OK, fine. There's nothing much going on today, so let's talk about the Park51 mosque project. We already know that a large majority of Americans are opposed to building it, but here are the results of an Economist poll on a slightly different question:

Whether or not you think the Islamic cultural centre and mosque should be built near the World Trade Center site, do you think that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque there?

Technically, I think the wording of this question should have been turned around: not whether Muslims have the right to build a mosque on Park Place, but whether the government has the constitutional right to stop them from building a mosque on Park Place.

Still, I think everyone probably understands what this means, and it's just depressing as hell. It's one thing to oppose the mosque just because you don't like the idea, but to deny that Muslims even have a constitutional right to build it? That should be a no-brainer. Of course they do. You can picket the site, you can boycott their sponsors, you can vote against politicians who speak in favor of it, and you can scream all you like on blogs and Fox News. But how can anyone not accept, at a bare minimum, that the constitution protects their basic right to build a house of worship the same way it protects their opponents' right to protest it?

The News Today, Oh Boy

So I guess the biggest news today is that unemployment claims are up and the number of people who think Obama is a Muslim is also up — which is, perhaps, not entirely a coincidence. Oh, and Dr. Laura is quitting her radio show.

Well, I guess I can always post another ad from my collection of old comic books. Which would you like, a Daisy air rifle ad or a Charles Atlas ad? 

The latest on the airline front:

American Airlines, in the quest for more non-ticket revenue, on Wednesday began charging customers who want to sit in the first few rows of coach on domestic flights.

Customers who pay the fee, which ranges from $19 to $39, will be among the first to board, giving them a chance to snag coveted overhead bins. As passengers carry on luggage to avoid baggage fees, overhead space has become harder to find.

To summarize, then: (1) Airlines spent years hassling customers about their carry-on bags and persuading them to check their luggage instead. (2) After that finally started to work, they suddenly began charging for checked luggage. (3) As customers scurried to adapt once again, overhead space disappeared. (4) So now they begin charging for early boarding to avoid the crush of bags in the overhead bin.

Has there ever before been an industry that's so actively tried to piss off their entire customer base? You almost have to admire it in a Bizarro-capitalism kind of way.

Matt Steinglass reviews a proposal from Simon Johnson and James Kwak to put our fiscal house in order:

First, introduce a value-added tax and lower the ceiling on the mortgage interest deduction from $1m to something more reasonable....Second, carbon pricing, either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade....Third, introduce a Financial Activities Tax, which could raise 0.5% to 1% of GDP.

....And finally—here's the tough one—entitlement reform. As Messrs Johnson and Kwak say, Social Security needs to be tweaked a bit as it goes from 4.8% to 6.2% of GDP with the aging of the population. Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, need major reform to figure out how to stop paying for medical care that doesn't make people healthier, while reducing costs on what we do buy. This is a book-length issue on its own and all we can do is note the necessity of doing it.

So, that last one seems like a doozy, but the other three look entirely reasonable. There's no reason why a rational political system shouldn't be able to tackle such reforms in a non-ideological and collaborative fashion. Nothing of that sort has happened in my lifetime, so far as I can remember, but there's a first time for everything.

Hold on. I'm a big fat tax-and-spend liberal, but even I have a hard time swallowing this. Adding three big new taxes and slashing the home mortgage deduction is "eminently doable" but tackling Medicare reform is a "doozy"? Seems like there's a pretty big thumb on the scale here.

On his blog today, Paul Krugman reprints a chart of housing prices rising like a hockey stick in the mid-aughts and then hits back against critics who say the bubble couldn't have been predicted:

Given this kind of picture — and given the fact that the late-80s rise in southern California was, in fact, a bubble — how could you not be very worried? And when you looked at the rationalizations for high housing prices being given at the time, it was obvious that they were questionable.

Sorry: the evidence just screamed bubble. No excuses for those who didn’t want to hear it.

OK. But did Krugman call the bubble? My recollection from his NYT columns, anyway, is that he didn't really get concerned about it until mid-2005, which was only half a year before the market peaked. If the evidence was screaming bubble any earlier than that, why wasn't he screaming too? Or was it happening somewhere other than his columns?

I like to help out my conservative buddies now and again — it's just the kind of guy I am — so here's this month's shot in the arm for righties. You know how you're always getting annoyed about self-righteous greens lecturing you about what you should and shouldn't do to conserve energy and save the planet? Well, apparently you're right. They don't know what they're talking about. A team of researchers recently conducted a survey of how much people know about energy use (cans vs. bottles, turning off lights vs. turning down the heat, etc.) and correlated the results with various personal characteristics. Here's what they learned:

Surprisingly, participants’ self-reported environmental behaviors scale always had a negative coefficient and was significant in three of the five tests, indicating that participants who reported engaging in a greater number of proenvironmental energy-related behaviors had less accurate perceptions.

