Jacob Weisberg writes about the illiberal, Lou-Dobbs Democrats:

For some reason, economic nationalists never seem to complain about job-killing Dutch or Irish competition. The targets of their anger are consistently China and Mexico, with occasionally whacks at Dubai, Oman, Peru, and Vietnam.

…Economic nationalism is not unique to Democrats

Over at Tradesports?

According to the betting at Tradesports, the Republicans have a 66-69% chance of retaining the Senate, which is down from a few days ago.

Yet the Democrats are ahead in all of Tradesports

An interesting essay at the Journal.

With oil prices plunging, and new discoveries occurring, it’s time to take a fresh look at the ethanol boondoggle.

Prices could plunge:

…many of the conditions that drove investors to bid up oil prices are ebbing. Tensions over Israel, Lebanon and Nigeria are easing. The hurricane season has presented no threat so far to the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. peak summer driving season is over, so gasoline demand is falling.

With fear of supply disruptions ebbing, oil prices began sliding. With oil inventories high, refiners that turn oil into gasoline are expected to cut production. As refiners cut production, oil companies increasingly risk getting stuck with excess oil supplies. There’s already anecdotal evidence of oil companies chartering tankers to store excess oil.

All this is turning financial markets increasingly bearish on oil.

“If we continue to build inventories, and if we have a warm winter like we had last winter, you could see a large fall in the price of oil,” said Gary Pokoik, who manages Hedge Ventures Energy in Los Angeles, an energy hedge fund. “I think there is still a lot of risk in the market.”

As it stands now, the recent oil-price slump has brought the national average for a gallon of unleaded gasoline down to $2.59, according to the AAA motor club. In the Seattle area, prices per gallon have fallen to $2.856 currently from $3.071 a month ago, a decline of 7 percent, according to AAA.

Should oil traders fear that this downward price spiral will get worse and run for the exits by selling off their futures contracts, Verleger said, it’s not unthinkable that oil prices could return to $15 or less a barrel, at least temporarily. That could mean gasoline prices as low as $1.15 per gallon.

I, of course, blame George Bush. Like the booming economy, it’s all part of the evil Rethuglican plot to maintain control of the government, and not relinquish power this fall. Speaking of which, maybe I should put up a Bruce Gagnon countdown clock. It would be updated daily, counting the number of days that Bruce remains correct, and the number of days that Bush has continually refused to relinquish his power since January, 2001.

In a “man bites dog” moment, Lester Brown gets something right:

Just a single fill of ethanol for a four-wheel drive SUV, says Brown, uses enough grain to feed one person for an entire year. This year the amount of US corn going to make the fuel will equal what it sells abroad; traditionally its exports have helped feed 100 – mostly poor – countries.

From next year, the amount used to run American cars will exceed exports, and soon it is likely to reduce what is available to help feed poor people overseas. The number of ethanol plants built or planned in the corn-belt state of Iowa will use virtually all the state’s crop.

This will not only cut food supplies, but drive up the process of grain, making hungry people compete with the owners of gas-guzzlers. Already spending 70 per cent of their meagre incomes on food, they simply cannot afford to do so.

Time to stop this latest nuttiness in farm subsidies.

The original poverty line was based on having enough money to select a nutritious diet in 1963. It was $3,100/year for a family of four with two adults and two children. In 2005, it was $19,800. In constant 2005 dollars using the consumer price index, the 1963 poverty line would be $18,900. Using the GDP deflator (which is based on changing rather than fixed buying patterns), we get $15,400. That is, a family at the poverty line today will buy different items today implying a $4,400 improvement in the standard of living from 1963 to 2005.

Life expectancy has gone up almost 5 years over that time. The white/black life expectancy ratio has been converging from 1.11 to about 1.07 over the same period.

Both the GDP deflator and life expectancy measures indicate those below the poverty line are getting better off in an absolute sense. A couple more are in this week’s Economist. The definition of poverty evolves over time and is more of a curve than a line so that there will alway be people in poverty.

So writeth Jane Galt (not the first time she’s clamored for this).

While undoubtedly the discovery that most of the tax burden falls on employees will be for some a strike against the tax, and for others a sign that we need some stiff laws to force those corporations to place the burden elsewhere, it seems to me that this piece of information makes the corporate income tax no less attractive than it was before–which is to say, not at all. Levying a corporate income tax is a very inefficient way to do what we want, which is to redistribute money from the company’s richer owners, customers, and managers to its poorer employees.

(All right, maybe we don’t all want to do this; no doubt many of my readers are even now cringing in horror at the thought. But let us posit, for the sake of discussion, that we do want to do this, because that is at heart of all the arguments I have ever heard in favour of the corporate income tax, and even assuming the ends, the means make no sense.)

I agree. The corporate income tax is nuts, and arguments for it are born purely of economic ignorance.

Has the oil fever finally peaked?

…the recent record-high prices have fueled a boom in exploration. And as that boom begins to yield more oil, the industry will gain a greater ability to ramp up production in one place in order to make up for any shortfall elsewhere.

This should reduce the impact of a supply disruption in, say, Iran or Nigeria, and ease what experts refer to as the security premium that’s currently build into oil prices.

“That [premium] is in the neighborhood of $25 dollars a barrel,” said James Williams, an energy economist at the consultancy WTRG Economics. “That number would go away, or most of it would go away, if we had more spare production capacity.”

And that’s not even considering shale and the tar sands, which are now coming on line, and will remain that way, as long as prices don’t drop back into the twenties.