How’s Trump Doing?

October 3, 2017

With some slack time on a rainy day in the north woods, I thought I’d take a few moments to share some thoughts about Trump and his policies to date, as they relate to the economic problems wrought by worsening overpopulation: falling per capita consumption and the inevitable trade deficits caused by attempting to trade freely with badly overpopulated nations. So here goes:

Immigration:
Still no border wall. Other than that, I’ve been quite pleased with his other actions – the travel ban, the dramatic slowdown in visa processing, going after sanctuary cities, deporting illegal aliens, and so on. I also applaud him for his stance on the “dreamers,” those brought here as young children by their illegal alien parents. It may surprise you to learn that I’m actually in favor of allowing them to stay, even providing them a path to full citizenship. By all accounts, we’re talking about 800,000 people here. But it needs to be a one-time program. And it needs to be part of a bigger immigration reform that includes dramatic cuts in legal immigration – at least 50% (including student visas), and an end to the pyramid scheme of “family preferences” that, within a few generations, would make virtually every person on earth a candidate to become a permanent legal resident in the U.S. Trump is right to kick this issue back to congress and to demand action, but I don’t understand why he’s “selling it” so cheap. By demanding the above reforms, he could put an end to our out-of-control immigration. No senator or congressman would dare vote against it because all anyone would ever remember is that they voted against the “dreamer act” and in favor of deporting the dreamers.

Trade:
Here I have to say that I’m “hugely” disappointed in Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise to raise tariffs and/or border taxes in order to rebalance trade. But perhaps I’m impatient for action on this issue. His administration has taken some tough stances and is in the process of renegotiating NAFTA while also trying to reform the World Trade Organization. Last week it was revealed that the U.S. has been quietly blocking the filling of vacancies on the panel of appeals judges at the WTO and is now trying to assume a veto power if judges aren’t available. Reportedly, Trump told John Kelly, his new chief-of-staff, that he wants someone to bring him some tariffs. And most recently, when Boeing complained of Bombardier “dumping” planes on the U.S. market, the Trump administration promptly levied a 216% tariff on Bombardier planes. So there’s still reason for optimism.

Tax Reform:
Though this is the issue that excites the business community, the media and maybe even average Americans the most, for me it’s a non-issue unless a border tax is included as part of the reform. Dramatic cuts to corporate taxes, combined with some minimal cuts for average taxpayers, will blow a huge hole in the budget, just like it did when Reagan did the same thing back in the ‘80s. Sure, it’ll stimulate economic growth just a little, but no more than the amount of tax reductions that are plowed back into the economy. To expect a trillion dollar tax cut to generate economic growth of $4 trillion (the amount of growth it’d take to make it revenue-neutral) is a hocus-pocus fairy tale. And cutting corporate taxes that much will simply leave corporations with more money to invest in more job-killing manufacturing overseas. But all of that would change if a border tax were part of the package. Then it would truly be revenue-neutral and would fuel an explosion in economic growth. Trump is missing a huge opportunity by not insisting that a border tax be part of the package.

Paris Climate Accord:
Trump was 100% right to pull out of this agreement. Ask anyone and everyone the purpose of that agreement and every single person will tell you that its goal is to stop climate change. And every one of them would be wrong, because they haven’t read the stated mission of the accord, which is to merely slow climate change to a pace that would allow “sustainable development” to continue and, by the way, would essentially “tax” Americans to help fund that development in the rest of the world. “Sustainable development” is the very reason the world now finds itself in this global warming fix – because what world leaders thought was “sustainable” has proven not to be. So if global warming is slowed so that “sustainable development” can continue unabated, then every other problem associated with our exploding population – environmental and otherwise – will worsen, including mass extinction as habitat loss accelerates, more landfills, more trash in the ocean, more underground disposal of various hazardous wastes (including nuclear), and now a new one – the underground disposal of CO2 removed from exhaust streams. Where does it end? It needs to end now, and just maybe mother nature is doing us a favor by using climate change to wake us up. With all of that said, it disturbs me to hear that Trump may consider re-entering a renegotiated climate accord.

