Climate Change Checklist

Climate change, or more specifically catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), seems to continue to pop its head up from time to time. Labels of "alarmists" and "deniers" are thrown around. Now I am a hardcore advocate of liberty and freedom. I will start any conversation that advocates the necessity of massive govt intervention with skepticism. This is not an anti-science position, this is a pro-freedom position. Now, I may be able to be convinced, but to do so there are a series of things that must be demonstrated as fact to my satisfaction in order for me to even consider supporting the types of "solutions" currently being proposed.

Process Improvements

First, some changes need to be made regarding some process/method issues:

1. Full audit of surface temperature stations and remediation
1. Inspections of over 80% of surface stations in the US show that over 70% have a likelihood of over 2ºC of error. That's in the US - how does the rest of the world look?
2. The adjustment process that supposedly "cleans" this data is not sufficient.
3. We spend billions of dollars a year on climate research. We can spend a couple million to refactor the vast majority of these stations.
2. Both raw and adjusted temperature data (with adjustment process) must be available, transparent, and open.
1. It invites skepticism when the advocates of global warming take raw numbers, adjust them in various ways, release only the end adjustments and leave it at that. 
3. Scientific studies, papers, models, etc that are published must be reproducible and methods must be made available to the public. 
1. If we are to have faith in the scientific process on a topic that many advocate for significant changes to our economic system, data, methods, algorithms, etc cannot continue to remain secret and proprietary.

I'm not saying these affect every study or all data but they are prevalent enough to invite skepticism.

Facts Needed

Now, some actual facts that I need demonstrated to me clearly:

1. The Earth is continually getting warmer
1. There is currently some question of this due to a plateau over the last 15-17 years.
2. This warming is NOT simply the continuation of warming that has been happening for the last 400+ years.
3. The primary driver of the new warming is CO2
1. Since all the proposed solutions are focused on CO2, then that HAS to be the predominant driver.
4. The primary driver of the new warming is HUMAN ADDED CO2
1. Since all the proposed solutions are focused on reducing HUMAN added CO2, then it must be shown that HUMAN caused CO2 is the predominant factor and driver of heat gain.
2. Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that man has NO impact on the climate. Clearly we do. The critical question is whether the anthropogenic CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of climate change.
5. The result of continued warming will be significantly net negative
1. Since most proposed solutions advocate significant economic costs, we must be positive that the result from warming will be not just somewhat inconvenient, but significantly bad. 
2. While a lot of research has gone into the negative consequences of continued warming, I've not seen much of any research into what positives may take place. I am extremely hesitant to believe that there would not be new farming land or expanded migratory patterns in a slightly warmer climate - yet the amount of research into such positives and how they balance out against negatives seems limited.
3. In addition, a lot of the "negatives" seem ... a little strained. For every story of rising sea levels, there are others that simply allude to the greater proclivity of athlete's foot, jock itch and poison ivy. 
6. The planet and people cannot adapt to the changes 
1. I'm hesitant to support massive global economic intervention if it turns out that the changes will take place gradually over hundreds of years. Consider where we were 100 years ago with limited air conditioning, refrigeration, health care, construction practices, access to travel and communication, etc. Now if we are not going to see more than a 1-2ºC increase or most of the significant warming consequences for 100-200 years, then I'm not convinced that we cannot adapt to these changes as they come. 
7. A free market approach is not viable (i.e. Only potentially viable option is massive govt intervention)
1. Before we start pushing for coercive govt intervention, I need to be convinced that the free market cannot satisfactorily adjust and mitigate the causes and problems from this process. As the potential consequences become apparent, the money to be made from mitigating them becomes significant.
2. And I don't accept the explanation that says "We need govt because ... externalities [or tragedy of the commons]." and simply stop. The concept and definition of externalities is insufficient to dismiss the viability of a non-coercive approach to mitigation.
3. What if someone finds a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere? What if someone genetically develops a tree that extracts/stores 20 times the standard amount of CO2? 
8. Massive govt intervention will stop warming
1. It also needs to be demonstrated that the proposed solutions would actually work. Most of the studies I've seen on the various proposals show virtually no difference in temperature increase over the next 100 years. That's not acceptable.

