Final Victory in the War of Ideas?

A friend of mine believes that this recent election may signal a final defeat for the ideals of conservatism, that no genuine right wing alliance will ever again regain control of the country.

While I fundamentally disagree, I'll grant him certain points.

• On some social issues (homosexuality, immigration, and other types of xenophobia) the conservatives will moderate significantly over the next 10 years.
• Conservative aversion to changes to the patent law may reduce as changes in the software industry make those changes more evidently necessary.
• On environmental issues, the conservatives will drop the issue of whether global warming is an issue, and focus on policies that help the market incorporate environmental cost into their decision making (carbon tax or 'cap-n-trade' vs. arbitrary per-company pollution controls).

There are a few other issues where I wish they would change the party line, but these are the ones I think will actually change. Once these changes are made, the conservative party will have a far more focused platform based on consistent principles. It will still be necessary to find a leader who can articulate those principles well to the masses, but those come in time.

The modern GOP is very different from the 1950's GOP which was far away from the 1900's GOP. Political platforms change to fit the times, but some ideas don't become less correct.

To justify 'spreading the wealth around,' one has to accept that wealth does not belong to the individual who creates it. Is wealth created by the social environment that created the person, or is it the creative and motivated character of the person that creates both the wealth and the social environment? If you claim that the social forces created the person's character, than it becomes one social duty to do everything possible to forcibly improve the social environment. That can and will be used to permit government control of anything that affects the social environment, words, print, businesses that compete with government programs, etc. If you deny the basic premise that a person owns the product of their work, then you deny the basic freedom that a person even owns his/her self.

Clean Energy Gets Cheaper

Business Week: Clean Energy: It's Getting Affordable
Wikipedia: Electricity Market
CBO: Prospects for Distributed Electricity Generation

For the last decades or so, activists and technologists have hoped and worked for a world where cheap clean power improved living conditions all over the world. Not to be melodramatic, Most technological innovation improves living conditions everywhere they're used, freeing resources to improve standards of living everywhere else.

There have been many breakthroughs in the past few years in the forms of 'more efficient' solar cells, that cost more per watt. A power generating floor, and other nifty gadgets that just don't take off. But the real test is in terms of $$$ per Watt. Because it's not really the cleanness that we want, or even the security of knowing that we will have resources for generations to come, but the raw power that keeps us from working in the dark. The environment is important, but it's not how we base our decisions.

One thing I would love our government to actually tackle however, is the legal mess it's already created preventing home owners from selling their own power back to the grid. A good power market should allow this and be transparent enough to permit real time power pricing. So that homeowners can reduce their power consumption when the price gets real high, or feel free to crank up the AC when the price gets real low. If families could MAKE money by selling the power from their solar cell when the price gets high, we might see a much higher adoption rate.

Less is More

We're doing more with less. That's good for planet Earth.

Since 1977 the value of the U.S. economy has doubled, yet the amount of physical stuff it took to supply all the needs and wants of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds. Even more astonishing: the "weight" of the economy fell while U.S. population grew by some 55 million people.

This probably not true for each individual resource, only in aggregate. 55 million additional people will require additional water, and while water can be delivered and used more efficiently, the total supply is not unlimited. The good news is that although the use of water probably went up, that means other resources were probably used less, and those other resources were probably less environmentally friendly than water.

I recommend checking out the other Knowledge labeled posts. As this sort of change is what knowledge economies are good for.

Hat tip to Brian Hollar at Thinking on the Margin. Which is rapidly becoming one of my all time favorite blogs! Not to detract from my extensive respect for the eminent professors at Marginal Revolution & Cafe Hayek. Their sites are much better known.

Carbon Tax

For those of you who maybe thought, wow that looked like a good policy, freedom should take a back seat for policies that good. Let me go ahead and make a specific argument about it.
If people use more electricity than they should, then it's because there's costs that they don't feel. Like costs to the environment, and costs to somebody else's comfort in some other way, econ calls those unfelt costs 'externalities.'

I really feel like emmissions trading would be a good thing. Basically, somebody (probably a government) sells pollution credits to industries that need them. This sets a cap on the amount of pollution and people who don't pollute much don't have to pay for them. This might raise the cost of coal electricity to above that of solar, since solar doesn't really pollute. A book about it.

This is the basic idea behind the Kyoto treaty, but there's a bunch of other problems that make that particular treaty a bad plan. (politics...)

Problems with Kyoto:
Harvard magazine
ktracy.com
npr