Repeal and replace “Obamacare”:
For me, this is another non-issue. The unaffordability of health care is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem, namely that every year the U.S. economy is drained of about $800 billion through the trade deficit, making everyone poorer and more dependent on deficit spending by the federal government to maintain an illusion of prosperity. Fix the trade deficit and the whole health care issue will go away.

So that’s it. Although I never really liked Donald Trump very much, and cringe at a lot of his “tweets” and some of the things he says, overall I’ve been pretty pleased with where the country is headed under his direction. But the trade/tariff/border tax issue is critical. If we don’t see action on reducing the trade deficit in manufactured goods, I fear that all will be lost. Like you told John Kelly, Mr. Trump, “we want tariffs and we want them now!”

Advertisements

Tax Reform Needs Border Tax to Work

September 13, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax/trump-says-rich-might-pay-more-in-taxes-talks-with-democrats-idUSKCN1BO1HM

Trump and Congress are now hard at work on tax reform, promising huge cuts in both corporate and individual taxes.  How is that possible without blowing a gigantic hole in the budget and sending the national debt on a new trajectory?  Here’s how Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin explains it in the above-linked article:

Mnuchin told Fox the administration would use its own economic assumptions to gauge the impact of its tax cuts on the federal budget deficit and the $20 trillion national debt, a key issue in Washington’s intensifying tax debate.

“It will be revenue neutral under our growth assumptions,” Mnuchin said. The administration believes that tax cuts will lead to much faster growth than do congressional analysts or private forecasters.

“So, we can pay for these tax cuts with economic growth,” he added.

That’s absolute nonsense, and he knows it.  Yes, cutting taxes will boost economic growth, but only by the amount of the tax cut.  Suppose that the combined corporate and individual cuts result in a cut of $1 trillion per year.  If every dollar of that was spent domestically and not put into savings, then GDP (gross domestic product) would grow by $1 trillion. And let’s suppose that this is taxed at a rate of 25%.  That’s federal revenue of $0.25 trillion.  So revenue would actually decline by $0.75 trillion.  The only way for it to be revenue neutral would be if the $1 trillion tax cut mysteriously generated $4 trillion in spending.  That’s impossible.  It’s simple math.

However, there is a way to make these tax cuts revenue neutral.  Include a new source of revenue by taxing foreign exporters who are getting a free ride in the American economy.  Last week, the Commerce Department released the trade figures for the month of July.  Contrary to Trump’s promise that this “stops right here and stops right now,” the deficit in manufactured goods has actually gotten worse.  Take a look at this chart:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  The deficit in manufactured goods is now running approximately $63 billion per month, or $750 billion per year.  Exports haven’t risen one iota in six years, while imports have soared by $25 billion and are running approximately $2 trillion per year.

Now, consider what a 30% tariff (or border tax) would do.  First of all, it would drastically reduce imports  – by half, let’s say.  That means that $1 trillion of manufacturing would return to the U.S.  That’s how much the GDP would grow.  Taxed at 25%, that would be a new stream of revenue of $250 billion.  That leaves $1 trillion in imports that would be taxed at 30% – another new stream of revenue that totals $300 billion.  Add these revenue streams totalling $550 billion to the revenue generated by the increase in GDP created by the tax cut – $250 billion – and you have revenue of $800 billion – nearly off-setting the loss of revenue caused by the tax cut.

In late August, Trump reportedly told John Kelly, his chief of staff, that “I want tariffs.  Bring me some tariffs!”  Now’s the time to do it.  Roll the tariffs into the tax reform package and no senator or congressman will be willing to tell his/her constituents that “I voted to keep your taxes high because I don’t like tariffs.”  It’d be political suicide.

The time has come to make foreign manufacturers pay their fair share for access to the American market.


Trump: “I want tariffs. ….bring me some tariffs.”

September 1, 2017

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/27/trump-reportedly-demands-china-action-i-want-tariffs-and-i-want-someone-to-bring-me-some-tariffs.html

With trade negotiations with both China and Mexico bogged down in trivial minutae, it was beginning to appear that Trump’s campaign promise to impose tariffs on both was nothing more than a ploy to win votes.  After all, we’ve seen this movie dozens of times over the past decades:  endless talk about intellectual property rights, labor laws, unfair government subsidies.  The list goes on and on and, in the end, our trade deficit gets bigger and bigger while our manufacturing sector withers.