This last point is key. If the scientific community fixes the process issues I described above and the first 7 facts on this list are demonstrated to me, then I would be convinced that consequences will be dire unless govt intervenes. But if govt is going to intervene, then it better do whatever is necessary to actually effect change. I do not want a significant new tax or a complicated emission trading scheme that places a significant burden on the economy, yet only reduces the rate of warming by 3%. I don't want to advocate for the implementation of a system that will undoubtedly encourage corruption and manipulation if the end result in 100 years is warming only 0.1ºC less severe than had we done nothing. If we believe the consequences are going to be dire if we fail to act, then we need to act in a way that will effect significant change. If the only option is that we all go back to an agrarian society or most of the population will die, then I don't want that reality sugar coated. I don't want to be advocating for some approach that may significantly curb economic growth and prosperity for 100 years but won't actually mitigate the consequences of the warming.

Why skepticism?

Some people ask why we can be skeptical in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well firstly, as I said, I am a hardcore advocate for liberty, so I am going to be hesitant of any call for govt coercion to be expanded. So whereas those that believe that we need to limit growth or think consumerism is bad or that corporations just plain make too much money, who may already advocate for govt intervention for other causes, may need little convincing to get on board with an approach that even may only possibly avoid some calamitous outcome. I and those like me will likely need much, much more convincing because you are asking us to support a policy that directly contradicts our principles.

I'm not going to go into the science debate between the standard CAGW theory and the contrarian views. It would create a huge back and forth dialogue that already exists out there. I will only point out two things: Firstly, there are scientists who perform research that either disproves, questions, or challenges the standard CAGW theory. Some of their research is significant, some of it less so. But the dismissal and "paid by the oil companies" type demonization discredits the opposition to these contrarians. And secondly, the predictive models on CAGW are consistently revealing themselves to be inaccurate - sometimes minorly, sometimes wildly. But the point that skeptics make is not that we know everything about the climate and have proven global warming wrong, but that humanity doesn't know as much about the climate as it thinks it does and the inaccurate models demonstrate that. So before we start putting draconian economic restrictions in place, perhaps we should take off the alarmist hat and gather more data.

In addition, part of the reason that many people are skeptical of CAGW is that it seems very politically driven. Scientists and advocates have been calling on govt to massively intervene in the economy for 60 years for various reasons. Hole in the ozone, rainforests, global cooling, energy crisis, etc. Plus, there is a significant overlap between those that advocate economic intervention for the purpose of social justice or anti-capitalism/anti-consumerism and those that advocate economic intervention in the name of dealing with global warming. It often looks more like a power grab for those in power and a desire to restrain capitalism by others than it does an honest attempt to mitigate a potential problem. 

Also, massive amounts of money are being offered, and as such an entire market has been created, to study the negative consequences of global warming. So we are neither surprised nor convinced that virtually every study finds some bad thing that can be connected, however tangentially, to potentially higher temperatures. Plus, when scientists that question or challenge even some of the most extreme of the global warming claims are shunned, fired or forced to resign from their positions, it creates the impression not of an open arena of debate, but of a closed, self-reinforcing echo chamber. 

Lastly, the advocacy to deal with CAGW often invites skepticism itself. It seems contradictory at times: We have extremely hot/dry summer - it's global warming. We have extremely cold/snowy winters - that's just episodic/localized weather.  A study shows that global warming causes avalanches to increase in one place, but another study shows them to decrease in another. Renaming "global warming" to "climate change" seems strained so that it includes even events that don't have anything to do with warmer temperatures. Plus, some of it is ... well, "alarmist". Countdowns, timers, and counters like the one on the right all come across as over-the-top. I remember reading about how the Green Bay Packers football team, who has a notoriously cold/snowy field through the winter, were going to lose their home-field advantage if global warming continued, and so we must push Congress to act. When advocates stretch to find some connection (or even just some potential connection) to global warming, it starts to seem desperate and lacking credulity. 

