Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (79945)	5/26/2010 2:53:15 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Korean Conundrum By: The Editors National Review Online Discussing United States policy toward North Korea can seem exhaustingly futile. There are no “good” options, and the North’s behavior appears utterly intractable; yet because of its magnitude, the threat from Pyongyang demands our constant attention. That threat was thrown into stark relief on March 26, when a North Korean torpedo slammed into South Korea’s Cheonan warship, killing 46 servicemen. It is surely Pyongyang’s most spectacular atrocity since the 1987 terrorist bombing of Korean Air Flight 858, which left 115 dead. The proof of North Korea’s culpability is now overwhelming; indeed, the North’s repeated denials would be comical if the act itself were not so appalling. In response, the U.S. and South Korean governments have planned joint military exercises, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is working to build support for a fresh round of global sanctions on the Communist regime. We don’t expect new sanctions to topple the dictatorship, nor do we expect them dramatically to alter North Korea’s conduct. However, tightening our grip on Pyongyang’s finances would bolster U.S. leverage at a critical moment in Korean history, with 69-year-old Kim Jong Il in deteriorating health (it is believed he suffered a stroke in 2008) and a shaky leadership transition already under way. Sinking the Cheonan was a heinous act, and also a desperate one, carried out by a regime that urgently needs hard currency to mitigate a severe domestic economic crisis. Now is the time to do everything possible to choke Pyongyang’s cash flows. Of course, passing a robust Security Council measure will be impossible without gaining Chinese support, and Beijing’s North Korea policy continues to be guided by its twin fears of (1) a massive refugee disaster and (2) a unified, pro-American democracy on the Korean peninsula. If the Obama administration is unable to win Chinese backing for an aggressive Security Council resolution, U.S. officials should re-freeze North Korean assets at Banco Delta Asia (assets that were originally frozen in 2005 but then released as part of a 2007 nuclear-disarmament accord) and also target specific North Korean entities. Meanwhile, the United States should re-list North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. Removing Pyongyang from the State Department blacklist was a premature decision in 2008, given that Pyongyang still refuses to account for the untold number of Japanese citizens it abducted during the 1970s and 1980s. Today, the decision seems embarrassing. The Cheonan incident was nothing short of a terroristic massacre; moreover, there is strong evidence that North Korea has been selling weapons to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Syria. We don’t have a silver bullet to topple the North Korean dictatorship and should not expect sanctions or moral pressure to trigger a velvet revolution. But the steps outlined above would weaken Pyongyang and boost America’s Asian alliances, while providing incentives for a post-Kim regime to seek rapprochement with its democratic neighbors. Democrats on Capitol Hill could do their part to affirm U.S. solidarity with South Korea by approving the bilateral free-trade deal that was signed in June 2007 and has effectively been held hostage by the United Auto Workers ever since. We must remember that the key foreign player in the North Korean saga is China, which has long subsidized the Hermit Kingdom with food and fuel aid. The coming weeks will tell us whether the Cheonan incident has finally spurred Beijing to rethink its approach. As a former U.S. Asia hand puts it, “This is a defining moment for China’s foreign policy.” It’s also a defining moment for the Obama administration, which now has an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of its predecessor and embrace a Korea strategy that is tough, forward-looking, and realistic. .

To: Sully- who wrote (79945)	5/26/2010 9:29:48 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

Cap and Flee More proof of that - California: 25 May, 2010 The Wall Street Journal CALIFORNIA, that former land of opportunity, was one of the first states to pass its own version of "cap and trade" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007 when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, called AB-32, he said it would propel CALIFORNIA into an economy-expanding, green job future. Well, a new study by the state's own auditing agency -- its version of the Congressional Budget Office -- has burst that green bubble. The study released May 13 concludes that "California's economy at large will likely be adversely affected in the near term by implementing climate-related policies that are not adopted elsewhere." While the long-term economic costs are "unknown," the study finds that AB-32 will raise energy prices, "causing the prices of goods and services to rise; lowering business profits; and reducing production, income and jobs." The economic reality here is what the Legislative Analyst's Office calls "economic leakage." That's jargon for businesses and jobs that will "locate or relocate outside the state of CALIFORNIA where regulatory-related costs are lower." The study says the negative impact on most CALIFORNIA industries will be "modest," but energy-intensive industries -- specifically, aluminum, chemicals, forest products, oil and gas and steel -- "may significantly reduce their business activity in CALIFORNIA." Yes, some new "green jobs" will be created. But the "net economywide impact," it says, "will in all likelihood be negative." Sorry. The green lobby typically tries to discredit such results when they're sponsored by business, as if anything business commissions isn't credible. But no one can say that California's state auditing agency has an industry bias. Some Californians may shrug and say that such costs are worth it to save the planet from CO2. But the report bursts that bubble too, concluding that the CALIFORNIA law's impact on carbon emissions will be de minimis because "the economic activity that is shifted will also generate" greenhouse gasses outside the state. Recognizing this problem, CALIFORNIA politicians are busy trying to get a Western regional pact to reduce carbon emissions, but so far Arizona, Montana, Oregon, Utah and Washington have refused. They'd rather have the jobs. It should be obvious to Members of Congress that similar jobs and business "leakage" will strike the U.S. in general if federal cap and trade passes. The hardest hit industries will leave the U.S. and relocate to the likes of China and India where marginal costs are lower. The recently introduced Kerry-Lieberman bill all but concedes the point by calling for tariffs on products from countries that don't impose similar energy costs. In November, Californians will vote on an initiative to suspend AB-32 until the state unemployment rate falls to 5.5%. The rate is now 12.6%, the third highest after Michigan and Nevada, and a state already leading the nation in lost jobs and businesses, home foreclosures and debt doesn't need higher self-imposed energy costs.