Then, a few days ago, the above-linked report appeared.  Perhaps Trump has just been giving the “globalists” one last shot at negotiating something meaningful so that, at least, they can’t say he didn’t try.  But it seems that he’s getting fed up with the lack of progress.

Reportedly, in the presence of the “globalists” on his economic team – U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Economic Council director Gary Cohn, among others (which perhaps included daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner?) – Trump told chief of staff John Kelly:

So, John, I want you to know, this is my view. I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me some tariffs … I know there are some people in the room right now that are upset. I know there are some globalists in the room right now. And they don’t want them, John, they don’t want the tariffs. But I’m telling you, I want tariffs.

Do it, John!  Draw up a tariff plan.  Help President Trump implement it and our long, long nightmare of trade policy idiocy will finally be over!  Then, instead of debt ceiling and budget negotiations getting deadlocked over how to pay for everything, our congressmen will have a new problem – what to do with all the additional revenue.

Let’s not give up hope yet.


Thank you Sheriff Joe. Thank you President Trump

August 27, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-arpaio-idUSKCN1B600O

As reported in the above-linked Reuters article, President Trump has pardoned Joe Arpaio, former sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona.  Sheriff Joe was famous for his relentless round-up of illegal aliens and for his tough, but not brutal, treatment of all criminals.  As reported in the article:

He reinstated chain gangs, made inmates wear uniforms that were pink or old-fashioned black and white stripes and forbade them coffee, salt and pepper.

That’s it?  No beatings or torture?  He just made them wear uniforms, do real work and took away their coffee?  What an animal!  Seriously, we need a lot more sheriffs like this.  The sight of chain gangs when I was a kid helped me decide early on that I wanted to stay on the right side of the law.

To the chagrin of the globalist, open border advocates, Joe Arpaio took his job seriously and did what he could to protect our border and enforce our immigration laws.  His crime?  Focusing on Hispanics in his search for illegal immigrants in a state that borders Mexico.  Who else would he go after?  The notion that this somehow constituted illegal racial profiling is ridiculous.  If another sheriff were to focus on whites while searching for a group of murderous white supremacists, would a judge declare this racial profiling and insist that they include blacks, Hispanics and Asians in their search?  If the victim of a crime describes the perpetrator as black man, is it racial profiling to include only blacks in the police line-up?  Arpaio’s conviction was exactly the kind of overboard political-correctness-run-amok, common-sense-be-damned nonsense that propelled Trump to victory.  Just look at some of the quotes in this article:

“Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and that have been struck down by the courts,” said American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who sought the court injunction against Arpaio.

Alejandra Gomez, co-executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), said: “President Trump pardoned a terrorist tonight. Joe Arpaio intentionally terrorized immigrant communities across Arizona for decades and traumatized an entire generation of Arizonans…  The only proper place for him is in a jail cell,” Gomez said in a statement.

“Illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices?”  How about Obama’s illegal refusal to enforce immigration laws at all?  Somebody had to do something, and Sheriff Joe stepped up.  And then this Gomez character from some obscure, fringe group in Arizona goes so far as to call him a “terrorist.”  It’s truly over the top.

As I said in Five Short Blasts, my concern with illegal immigration isn’t rooted in racism.  It wouldn’t matter to me if it was Ireland on the other side of our southern border and if every illegal alien was named Murphy.  The world faces no greater threat than worsening overpopulation, and illegal immigration is a major contributor to that threat in the U.S.

Unlike Obama, who pardoned hundreds of real criminals, Trump has pardoned an American hero who stood up for all Americans by enforcing our immigration laws.  Thank you for your work, Sheriff Joe.  And thank you for correcting this injustice, President Trump.


Seven Months Into Trump’s Administration, Has Anything Changed?

August 14, 2017

I’m back from a hiatus at my north woods retreat, and there’s a bit to catch up on.  For now, however, I’m wondering what has really changed in terms of the economy since Trump took office seven months ago.  Let me begin by sharing a recent experience.