Summary and Final Question

So when you put it altogether, you have many advocates of liberty whose default position is skepticism toward calls to support policies that directly contradicts their views. Then, when making the case, there are some scientific processes that have some issues and facts that aren't sufficiently demonstrated. There are also contrarian scientists that challenge or flat-out reject the standard CAGW and issues with models that have struggled with accuracy. Plus you have what seems like a lot of politically driven advocacy and money that may influence scientific work. In addition, you have what appears to be a closed-shop mentality that discourages dissent. And finally, you have a lot of advocacy that seems contradictory or overblown and based on extremely tenuous connections to changes in the weather. No single element may be sufficient to create the skepticism that many feel, but altogether these types of issues cause a lot of the science and advocacy to actually create more skepticism than they allay.

Finally, taking the opposing position, let me also ask you: What is the falsifiability of CAGW? If we see 20 years with continually escalating CO2 levels but no appreciable warming increases, would that, if not prove CAGW wrong, demonstrate that there's something wrong in the models, feedback weights, variables, calculations and in general our understanding of how climate works?

That's really where I feel most skeptics are: Something's not right here and I can't get behind draconian economic measures until it is.

Eliminate "Gov-co"

Why doesn't McDonald's charge $40 for a cheeseburger? After all it'd more profitable. Why does Wal-Mart or the Dollar General or 5andDimes or Goodwill even exist if name-brand stores can charge as high as "the wealthy" can pay? Most people seem to inherently understand the cause-and-effect of prices and competition in the retail market. But is that only because we see it everyday in our current lives?

Consider an alternative history where during the Great Depression, advocates for the poor pressured the govt to pass a bill that created "Gov-co" retail stores. Gov-co stores are a nation-wide chain that provide cheap, generic food and goods for the poor at massively discounted prices (subsidized by taxes). Adjusted for inflation, they had prices like $1 for a new pair of tennis shoes or a button up shirt or $10 for new car tires or $20 for a new dishwasher because the rest of the cost of the goods is subsidized with taxes. At such discounted prices, no private company can compete and so not only have Gov-co stores became a national chain in virtually every town, but now the only alternative to those Gov-co stores are high-end, brand name stores selling high-end goods that cost top dollar and are only affordable to the middle class and above. At this point, very few really remember what it was like before Gov-co existed. People only recognize that only "the rich" can afford the brand name goods. But that only reinforces the need for a Gov-co to provide affordable goods for the poor.

Unfortunately, people have recognized that while the prices of Gov-co goods have remained stable (only raising with inflation), the quality of the goods has not. In addition, the quality and price of goods in the south is slightly different than the price and quality in the northeast as well as differences between urban, suburban and rural communities. Meanwhile, brand name goods continue to improve and increase in quality, though prices still cannot compete with Gov-co.

People are decrying the further and further separation between what the poor can afford vs what the rich can afford. In fact, they point out that the rich are able to afford goods that make them more productive and able to make more money compared to the poor. Something must be done. Many advocate to increase tax spending on Gov-co products to help increase the quality while keeping the prices low. Others advocate setting mandated regulations - maybe even establishing a federal agency to oversee and inspect manufacturers to ensure sufficient and consistent quality products. Tweaks to the system are constantly introduced, customer feedback mechanisms, product quality control tests are standardized, but nothing appears to really be improving the situation. (Not to strain the analogy, but imagine if IN ADDITION to everything else, if you did choose to shop at Gov-co instead of the brand name stores, you could only shop at your local Gov-co nearest your home.)

