should doubly not bet on frivolous tax cuts that are based on "rosy scenarios."

POSTSCRIPT: What if what I wrote above is itself still too optimistic? There are summer 2015 futures contracts out there, already, for $20/bbl oil.

Meanwhile, Boone Pickens, per this piece, either has a "trick oil knee," or onset of some age-related mental decline or something else, if he really thinks oil will get back to $100 within 18 months, let alone 12.

Pickens has probably also been trumped by the biggest drop in active rigs in six years. The fact is that this is different than 2009, where the Great Recession cratered economies. Yes, there seems to be new signs of slowing growth in both Europe and China. But, not THAT slow. This is still mainly due to an industry-created surplus that's been building for six months. It's going to take 3-4 months to cut the spigots back enough to where that surplus can be mopped up over another likely 6-8 months. So, that's 9-12 months out before we're back to June 2014.

And, Texas Monthly is now weighing in, saying there's a fair possibility of a 1980s-style full oil bust.

China, US, make largely toothless #climatechange agreement

Just how green are these solar panels, and how does that relate to an announced
US-China carbon-dioxide emissions accord? Photo via National Geographic

You can tell it's relatively toothless by the fact that the New York Times devoted less space to it, as part of a combined two-subject article, than to the other issue — free-trade talks.

It's relatively toothless in that China pledges to have its carbon emissions peak in 2030 and be at 20 percent renewables by then.

It's also relatively toothless because, as this story shows, solar panel manufacture itself can have high carbon emissions, as well as otherwise being environmentally dirty. And, there's only one sure-fire way to fix that: a carbon tax domestically and tariff on imports. More here on the relative lack of greenness of solar, as well as of dams and the trendy new one of wood pellets, among other things.

Now, as for why China would publicly agree to an even-toothless carbon accord?

Well, China's coal is not only relatively dirty but running lower. It's potential reserves of shale-based natural gas aren't provable let alone proven yet in any great amount. And, it's roughly the same latitude to more equatorward than the US, and with lots of sunny deserts and higher elevations, so it's situated well for solar. It's a large country with plenty of high-wind areas, so it's situated well for that. And, as the Three Gorges Dam shows, it's got further hydropower in mind.

So, the 20 percent pledge? China, unlike U.S. red state wingnut politicians, knows this makes good economic sense. And, speaking of those wingnuts? How much will they restrict Obama's pledge to accelerate the rate of cuts of U.S. carbon emissions?

As for China having its emissions peak in 2030? Well, beyond the planned increase in renewables, that's also because China's overall population is expected to peak in ...

Wait for it, wait for it ...

2030. Give or take a few years.

We, and much of the rest of the west, have of course exported a lot of our carbon to China. But, China's absorbed that. China will likely never be as car-intense as the U.S., or even as Western Europe. And, starting from scratch, hybrids and full-electric vehicles can be a bigger part of the mix sooner.

And, that population link cautions us to also look this "agreement" more closely in the mouth.

First, the US population will not peak in 2030. And, we will be at 400 million by 2050.

Other 2030 things to note?

Shortly after that, India will pass China in population. And, likely have a "dirtier" economy. Another reason to not put too much stock in yesterday's deal. Also on that link, note the even more rapid growth rate of Pakistan, with further ecological — and international politics — implications. And, the explosive growth of some sub-Saharan countries.

A different website gives slightly different numbers, but the same general idea.

In a related item, feel free to vote on my poll about Obama and Keystone XL, at top right.

In the third #CO2 corner in Durban, it's India, with climate #deniers

Will we finally, potentially, get a handle on Chinese emissions?/NY Times

That's the latest word from the Durban, South Africa climate talks: New Delhi wants to water down a seemingly watered-down "agreement" even further, one that seems to have brought China and the U.S. at least baby steps closer together. Here's the key point:

India is emerging as the country leading opposition to a strong binding deal on climate change at the annual UN talks in South Africa.

Other important countries including the US are prepared to negotiate an emission-curbing "legal instrument" by 2015, taking effect by 2020.