My wife and I stopped into a small restaurant in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin for dinner one evening earlier this week.  Boulder Junction is a tiny town in Vilas County in northern Wisconsin, a popular vacation area frequented mostly by folks from Chicago and Milwaukee.  A polite Asian lady, speaking broken English, seated us and told us the waitress would take our order shortly.  Upon ordering, the waitress assured us that our order would be prepared as we had requested.  It wasn’t.  When we complained, the waitress – without even offering to make it right – apologized and explained that there was a “language barrier” in the kitchen.  A language barrier in Boulder Junction!  I couldn’t believe it.

Another old lodge that we visit for dinner is staffed with waiters and waitresses from Lithuania.  They just can’t find reliable help in the north woods of Wisconsin, they explain.  However, another restaurant just up the road seems to have no problem.

I know what’s going on here.  These little businesses don’t have the wherewithal to recruit foreign laborers.  So how do they get them?  While I can’t provide proof, I’m certain that the Chamber of Commerce is importing foreign labor and pushing them on these businesses, or making them available at rates so cheap that these businesses don’t even have to bother with trying to hire locally.  So, when it comes to Trump’s promises to stop these kinds of practices, there’s no evidence that anything has changed.

Changing gears, the Commerce Department released the June trade figures last week.  Here’s a chart that shows the balance of trade in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  As you can see, it continues on the same downhill trajectory that it’s been on throughout the Obama administration.  In fact, in the 2nd quarter of 2017, the deficit in manufactured goods set a new record of $185.6 billion.  In other words, contrary to Trump’s inaugural vow that:

“… rusted out factories scattered like tombstones … stops right here and stops right now!”

matters have actually gotten worse.  While the Trump administration is currently involved in renegotiating NAFTA and in negotiations with the Chinese, and the U.S. negotiators are reportedly taking a much harder line in these negotiations, I’m very pessimistic that any improvement in our balance of trade will result.  Why?  Because there’s nothing to negotiate.  The ONLY thing that will make a difference in America’s favor is tariffs, something that no nation would agree to in “negotiations.”  Anything they will agree to will be totally unenforceable and any attempts to enforce them would be met with whining and, more importantly, a cut-off in funding of candidates unless they pressure the Trump administration to back off of enforcement actions.  These same kinds of negotiations have been tried and have failed for decades.  Most recently, Obama’s deal with South Korea, which he hailed as a “big win for American workers,” has actually proven to be a disaster.

In the meantime, the “new normal” economy that emerged during the Obama administration, in the wake of the Great Recession, goes on.  GDP growth remains stuck in the 1-2% range, wages are stagnant and job growth (when viewed in the context of the “100,000 jobs is the new zero” economy) is anemic at best.  The economy is being kept afloat by deficit spending (up 10% so far this year), a once-again growth in credit and an inflated stock market.  The illusion of good times isn’t going to last.

I’m growing impatient with the Trump administration’s dithering on these issues.  Can you tell?


Population Density Drives Trade Imbalances Again in 2016

June 26, 2017

I’ve finished my analysis of trade in manufactured goods for 2016 and, as expected once again, the news isn’t good.  The overall deficit in manufactured goods soared to yet another new record in 2016 of $680 billion, beating the previous record set one year earlier by $32 billion.  A thorough, country-by-country analysis of the data reveals one overriding factor that’s driving this deficit- population density.  Since the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, the U.S. has systematically lowered barriers to its market for all countries, as required by that treaty and by the World Trade Organization that it spawned.  But that policy has yielded vastly different results.  While the U.S. enjoyed a surplus in manufactured goods of $34 billion with the half of nations with population densities below the world median, it was clobbered with a deficit of $704 billion with the other half of nations – those with population densities above the median.  Same number of nations.  Starkly different results.

Check out this chart:  Deficits Above & Below Median Pop Density.  First, some explanation of the data is in order.  I studied our trade data for 165 nations and separated out those product codes that represent manufactured products.  That’s no easy task.  There are hundreds of product codes.  While the Bureau of Economic Analysis makes it easy to track what’s happening with “goods” in general, that includes such things as oil, gas and agricultural products – goods that aren’t manufactured.  You’d think that they’d be interested in tracking manufactured products, given the level of political rancor on that subject, but they don’t.  The only way to arrive at that data is to sift it out, product code by product code.  Subtracting imports from exports, I was able to determine the balance of trade in manufactured goods for each.  I then sorted the data by the population density of each nation and divided these 165 nations evenly into two groups:  those 83 nations with a population density greater than the median (which, in 2016, was 191 people per square mile, up from 184 in 2015) and those 82 nations with a population density below the median.  I then totaled our balance of trade for each group.