In such a situation, if someone advocated simply and completely eliminating Gov-co and allowing the free market to work in the retail space, I think few would dispute that there would be large numbers of people pointing at those high-end stores that cater to the more well-off and decry "What about the poor?" and lament that the poor would go hungry and naked because they couldn't afford to buy from those high-end stores. They'd claim that those private stores would just continue to charge high prices because people have to have food and clothing and stuff, right? The suggestion to completely eliminate Gov-co would be treated as nonsense - of being harsh, unsympathetic, and cruel. Accusations would abound that advocates are only concerned for the rich or are "in the pocket of big business".

But in reality, we know that without a Gov-co, we actually have a vibrant retail market with an enormous segment dedicated specifically to low-income consumers. Stores like mentioned above: Wal-Mart, Dollar General, 5andDimes, Goodwill, etc. all directly aim to serve low-income consumers. Critics of eliminating Gov-co overlook that the poor are a market in and of themselves and that many companies would move into that market to serve them - providing cheaper goods for lower prices and that competition in that market would help improve quality while keeping prices low.

Now this understanding that free market competition DOES encourage businesses to keep prices low and to increase the quality to attract customers is pretty common. We seem to inherently understand this about retail goods because we see it in action everyday. But many seem to have a problem with the idea that the same effects and incentives apply to education as to retail goods - I would argue, because we're only familiar with the current setup where only "the rich" can afford private schools.

Those who suggest simply eliminating public education are dismissed as naive. They are told, often even by other advocates of limited-govt, that without public education, the poor wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school, only continuing the generational poverty and further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Perhaps another look at the nature of competition in a free market, only in a different market, may help them see that we cannot simply assume that the current structure of "only the rich can afford private education" would continue if we eliminated public education. In fact, based on looking at other markets like retail, there is significant evidence to conclude that education providers would likely actively focus and pursue low-income customers.

Eliminating public education and allowing free market competition into the market for education couldn't be a whole lot worse than modern public education in many places, and it has the potential to be much, much better.

Ron Paul Next Steps

With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.

Why I don't think Gingrich is a true, limited govt conservative

Newt Gingrich is toward the top of the pack again. I believe this is because Romney is really looking too moderate for many conservatives to swallow, so they are looking for someone that is a true conservative. They are willing to overlook his past indiscretions because they feel that Newt is not only a real conservative, but that his debating skills make him a perfect match against Obama (the real goal of many Republicans: Anyone, anything but Obama).

The problem is that his record and many of his statements in the past don't reflect a true, limited govt conservative. Though I don't blame conservatives for being misled, Gingrich knows exactly what conservatism is and how to sell it. So with this upswing in support for Newt, I wanted to put together my thoughts on him at the moment and why I think conservatives need to be real careful about what they think they will get in Newt.

Few thoughts on Election Reform

The last several elections have focused on "change". The people are unhappy with their leaders. Congress currently has about a 10% approval rating. Many have concentrated on trying to get better candidates elected into office. The hope being that these politicians will reform the system and make it better. However, the fact that polls show (page 19) that about 1/5th of voters would support a candidate, even if that candidate was not a Democrat or Republican, demonstrates that there is a significant percentage of Americans that are unhappy with both of the two major parties. According to other polls, a full 40% of voters do not view themselves as members of either major party. If nearly half of voters do not associate with one of the two major parties, why are there no 3rd parties rising to prominence? Many believe this problem comes from the nature of the way we vote.

I think the US needs to have a discussion about reforming our elections in order to provide a more representative govt and avoid having half of the population feeling disaffected by the two parties (not to mention those that don't even vote due to feeling that their vote doesn't matter). So in this article I talk about some of those approaches.

Foreign Policy vs National Security - Being Clear on Both

National security is a high priority on most people's list. Not all agree on how best to provide it, but most agree it's important - especially Republicans.

When Republicans are faced with a candidate (example, Romney) that they think has decent economic policies, tolerable fiscal policies, adequate social policies, and good security policies vs a guy (RP) that has good economic policies, great fiscal policies, tolerable social policies but HORRIBLE SCARY BAD security policies, it makes the first guy seem preferable.