India is holding out for a start after 2020, and the weaker "legal outcome."

 My guess? India thinks it won't be able to catch up to China enough on industrialization by 2020. This from a country that shows the disorganization perils of democracy for more than 1 billion people, that adds to those perils with a level of corruption that probably, on a petty scale, at least, rides well above China's, and still has the semi-official, climate-harming goal, of passing China in population, and preferably sooner rather than later.

In short, it's a country that, towards Beijing, has a kinder, gentler form of the same sort of paranoia that Pakistan shows toward it.

It's true that papering over disagreements between China and America may turn out to be nothing other than kicking the can down the road five years. But, if there's a glimmer of hope that China (and Brazil) are agreeable to being treated as "top-tier developing nations" and not just "developing nations," with a plea for more time to work out details, then that is progress of some sort.

And, it's clear that even that is unacceptable to some denialists, big business interests or somebody:

What delayed matters further was a fake text issued apparently by the South African presidency after consultation with the EU, US, Brazil, India and China.

It contained weaker targets and longer timescales, and was initially greeted with consternation by the EU, Aosis and the LDCs, which have been pressing hardest for a strong deal.

The consternation turned to fury when it was discovered that the text was fake. European officials said it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to stall negotiations.

The perpetrator has not been identified. But it appears likely that the aim was to fracture the ad-hoc partnership between the EU and its developing world allies.

Meanwhile, beyond paranoia over China, it seems India wants to have its cake, of acting like it's a top-tier developing nation, and eat it, too, by still trying to act like "just a developing nation."

Well, a lot of China's economic growth may be little more than bubbles; its population control may have been too harsh, and its limited political liberalization may be largely unacceptable within its borders to its own residents as well as outside, but, it's showing a level of activity India isn't.

That said, the proposed agreement may be little more than papering over issues and kicking the can of U.S.-Chinese loggerheads down the road. Perhaps that's why U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern is so supportive of it.

Speakers from many developed countries said the package of documents more than 100 pages thick did not go far enough to help poor nations and did not require industrial countries to make more immediate and serious cuts in their carbon emissions. But most said they would accept it for lack of a better option. ...

A separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future, by 2020 at the latest.

Together, the two documents overhaul a system designed 20 years ago that divide the world into a handful of wealthy countries facing legal obligations to reduce emissions, and the rest of the world which could undertake voluntary efforts to control carbon.

I have blogged going back at least two international climate conferences that the world needed a three-tiered, not two-tiered, set of nations, with "top-level developing nations" considered separate from the Botswanas and similar countries.

Now, we tentatively have it. Let's see both China and the United States grow up in climate change responsibility, and see India stop engaging in its new-found petulance.

It's regrettable that it took at least one, if not two, additional climate conferences than it should have to get even this much done, but the realist part of me will take it, even if it takes until 2020 to define what the in-between BRICs and others will have to meet in terns of emissions targets.

Another advantage of that is that, assuming China agrees to said targets, is it stops dirtier U.S. businesses from exporting quite so much pollution.

More thoughts below the fold.

#U.S. and #Rome ... and #Egypt and #China

It's been fashionable for some time, but even more after 9/11 (sorry, have to reference it) to compare the United States to Rome. We did get rid of slavery, of course, but there are many parallels.

A republic that continually became more and more oligarchic? Check. We've not become dictatorial yet, but ... who knows who might exploit the War on Terror how far?

An empire, even if we have no emperor, and one that uses a mix of hard and soft power, force and money, alliances and more? Check.

A polyglot nation, with many ethnic and social groups? Check.

But, there's nations besides Rome that have lessons from ancient history.

Egypt? Divisions at semi-regular times between Upper and Lower Egypt reflect red-blue divisions today. Ultimately, both sides lost. (That said, when the divisions are ideological, on one side, the other side can't be so pragmatic as to play Preznit Kumbaya, either.)

Also, let's not forget that ancient Egypt, like today, had climatic variations. Global warming aside, anti-science attitudes in the U.S. could learn lessons. Egyptian pharoahs monitored Nile levels every year, so as to predict how good or bad the annual fertilizing flood would be.