As you can see, in 2016, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the less densely populated half of nations was once again a surplus, but a smaller surplus of $34 billion.  This is down from $74 billion in 2015, is the third consecutive decline, and has fallen by almost 80% from the record high of $153 billion in 2011.  Why?  As the manufacturing sector of our economy is steadily eroded by huge trade deficits, we simply have fewer products to offer for sale to other nations.  Exports fell by $44 billion in 2016.  (Remember Obama’s pledge to double exports?  What a laugh.)

Conversely, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the more densely populated half of nations was a huge deficit of $704 billion, down slightly from the record level of $722 billion in 2015.

Some observations about these two groups of nations are in order.  Though these nations are divided evenly around the median population density, the division is quite uneven with respect to population and land surface area.  The more densely populated nations represent almost 77% of the world’s population (not including the U.S.), but only about 24% of the world’s land mass (again, not including the U.S.).

Think about that.  With the people living in 76% of the world’s land mass, the U.S. enjoyed a surplus of trade of $34 billion in manufactured products.  But with the rest of the world – an area less than a third in size – the U.S. was clobbered with a $704 billion deficit!  Population density is the determining factor.  It’s not low wages.  The average purchasing power parity (or “PPP,” a factor roughly analogous to wages) of the densely populated half of nations – those with whom we have the huge deficit – is almost $20,000.  The average PPP of the less densely populated nations with whom we enjoy a trade surplus was about $18,000.  Wealthy nations were just as likely to appear among the deficit nations as among the surplus nations.

Nor is the other popular scapegoat – “currency manipulation” – a factor.  Nearly every currency in the world weakened against the dollar in 2016.  (Only 19 nations experienced an increase in the value of their currency.)  Among the 19 nations whose currencies rose, we had a deficit in manufactured goods with 8, and a surplus with 11.  On average, the deficits worsened by 115%, driven by a huge increase with Madagascar.  Remove that anomaly and the deficits actually declined by an average of 8.4% – in line with the currency theory.  Among the 11 nations with whom we had a surplus, the surpluses improved on average by 14% – again, in line with the currency theory.

However, among the 85 nations who experienced a decline in their currency vs the dollar, we had deficits with 27 of them.  On average, those deficits fell by 13.4% – exactly the opposite of what the currency theory would predict.  Among the remaining nations with whom we had a surplus, the surplus rose by an average of 33% – again, exactly the opposite of what currency theory predicts.

Therefore, we can conclude that our trade deficit in manufactured goods behaved exactly the opposite of what the “currency theory” would predict 80% of the time.  Why?  As noted earlier, most currencies fell vs the dollar last year.  This happened because the U.S. economy was in better shape than the rest of the world, at least in the minds of investors.  That’s what determines currency valuations.  Not manipulation.  Currency valuation has almost nothing to do with trade imbalances.  It affects the profitability of companies operating in different countries, but rarely makes any difference in the balance of trade.

This is absolute proof positive that trade imbalances in manufactured goods are driven by population density and almost nothing else.  Any trade policies that don’t take this factor into account are doomed to failure as evidenced by the destruction of the manufacturing sector of America’s economy.  The only remedy that offers any hope of turning this situation around is tariffs (or a “border tax,” as the Trump administration likes to call it).  Preferably, such tariffs would target only high population density nations like Japan, Germany, China, South Korea and a host of others.  Why apply tariffs to low density countries with whom we enjoy surpluses and anger them unnecessarily?

Trump was elected due in large part to his promises to tear up NAFTA and withdraw from the World Trade Organization and begin imposing a “border tax.”  It’s time to follow through on those promises while we still have a shred of a manufacturing sector left to build upon.