This is why I keep saying, Ron Paul's campaign and supporters HAVE GOT to figure out how to get both his foreign policy and more importantly his national security policies accurately described to Republicans.

To me, foreign policy and national security are two different policies. There is a lot of overlap, but they are distinct. Most people understand his foreign policy, even if they disagree and believe that it would put us more at risk. I believe that Ron Paul's campaign and supporters need to do a better job of making the case for non-interventionism.

However, even more urgently, most Republicans do NOT understand Ron Paul's national security policies - that is, what would Ron Paul do in the event of a credible threat against the US? What would he do if intelligence learns of an eminent attack against the US? He has not made these points clear to Republicans and he needs to do a better job of it if he wishes to win the nomination.

Pro-[Choice/Life] isn't Anti-Freedom

I frequently see people on both sides of the abortion debate that point to the other side and accuse the other position of being "anti-freedom" or "incompatible with freedom". Problem is, as I see it, neither side can make that claim.

It seems to me that at some point, the right of the child to live overrides the right of the mother to choose to kill it. Most reasonable people will concede that this point is some time before it's actually born. Thus we are really just debating what that point should be.

For people like Ron Paul, his view is that the freedom to live is more important than the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. That's his view, but he recognizes that not all share it. In addition to that, he has said that Constitutionally, he would not allow a federal level mandate one way or another.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer politically that will satisfy everyone.

This is because, more generically, the problem is that abortion creates a paradox for individualism because you have two people occupying the same space at the same time and the exercise of rights by one is an infringement on the rights of the other.

In either case, you are infringing on someone's rights. Either you protect the right of the baby to live and infringe on the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body, or you choose to protect the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body and infringe on the right of the child to live.
So, agree or disagree with him about the point at which he feels we should recognize and protect a life, but it's not anti-liberty or anti-freedom.

In fact, Paul's actual policy prescription is a good compromise. Instead of a federal, top-down mandate that states that abortions are either all legal or all illegal, he allows the people of each state to decide. This will create a diverse environment that allows different views to be respected.

For example, while some states ban abortions, and some states permit even late-term abortions, perhaps a few other states would pass a law that legalizes abortion up to the 8th month, but that all abortions after the first 10 weeks must be done painlessly such as with lethal injection or an anesthetic that puts the baby to sleep first. This should satisfy most all pro-choice individuals since their ability to get an abortion isn't infringed. This could satisfy many pro-life individuals since the baby itself would not suffer or feel any pain. Reasonable compromise? I don't know.

Through this method of allowing multiple, different approaches that Paul is advocating, I think a more acceptable common ground can be reached.

How Ron Paul should respond to accusations about his record

In the debates over the weekend, Rick Santorum accused Ron Paul of being "on the margins". Santorum implies that Paul would be an ineffectual President stating (paraphrased) "Out of over 600 bills, you've only had 4 come up for a vote and only 1 that has passed."

I guess in Santorum's worldview, since the same Congress that has continually concentrated control in Washington over the decades doesn't want to hear measures that would relinquish that power, Paul isn't doing things right. Here's how I'd love to hear Ron Paul respond:

Wait a minute, are you saying that because we have a Congress that has passed such bills as the National Defense Authorization Act, the bailouts and stimulus, and Obamacare, a Congress that will stuff multiple unrelated measures into a single bill that gets both sides something they want and a plausible excuse to give their base as to why they voted for it, a Congress that will use trickery, loopholes, and bribes to pass unpopular bills (and then congratulates themselves on legislative creativity), a Congress that frequently does not read the bills they are voting on, a Congress that throws taxpayers money around at endeavors like a bridge to nowhere (that my opponent here voted for), ethanol subsidies, and Solyndra, a Congress that continues to raise the debt ceiling while it has not had a balanced budget in virtually my entire tenure and hasn't passed a budget at all in the last 3 years, a Congress that cozies up to special interests and lobbyists and who often outsources the writing of complex bills to corporate insiders, a Congress with an 8% approval rating, because *that* Congress refuses to even debate my bills, are you saying that reflects negatively on me?

