For more than a century, American progressives have convinced themselves that they could create a world that could circumvent the long-held laws of economics simply by dismissing these laws as illegitimate creations of human beings. Now that the US economy is locked into high unemployment, massive debt, and utter uncertainty, progressives have decided that what is needed is more of the same activity that put us here in the first place.

A candidate’s stance on free trade is quite predictive of whether he/she generally puts facts and principle before politics and self-interest. You see, public figures who support free trade and reject protectionism are pretty brave souls. They turn down eager corporate and union donations from those unseemly rent-seekers who seek to thwart international competition at the expense of American companies and families. They ignore attacks on their patriotism from misguided demagogues. And they openly push policies which, despite their overwhelming economic and historical support, are met with public hostility and ignorance and an unethical opposition willing to take full advantage thereof. On the other hand, those who freely discard their free market, trade liberalization ideals (or who never had them in the first place) are either ignorant of basic law and economics or are willing to eschew those facts in order to gain a short-term political advantage based on misunderstood public opinion polls. Neither option is very flattering and each raises serious questions as to the candidate’s fitness as a leader and public servant.

A competitive market system will do a better job of learning than a top-down regulated system. The demand for regulation implicitly assumes that our experts know enough to stop learning. That is ultimately a dangerously wrong-headed view.

A common commitment to refrain from special favors serves the same economic function as a common commitment to refrain from stealing.

Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.

China-bashing in the US speaks to a corrosive shift in the American psyche. It deflects attention away from those truly responsible for perpetuating the greatest saving shortfall in history. The US has been seduced by the political economy of false prosperity. That seduction has allowed America to live beyond its means for nearly two decades. Now the game is up.

As I understand the power industry, such a high percentage of the costs are upfront (with nuclear plants in particular, but with carbon burning plants as well) and the marginal price of producing energy (up to plant capacity) is so low, that falling demand would mostly cause plants to cut prices until they were again operating at capacity. So “saving” energy at the consumer level won’t really reduce total energy consumption or gas emission. Is that right?