 


Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

June 3, 2017

Let me begin by making clear that I am an environmentalist.  It was my concern for the environment – especially my little piece of the environment that I enjoy in the north woods – that was the genesis of my discovery of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, which I presented and explained in Five Short Blasts.  It’s a clear-eyed look at just where unending population growth will take us.  Few have devoted as much of their time to trying to save the planet.

Let me also make clear that I’m neither a GOP conservative nor a Democrat.  As I stated in Five Short Blasts, the platforms of both parties – both of which embrace and promote population growth – produce nothing more than weaving left and right along a path to ruin.  So this post isn’t politically motivated.

“Climate change,” the now-politically correct term for global warming, is real.  The link to human activity is undeniable.  I’ve watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”  and agree with its premise.  Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are building up in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.  The science is clear.  Kudos to the scientists.

But shame on environmentalists.  The environmental movement has been a colossal failure.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t now find ourselves in the fix that we’re in.  We wouldn’t be in the midst of a mass extinction.  The dire consequences of global warming are now inevitable.  Environmentalists admit as much.  And who is to blame for all of this?  There’s plenty of blame to go around but it could be argued that no one is more to blame than the leaders of the environmental movement themselves.  There may be a special place in hell for these people for what they’ve done.

Why do I say such a thing?  A little history is in order.  Going back decades, to the ’80s, if my memory serves me correctly, the environmental movement was in trouble.  The Vietnam war was over and young, impatient activists seized upon the environment as a new cause.  Their approach was radical and intolerant.  Industry, the civilian half of the “military industrial complex” that was the object of so much scorn by young radicals during the Vietnam era, was demonized as the enemy of humanity by the environmental movement.  The environmental movement was anti-industry, anti-development anti-everything to the point where they were perceived as being anti-humanity.

At the same time, as a result of new trade policies ushered in by GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, enacted in 1947), the de-industrialization of America was underway.  Factories were closing.  People were losing their jobs.  And the country was being flooded with imports from Japan.  Eager to find a scapegoat, industry successfully blamed the environmental movement for making it impossible to continue manufacturing in America.  People began to despise these young, impatient, intolerant and uncompromising environmentalist radicals.

Industry had its own image problems.  Both sides saw an opportunity and began to collaborate.   The environmental movement softened its approach to development and, in return for the environmentalists’ endorsement of new development projects, industry began to embrace some of their more reasonable demands and causes.  The environmental movement made a deal with the devil and the concept of “sustainable development” was born.

Soon after, the company I worked for served up an example.  They announced plans to build a new plant on a pristine “green field” site – a piece of undeveloped property they owned.  At the same time, they also announced that another such piece of property was being set aside as a sort of wildlife refuge, never to be developed.  This, they proudly proclaimed, was a prime example of “sustainable development.”  “How the hell is that sustainable?” I wondered.  Half of the property in question was now gone.  It didn’t take a genius to figure out where that will ultimately lead if such “development” is “sustained.”

The term is an oxymoron and there is no such thing as “sustainable development.”  It makes me bristle every time I hear it.  By it’s very definition, “development” means putting natural resources to work to enhance the lives of human-kind.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize that, in a finite world, the process has to stop at some point.  It can’t be sustained forever. A finite resource can only sustain a certain number of people at a high standard of living.  Even a child should be able to understand this.  Yet, that is exactly what corporate leaders and their environmentalist lackeys would have you believe – that we can continue growing our population and continue to consume more and more, and thus grow their profits – “sustainably.” Forever.

Of course, the leaders of the environmental movement responsible for this mess won’t find themselves alone.  If there’s a hotter place in hell, it’s occupied by economists – those people who, in the wake of their Malthusian black eye, proclaimed that there is no limit to man’s ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, and vowed never again to even consider that population growth could present challenges.  It is yet another claim unable to stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny, but is the foundation upon which the concept of “sustainable development” is built. Incredibly, the environmental movement has bought into this.

