Recently the Somali Pirates took possession of their first US ship the Maersk Alabama. Over the last few years the Somali Pirates have baffled international maritime authorities having seized hundreds of ships flying flags of other nations. Their pirating efforts have been virtually undaunted, that is until they messed with the United States. The US/Pirate encounter has given us and the world another reason to believe that American Exceptionalism is real.
American Exceptionalism, a concept first put forth by Alexis de Tocqueville, is the idea that America has a special place at the head of all developed nations. Our history, traditions, institutions and most importantly our people, have advanced, in a relatively short period of time, far more than other nations. It is controversial, particularly for liberals who point to our history of slavery, and our present struggle with lagging education statistics and civil rights to decry American Exceptionalism as a myth.
The recent dust up with the Somali Pirates should be added to the list of reasons for believing that there is something special about America, and something very real about American Exceptionalism. Hundreds of foreign ships have been captured by the pirates, and the governments and owners of every one of those ships have given in to the pirates demands, or have let the captured sailors, around 230 of them, rot in pirate custody. On the other hand, when the pirates captured their first American ship, the American crew fought back and indeed took back control over their ship.
The refusal of the American crew to lay down before the pirates hearkens back to September 11, 2001, when the American passengers of Flight 93, on their own initiative, in an effort to defend the United States, attacked the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in a field, rather than into an important government building. The lesson from that infamous day was that the terrorists should be afraid of the American people, not the other way around. The Somali Pirates have learned the same lesson.
The Somali Pirate incident has shown us that American Exceptionalism does not stem from our government, our material wealth, or our massive and deadly military - it stems, as it always has, from our people. The crew of the Maersk Alabama epitomizes the American Spirit, when challenged, they showed that they are tough, independent, and will return violence in the face of violence.
And of course, lets not forget the SEALS. All they needed was the go ahead and three quick shots later the situation was over.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Cap and Trade Should Be Benched
I am not ignorant of the science; I'll even repeat it here so everyone knows that I'm not just paying lip service. Carbon emissions causes global temperatures on average to rise. The polar ice caps melt, draining millions of acre-feet of freshwater into the ocean. The sea levels rise, the thermohaline circulation shuts down, and no longer does the ocean transmit the sun's heat to northern latitudes... Ice age. Ok, so we can all agree on the theory.
Here is the problem: enacting drastic carbon reducing measures such as Cap and Trade, and other carbon taxes poses a much greater risk to our present survival than climate change or rising sea levels. Consider this: our economy is presently far more fragile than the Earth's climate, and our ability to affect the economy is presently far greater than our ability to affect the climate. Carbon taxes are regressive. A regressive tax is one that is proportionately levied more heavily upon the poor, than the rich. Well how can that be, you ask? After all Cap and Trade is a tax levied on rich energy companies, big industry, and baby-seal-hating SUV drivers. While that may be true, what is also true is a law of economics: taxes always get passed on to the consumer.
Trickle-down economics may be a myth, and maybe not. One thing that has always been true is that taxes trickle-down and raise prices to the consumer. Not all taxes that get passed down to the consumer are regressive, for instance taxes on Lexus, Rolex, Prada - are not regressive because the end consumers are rich. However, when the good being taxed is a necessity, the tax is regressive.
Necessitites are economic goods that are necessary for survival. No matter how much a necessity costs, it still must be purchased. For instance, food is a necessity. Taxes on food are classic regressive taxes.
Energy is a necessity for two reasons. The first reason is that energy is a necessity in and of itself. Energy comes in the form of electricity, heating oil, natural gas, and gasoline. People need energy for light, for heat, for cooking, and to get to work. A tax on energy raises the cost of the necessity for everyone, but it affects poor people more heavily because poor people must pay a higher proportion of their income for energy.
The second reason is that energy is a necessity indirectly. Every good on the shelves of every store arrived with energy - diesel or coal - presumably. So a tax on energy is effectively a tax on transportation. This raises the price of all other necessities which are transported: food, building materials, clothing, and energy.
Cap and Trade will disproportionately raise taxes on poor people. In a fragile economic climate, possibly more susceptible to inflation than ever, raising the prices on consumer goods is a dangerous plan. It is far more dangerous than the veritable drop in the bucket that a few more years of undiminished carbon emissions will cause.
Here is the problem: enacting drastic carbon reducing measures such as Cap and Trade, and other carbon taxes poses a much greater risk to our present survival than climate change or rising sea levels. Consider this: our economy is presently far more fragile than the Earth's climate, and our ability to affect the economy is presently far greater than our ability to affect the climate. Carbon taxes are regressive. A regressive tax is one that is proportionately levied more heavily upon the poor, than the rich. Well how can that be, you ask? After all Cap and Trade is a tax levied on rich energy companies, big industry, and baby-seal-hating SUV drivers. While that may be true, what is also true is a law of economics: taxes always get passed on to the consumer.
Trickle-down economics may be a myth, and maybe not. One thing that has always been true is that taxes trickle-down and raise prices to the consumer. Not all taxes that get passed down to the consumer are regressive, for instance taxes on Lexus, Rolex, Prada - are not regressive because the end consumers are rich. However, when the good being taxed is a necessity, the tax is regressive.
Necessitites are economic goods that are necessary for survival. No matter how much a necessity costs, it still must be purchased. For instance, food is a necessity. Taxes on food are classic regressive taxes.
Energy is a necessity for two reasons. The first reason is that energy is a necessity in and of itself. Energy comes in the form of electricity, heating oil, natural gas, and gasoline. People need energy for light, for heat, for cooking, and to get to work. A tax on energy raises the cost of the necessity for everyone, but it affects poor people more heavily because poor people must pay a higher proportion of their income for energy.
The second reason is that energy is a necessity indirectly. Every good on the shelves of every store arrived with energy - diesel or coal - presumably. So a tax on energy is effectively a tax on transportation. This raises the price of all other necessities which are transported: food, building materials, clothing, and energy.
Cap and Trade will disproportionately raise taxes on poor people. In a fragile economic climate, possibly more susceptible to inflation than ever, raising the prices on consumer goods is a dangerous plan. It is far more dangerous than the veritable drop in the bucket that a few more years of undiminished carbon emissions will cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