[optional]

I'm more concerned with finding common areas of agreement and forming coalitions for freedom. I've been accused by my opponents of working with Democrats and leftists like Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich - and this is true. But because I can agree with Frank on the need to get the federal govt out of trying to restrict medical marijuana doesn't mean I agree with him on his banking regulations. Because I can find common ground with Sanders regarding the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean I agree with him on his economic views. Because I can work with Kucinich to try to change our interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean I agree with his views on govt funded health care. Working with people with whom you disagree 95% of the time to get things in that 5% accomplished doesn't make you a sellout, it's how you build coalitions to fight a battle for liberty without losing your principles.

[/optional]

No, this accusation reveals the mentality of Washington insiders: that "getting things done" is more important than what is actually done. That has to stop. 

Math doesn't lie... Right?

If a bucket has 2 apples in it, and you add 2 more apples, how many apples are now in the bucket?

4 right?

2 + 2 = 4

"Math doesn't lie." Right?

That's true, "Math doesn't lie." But math CAN be wrong.

What if I told you the correct answer is 6?

Would you cry foul and declare your original answer to be true? Would you show me mathematical theorems and proofs that demonstrate that 2 + 2 DOES in fact equal 4?

As I said, "Math doesn't lie.", but math CAN be wrong when it tries to represent the real world. Or, let me rephrase - we are wrong when we assume that the world described by the math, identically represents the world in which we live.

In our scenario, that math didn't lie. In fact, the math wasn't wrong. But we were wrong when we assumed that the math accurately represented the world. What the math failed to take into consideration was that John also added 2 apples to your bucket. Thus, there are now 6 apples in your bucket.

"That's not fair! You never mentioned anything about anyone else." 

That's true, but when we create math to model the world, we aren't TOLD all the characters and variables and the exact scale and nature of their effects. We have to derive them ourselves. Sometimes, in simple systems, we can deduce all of them and the math does accurately reflect that system. However, the more complex the system, the more variables, the more interactions, the more complex the math, the more difficult it is to discover all affected and affecting variables, and the easier it is to miss (or misunderstand) something. Thus, when we create mathematical models to represent extremely complex systems, the potential for overlooking variables (or even simply under or over estimating their effects) is not only possible, it's likely.

In the world described by the math, John doesn't exist. Nobody other than you exists. Therefore, if you only added 2 more apples, there will only be 4 apples in the bucket now. It's simple, it's straightforward, but it'd be wrong. Overlooking John as a variable means that, while the math didn't lie; while the math wasn't wrong, it did not reflect reality. And if we had based our actions on the result of that math, we would have potentially made the wrong decision.

Let's say that we adjust our math, represent John, and based on this math, decide we have enough apples to bake an apple pie. However, what happens to our plans if, because of our mathematical oversight of not considering Sally, we only wound up with only 1 apple in our bucket because our math didn't represent that she removed 5 apples for herself? Based on our math, we would have concluded that we had enough apples, and we would have began preparing to bake. However, at some point, we would have come up very short of apples.

Similarly, when we try to model complex systems like climate or the economy, we can easily draw the wrong conclusions and plan the wrong actions based on, not faulty, but incomplete, math.

Even looking at previous data can be misleading if not all variables are considered. If we look at data that shows that home sales went up at the same time that tax rates went up, we could draw the conclusion that higher taxes cause increased home sales. Based on this conclusion, we could plan to raise them even more in hopes of further increasing home sales. However, by overlooking that a new factory opened up a few miles down the road, our conclusion would be wrong, and our actions would be mistaken. In the end, our wrong conclusion and the following actions might have led to not only the reduction in home sales, but also possibly the closing of the factory.

This type of oversight can happen easily. Looking at some specific economic data, one can easily see how people would conclude that getting into WW2 got us out of the Great Depression. However, the data doesn’t tell the whole picture. Similarly, many economists and politicians will bring up a chart or point out some data that indicates that their prescribed action worked in the past and should be implemented now. But without taking a full, contextual view of that event and that time, it’s difficult to understand all the variables that may have affected things.