At the same time, pharoahs eventually extended the trappings and sharing of power beyond blood lineage, co-opting exceptional commoners.

Finally, beyond authoritarian government, pharoahs co-opted religion in a way Roman emperors never did. That's a definite lesson for today.

China? Similar lessons to Egypt in some ways.

Throw out the Tibet and Xinjiang which ethnic Han dynasties didn't always control. China proper was often split into competing northern and southern empires at the same time. In the north, especially, weather issues with the Huang Ho (Yellow) River were important. Chinese emperors didn't co-opt religion in the same way as in Egypt, but did claim the "mandate of heaven." And, Chinese developed their mandarians, complete with Confucian schools and exams for civil service.

In America today, if it stumbles further, it's not because America is no longer a "Christian nation." It's because the belief that we were in the first place has both ossified and become malignant at the same time. It's because (as what partially happened in Egypt) geographic distinctions get appropriated for religious or other ends. It's when the elite let themselves be co-opted to the national security state, even if it doesn't have an emperor or pharoah at the top.

With both ancient nations, they should advise anybody not a Christian fundamentalist that claims we are a "christian nation" not only are ossified, they mean nothing when enlightened by the stark realities of history.

Finally, given larger forces of history, Rome and China, at least, maybe needed to fall, from sheer size, both geographically and in terms of population. Let's not forget we have more than 310 million in America now.

America: Land of the cheap, home of the chintzy

I've been having this idea run through the back of my head for some time. It's not just about conservatives who think the private sector can about always do things cheaper than the public sector, or that when government is necessary, it can always be run cheaper than it is now.

I think many liberals may think that America can be run cheaply in some ways, too.

And, beyond political ideologies, I think this idea stretches further, and goes beyond just monetary cheapness. We think, and hope, many things can be done on the temporal cheap. Perhaps, on the hope side, that's because we get worked more at our our jobs, on average, than in any other developed nation in the world, and with less paid vacation time at the same time.

But, let's go back to monetary issues, and a great bipartisan example of this. For years, long before the current recession and talk that Obama should make infrastructure repairs and upgrades part of his stimulus policy more than he did, political pundits, leaders of governments from local through federal level, think tank and policy analysts, and John/Jane Does have all talked about America's infrastructure needs. They often mentioned roads and bridges, but many older cities in the Northeast, especially, can tick off aging water and sewer pipes, mixed storm/sanitary sewer systems and other infrastructure problems that rank up there with decaying bridges. (Update: I didn't specifically list all infrastructure, but natural-gas, oil and gasoline pipelines would also certainly qualify.)

And yet, setting aside Obama's refusal to spend more stimulus money on this, plus his either neglect of the idea, or refusal to implement, direct jobs creation and retraining for this type of work, Americans simply don't want to talk about the costs of what's seriously needed. (Costs that could, nonetheless, easily be financed with defense spending cuts.)

People don't want to talk about the costs of truly getting safer food.

They don't want to talk about the costs of having adequate police numbers to do quality policing without violating both the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment.

They don't want to talk about the costs of the 200- or 210-plus-day school year that we really need to be on a level playing field with those other developed nations. (Note: While the performance problem is the worst at poverty-affected urban schools, even suburban and exurban ones aren't great. And, in comparisons to other "developed" nations, don't forget that suburban Paris has its banlieus, London has its slums, etc., that affect its school ranks. On the longer school year, I have had superintendents of school districts agree with me, too.)

And so on, and so on.

But why?

I think there are multiple main reasons.

One is American exceptionalism. We believe, or many of us do, that we Americans can do on the cheap as well as other nations even when they spend more. Well, from automobiles to many other things, that's just bullshit.

Two is self-delusion. We talk about infrastructure problems, for example, but we don't really think they're THAT bad. We talk about school problems, but think it's just uppity minorities in inner cities, rather than going-through-the-motions people in suburbs or privilege/entitlement mentality persons in the exurbs. (Note: I can't remember the name of the psychological phenomenon, but the issue of most people believing themselves to be more skilled than they actually are certainly, IMO, applies to suburban and exurban schools.)