Italics mine. The table below shows the full results. Basically, positive numbers are good and negative numbers are bad, so the key is to look for things where the numbers are positive or negative across the board. The most accurate perceptions about energy use, it seems, are held by numerate, conservative homeowners who don't bother trying to save energy. On the other hand, participants' NEP score, which is a reflection of environmental attitudes, was largely positively correlated. So what you really want are numerate, conservative homeowners who care about the environment but not enough to actually bother doing anything about it.

Or something. Anyway, conservatives did better. Savor your victory, righties. (Via Felix Salmon, who links to a rather breathless Register summary of the study.)

Drowning in Email

Felix Salmon is unhappy with Google:

Yesterday afternoon, I started wondering why my steady stream of emails seemed to have come to a halt. It didn't take long to get the answer: emails to me were being bounced back to their senders as undeliverable, on the grounds that my Gmail account was over quota. Naturally, I immediately paid Google the $5 they wanted to upgrade to 20 GB of storage from the free 7.5 GB.

What follows is a long post about Google's annoying ways, and I sympathize. But what I'm really curious about is the amount of space apparently used by Google mail. I just checked my mail directory, and it uses 3 GB of space for 110,000 emails (including the associated full-text index files). So either (a) Felix has nearly 300,000 emails in his archive or (b) Google uses a really inefficient storage algorithm for email.

Probably the former. Which is an impressive bucket of email. But I guess it's not surprising. I've got eight years worth of email archived, but the fact is that I delete about 90% of the email I get these days because most of it is auto-generated press releases and so forth. If I didn't bother doing that, I'd probably be well over 7.5 GB too and pushing half a million emails.

That's....disturbing. In the past eight years I've received half a million emails. And I'm probably a piker compared to some. It's amazing that we keep up at all, isn't it?

Tyler Cowen says there are three ways that declines in consumer demand can make itself felt, but I'm just going to focus on the first two:

  1. A general decline in spending.
  2. A disproportionate and permanent demand decline for the more income- and wealth-elastic goods, a category which includes many consumer durables and also luxury goods.

The first, he says, can be addressed via stimulus. The second can't. For what it's worth, this is a distinction that's been eating at me for a long time too. One of the things that was clear after the housing bust and the financial collapse of 2008 was that Americans were simply consuming too much. Relative to the rest of the world consumption needed to go down, but in the short term this would be so economically disastrous that we couldn't allow it to happen right away. The Wall Street bailout and the stimulus bill really were necessary.

But our current account deficit, after shrinking a bit in 2009, has started to grow again, and in the long term we can't keep this up. International trade and money flows have to start balancing out eventually, and that means less consumption from the U.S. and more from countries like China.

This has been the contradiction at the heart of fiscal and monetary policy for the past two year. Do we damn the torpedoes and stimulate now, simultaneously swearing on a stack of Bibles that we'll restrain ourselves after we've gotten back on our feet? Or should we gulp hard, work through the pain all at once, and get our economy back on a sustainable track now? Back in 2008, I remember concluding that the trend level of consumption in the U.S. needed to drop 5-10% at some point, and obviously that hasn't happened yet. What's more, even if we wanted to make it happen we're constrained by the policies of export-oriented economies like China's, which have to take the other side of the deal and increase their consumption considerably. That hasn't happened either.

So I still don't know how this all ends. Trying to adjust to a big drop in the trend level of consumption seems suicidal at the moment, and for that reason further stimulus seems like a good idea. But even while acknowledging that, I still wonder when and how we're going to get ourselves back to a sustainable level of economic activity. I don't think the answers are any easier today than they were two years ago.

Today's front page hed in the LA Times declares:

New York mosque debate splits GOP

I laughed when I read that. What's the score? Joe Scarborough in favor of the mosque and every other Republican in the country opposed? I guess that's technically "split," but you'd need Superman's microscopic vision to suss it out.

But it was better than I thought. There's Joe, of course, but also Grover Norquist. And Chris Christie — sort of. And Michael Gerson. And some congressional wannabe named Chris Gibson. And Kathleen Parker. It's true that Norquist has a Muslim wife and Christie hedged absurdly and Gerson is mostly concerned about tactical electoral issues. Still, that's politics. And half a dozen conservatives is better than none. Who knows? Maybe there's a small campaign for decency forming on the right. Perhaps it will give a few others the courage to speak out too.

Iraq Update

Anthony Shadid of the New York Times reports that American officials are finally getting worried about the long impasse that's prevented the formation of an Iraqi government five months after parliamentary elections were held. However:

In the end, many officials expect an eventual agreement on some sort of consensus government so inclusive as to be woefully weak, unable to assert itself and beset by stalemate over the laws necessary to shape post-American Iraq.

Smells like victory!

The gist of the article is that American planners never had a clue about what they were doing, Iraqi politicians have been feckless and conniving, and regional politics is relentless at turning everything into a quagmire. In other words, the entire venture was fubar from the beginning. But you probably already knew that, didn't you?