With all of this said, I decided to do my own objective evaluation of the Paris Climate Agreement to decide for myself the wisdom of Trump’s move.  I started with Wikipedia’s take on the agreement, but then decided to go right to the United Nations’ web site that documents the whole thing.  I wanted to read the agreement for myself.  But, try as I might, I’ll be darned if I can find it.  There’s lots of explanation from the UN about the agreement, but I couldn’t find the agreement itself.  That kind of thing always makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway, here’s some key aspects of the agreement:

  • Certain few developed countries – most notably the U.S. – are targeted to generate all of the reduction in greenhouse gases.  Many undeveloped nations are actually allowed to increase their emissions in order to allow them to develop.  China, the world’s worst polluter, committed to only 25% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in per capita terms, that the U.S. committed to achieving.
  • Aid, beginning at a minimum of $100 billion per year above and beyond aid that nations are already receiving, must be provided by developed nations to help undeveloped nations develop faster and to help them deal with the effects of climate change.
  • Each nation sets its own goals, consistent with the overall goal to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but then must report annually on their progress toward meeting their goals.

Already, I was beginning to have my doubts.  Forcing dramatic emissions cuts on the U.S. while allowing other nations to increase their emissions seems to preclude the U.S. from ever re-balancing trade and rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy, even if it meant producing products in plants that operated under strict environmental regulations as opposed to the filthy factories spewing smog in China.  This feels like some sort of “eco-trade barrier.”

Secondly, the requirement that wealthy nations boost their aid to developing nations by a minimum of another $100 billion per year to help them develop seems like a money grab.  We all know where the vast majority of funding would come from – the U.S. – just as the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of the U.N., the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, NATO, and virtually every other multi-national organization.

Finally, as I scanned through the many web pages that the UN serves up, I found the real goal of the agreement.  In the UN’s own words, here it is:

  • The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

And there it is!  “… enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”  This agreement isn’t about saving the planet or the environment.  It’s about keeping environmental degradation just tolerable enough that we can continue to pack the planet with more corporate customers.

If climate change is the result of human activity, then isn’t it logical that any effort to combat it should begin with a focus on limiting the number of humans or their activity?  What is gained if we all cut our greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 50% but then double the population?  Absolutely nothing!

The U.S. has already made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t even close to being enough.  To achieve the cuts that President Obama committed to in the Kyoto protocol – cuts of 80% or more – the plan relies heavily on “carbon capture.”  That is, CO2 would be extracted from exhaust stacks and stored in tanks or underground.  Essentially, it’s a process of creating a CO2 “landfill” which, if we all cross our fingers and toes and hope real hard, maybe it’ll never leak and create such a catastrophic jump in atmospheric CO2 levels that the planet is almost instantly cooked!

Any approach to the climate change problem that doesn’t begin with a plan to stabilize and gradually reduce the human population to a level where we can all enjoy a high standard of living without threatening the planet is a hoax.  Climate change is real, but this Paris agreement is just that – a hoax.  It has little to nothing to do with fighting climate change.  Instead, it’s globalization and “sustainable development” on steroids.  There is an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”  That’s exactly what “sustainable development” does.

Critics have mocked President Trump, saying that he is incapable of grasping the complexities of the Paris agreement.  It could be argued that perhaps it was President Obama who didn’t understand that the agreement he proclaimed to be such an accomplishment actually does nothing for the climate and simply suckered the U.S. into yet another self-destructive deal.  And it’s time for all people who are concerned about climate change and the environment to wake up to the fact that the environmental movement has been hijacked by those who profit from plundering the planet and that they, too, are being suckered by the concept of “sustainable development.”

I’m not terribly concerned.  I believe that if the world doesn’t wake up to the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, then the unemployment, poverty and rising death rate that it fosters are going to do more to put a lid on greenhouse gas emissions than the Paris agreement could have ever hoped to achieve.

In the meantime, other world leaders have rushed to the defense of the Paris agreement.  No surprise.  They can kiss goodbye the $100 billion (per year!) they were counting on.  Plus, championing the Paris agreement is all upside for politicians with no downside.  Everyone loves them for their concern for the planet and they can never be held accountable, since it’s impossible to gauge success under the agreement.  It’s like a campaign promise that never has to be kept because no one can tell whether or not you’ve delivered.

Americans have been fleeced far too much in the name of globalization.  Clearly, Trump wasn’t baffled by this BS.  I applaud him for having the guts to walk away from this deal and for being willing to take the political heat for doing so.