Three is what I call salvific technologism. Many Americans believe that some new item of good old technology will ride over the hill like the cavalry, delivering us in the end.

Four is a riff on that, combined with religion, and taking from the first point. It's a religious version of American exceptionalism, believing that the Christian God will ride over the Calvary to deliver America, should it just humble itself enough or whatever.

That's just a sampling. But, all of those ideas, to some degree or another, look beyond the need to spend money.

They also look beyond the need to spend on human capital.

Better schools, especially with a longer school year, is going to involve a mix of more teachers and more aides or professional assistants.

Better policing, as I already said, involves more cops. It also involves better-trained cops, not just on police training but civil liberties training.

Better bridges involves not just repairing the decrepit ones, but making more maintenance investments on ones not yet decrepit. That is, more inspectors.

Better food safety and other regulatory service also involves expenditure on the human capital of inspectors, analysts, etc.

To the degree America is exceptional in any way, it is not innate. It is not, certainly, "god-given." Rather, it's the product of that human capital.

Let's not be cheap. Let's not be chintzy.

A suggested UN reform

In light of Palestine's bid to gain UN membership, I wondered earlier today: why should UN membership be a matter only for Security Council approval? Or, at minimum, shouldn't the "Big Five" not be allowed their automatic vetoes on membership applications?

That way, the U.S. couldn't block Palestine, while at the same time, China couldn't block Taiwan.

Five years until China is No. 1 and passes U.S.?

Yes, if you go by purchasing power parity, it will be just five years until the Chinese economy overtakes the U.S. as the world's largest.

As either Obama's second term, or some lame-o GOPer's first one, winds down, the Cold War "who lost China" arguments will be nothing compared to the "who lost TO China" ones.

On the surface, that one is easy — U.S. hypercapitalism, offshoring jobs like no other Western economy, lost and lost to China. One the move started with manufacturers, it was accelerated in fair part due to the push of WallyWorld, followed by Dolar General, etc.

But, is the Chinese economy that "real," vs. "hollow" or "Potemkin"? The article linked above doesn't address that, but from corruption on high-speed rail to man other issues, there's a good argument that this is exactly the case — bubbles abound everywhere, and, if PPP as a measurement comes to the surface, so will more of those bubbles.

But, the story does refer obliquly to China possibly "blowing a tire" and notes that will set back the denouement by only a decade.

But, what about Peak Oil? If it becomes too expensive to import the cheaper crap, at least, from China, where does that leave its economy? Slumping more, but of little help to us. Jobs won't return to the U.S. from China; rather, at the risk of druglords, they'll go to Mexico.

US Middle East hypocrisy alert

Really? Calling illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank "illegal" will jeopardize a peace process that the U.S., by refusing to stand up to Israeli intransigence, has silently wrecked for years? Please. Better excuses, less transparent lies.

As the story notes, Israel claims the West Bank allegedly belonged to "nobody" in the 1948-67 period, and therefore isn't currently "occupied."

The lies really aren't unexpected ... since the bipartisan foreign policy establishment simply can't tell the truth on Israel-Palestine issues to save its reputation. (And it may be a matter of life, or closer to it, in the future.)

As for the promises? We've seen just how well the U.S. keeps its promises in the Middle East.

US should make like Germany on jobs

Germany pays employees of companies that cut workers to part-time rather than lay them off, making up about 60 percent of the different in salary.

That would be even better than layoffs and extended unemployment benefits. Workers would "stay employed" on their resumes, in their mindsets and psychologies, companies wouldn't have to train new hires when the economy bounces back, transitions would be smoother and everybody would be less stressed.

Wired goes 'American exceptionalist' on space

Wired magazine is either dumb enough, hubristic enough, or a bit of both to claim that, besides Sputnik, the Russians have always played catch-up in space.

Right, right. Yuri Gagarin played catch-up to Scott Carpenter and John Glenn. Laika played catch-up to Ham. The Luna probes found Rangers or others already on the moon.