“So are you saying we can’t trust math? Well we might as well throw it all out the window?”

My point isn't to say we should ignore math. My point is that we need to be cautious about just blindly trusting what math "tells" us. We need to understand that in complex systems, even a small misunderstanding of a single variable, let alone possibly omitting one entirely, can change a negative feedback system into a positive feedback system. We need to be careful about basing actions on mathematical models without trying to look at the entire context of the situation. Otherwise, we may very likely find out we don't have enough apples.

Article Response #4

Article:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=72488

Response:
1) Sanders is a proclaimed socialist. To merely state he's an 'independent' because he isn't a Democrat or Republican is misleading. In fact, the fact that both Bunning and Sanders both wish to hold Bernanke's reappointment should be telling.
2) Why is it just assumed fact that his actions (and those of Geithner and Obama) made things better? Economics is about balance, like supply and demand. When one changes, it exerts a force on the other (and possibly over many other things). Over the course of decades, more of the US, both government and personal finances were based on debt (largely due to the artificially low interest rates of the FED). When enough of that debt manifest itself in bad investments (i.e. subprime mortgages), a chain reaction of revoking credit began. This whole "bubble" was not only allowed, but encouraged by manipulation in the market by the FED. Now that that bubble burst, as the market began to divest itself of these poor investments and bad debt, as we started the difficult climb from badly extended credit to more sound investments, what did Bernanke do? He lowered interest rates, began printing of MASSIVE amounts of money, and intentionally TRIED to make credit, borrowing, and debt to get going again. This is what led to the crisis to begin with!!! Note that since he got approval to print trillions, has lowered interest rates to effectively 0% and Obama has injected billions into the economy, it's not surprising we've seen the short-term improvement we have. However, throwing money at the situation doesn't necessarily fix it. Remember that GDP has, as part of its measure, Government spending. So say the government were to massively raise taxes and spend trillions on welfare and unemployment handouts, GDP may actually increase. Would that realistically represent actual growth in our economy? Of course not. So just because we seemed to have a sliver of growth doesn't mean that we're on our way to recovery. And as for the evaluation of Bernanke, we cannot start with an assumed premise (things would have been worse had he not done what he did) and then go from there. Remember, Obama said that if we did NOT pass the stimulus, unemployment might get up to 8%, but that if we did pass it, it wouldn't rise past 7%. I'm not so confident in their prognostication abilities.

Article Response #1: GDP != State of Economy

Article:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=71799

Response:
"The Republican alternatives in Congress, mostly just collections of tax cuts, would not have set unemployment on a drastically different course than it is on now." If the smarts of the Obama admin were so wildly inaccurate in their prediction of the impact (or lack thereof) of the stimulus package to unemployment, how can you (or anyone else) so quickly and easily dismiss tax cuts as being wholly ineffective? --- "Even though the recession may be technically over – the government just reported the economy had grown for the first time in nearly a year" Be careful how you interpret those results. Look at the data itself. GDP is the primary measure they're bragging about, part of which is government spending (source). That has certainly gone up over the last months, but does that really indicate a better economy? Also, consider cash for clunkers occurred during that period. Even though that's basically govt paying for half of your car, it all adds to GDP. It's not a sign of a strong economy, it's just a sign that someone is throwing a lot of money in the pot, that someone being govt. And where is the government getting that money to throw? It's printing it, it's borrowing it, from foreign countries (select 'Ownership of Federal Securities'] and from our posterity. But that isn't sustainable. There are many economists predicting that looking back at 2009-2010 the stimulus will cause the recession to slow, stop, then create a "fake" recovery, followed by another downhill period as the "bump" provided by the stimulus goes away. Now politicians are considering a second stimulus because they believe that if they can keep things afloat long enough, then the private sector will recover on its own by then. How? ... Somehow.