Forgot about all of that, Wired. Thanks for correcting me.

Oh, and even in other cases, the Russians didn't just copy us. Mir went far beyond Skylab.

Does WikiLeaks show U.S. is no longer a democracy?

Well, I've thought that, in practical terms, we've become ever more of an oligarchy all the time. And that, with the mythical pseudosuccess of Reagan's pee-down economics, unlike in the Gilded Age, too many sheeple actually refuse to see that.

Well, beyond economic royalists, of course, the U.S. has more and more imperialists more and more nakedly parading about in recent years. And, perhaps WikiLeaks has removed the emperor-by-Beltway-committee's clothes.

So ...

Is the U.S. government's recent actions against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange some indication we don't have a true democracy any more? Judy Bachrach says yes:

What constitutes a democracy? I’m beginning to think, thanks to WikiLeaks, that it’s not simply the right to vote. But the right to discover why you are voting for a specific individual and not voting for another. And there is absolutely no way to understand anything at all unless we are given the facts: names, quotes, background, color, and anecdotes included. You can decry WikiLeaks and Assange all you want. But they are the ones who give us what we need: the information to make intelligent choices about our leaders and what they’re quietly doing, whom to retain and whom to dismiss; the power returned to the people.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/bachrach/Lessons_of_Leaks

Yay, we're No. 11 here in America

The United States, on a combination of five major metrics used by Newsweek, with consultation from people like Joe Stiglitz, ranks No. 11 out of 100 nations on the globe. And, it's probably not going to get better immediately.

That said, as on other, similar surveys, small, homogenous countries like Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and South Korea outrank us on many things. But, given where most EU member nations rank, taking the EU as a whole, it would quite possibly outrank the U.S., too.

At the same time, leave it to Newsweek to tell a mainstream media lie about how, really, no really, the United States isn't an empire:

America spends more on defense than the rest of the industrialized world combined, not because it is inherently militaristic, but because the United States is the enforcer of the international system.

And, as long as the MSM tells lies like this, America will be inherently militaristic, as Mark Twain knew more than a century ago.

However, Chinese autocratic "capitalism" (which is really no more "capitalistic" than the U.S.) isn't a model for the rest of the world, either. Rather, "old" Europe may not be so sclerotic:

To put it bluntly, European businesses are kicking America's ass, as well as Japan's and China's. And the rest of the BRIC nations besides China. And, the earlier core EU of Western Europe could actually pick up the pace more. Picture EU expansion as being, other than the Greek debt crisis, something like how NAFTA was really supposed to work here in the New World, but didn't, primarily due to American big business greed, callousness and more.

And, since French President Sarkozy hosts the G8 and G20 later this year, has been making noise about more financial reform, and the EU in general has done more than just make noise about other regulatory tightening in the last couple of years, Obama had better sit up and take notice.

Anyway, here's how we stack up against 99 other countries on five metrics.

Obama denies 'crisis' with Israel

So, does he really believe there is no crisis right now? That's either naive, scary, or ostrich-like. Or, is this word fudging? Of course, the two aren't exclusive.

Why is China passing the US in clean energy?

Given our great advantage in research science, and engineering therefrom, Bob Herbert wants to know the same thing.

China vs. U.S. to highlight Davos forum

No. 1 takeaway from this excellent news analysis? I think China has to revalue the renminbi to keep U.S. — and European — protectionism at bay.

Of the two, in the long term, Euro protectionism has to worry Beijing more, in reality. If the dollar fades more, the euro, not the renminbi, becomes a new reserve currency, and the E.U. will fight China on trade issues in a more consistently aggressive way than the U.S.

Also per the story, the E.U. will push harder on carbon tariffs than will the U.S. I wish it were pushing harder right now.

Anyway, look at the full story for upcoming global financial issues.

EU does Internet regulation right

Or at least, the European Union, and/or individual member states, do Internet regulation better than the U.S. does, as is more and more common. And Google doesn't like it. Well, boo hoo.