Becoming Sweden

I'm not a frequent viewer of The Daily Show, but I have to give a little credit where credit is due. By suggesting that if certain liberal policies are enacted we'll be in danger of "turning into Sweden", some conservative commentators floated a big softball over the plate. The Daily Show took a swing at that softball with the video below. This is pretty funny, so let it play first. I'll leave a few more comments below the video.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Stockholm Syndrome
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

The conservative pundits warning about Sweden missed two obvious points. The first is that, as the video above shows, Sweden seems like a pretty nice place. Better to invoke the specter of a not-so-nice place when warning of the potential consequences of enacting liberal policies. The second point is that even if our tax burden and our government spending as a share of our economy were as high as Sweden's, that wouldn't make us like Sweden. Sweden is known for (among other things) honest, effective government. As Wolfgang Münchau of the Financial Times has noted, Italians have a tax burden similar to that of the Swedes, but get far less effective government from it. Similarly, invidious comparisons between us and Sweden (e.g., the international education comparisons brought up by The Atlantic when they posted on this Daily Show video) are specious because of the homogeneity of Sweden's population. There is a non-trivial number of Americans of Swedish ancestry; I'd bet they'd do fine in any objective comparison with their cousins in Sweden, if anyone wants to compare apples to apples.

Instead of ominously warning that we're in danger of turning into a pleasant European country if certain liberal policies are enacted, conservatives would be smarter to point out that, regardless of what policies are enacted here, we'll still be Americans, and this will still be America. We need to keep our differences in mind when considering policies: e.g., as we suggested in a recent post, the sort of energy policy that works for a small country that juts out into the North Sea might not work for another country that spans a continent.

Another thought: the bit at the end of the video with the Swedish pop star was a cleverly chosen example of Swedish egalitarianism, but it's worth noting that Sweden has produced its share of extreme wealth as well. For example, the Swede Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea, is listed as the fifth-richest man on this year's Forbes list of billionaires (Kamprad moved to Switzerland though, presumably at least partly for tax purposes). One nice touch in that video was the inclusion of the ominous theme from Dune. You can hear more of that theme at about 40 seconds into the trailer below:

Tilting at Windmills: Peter Huber on Quixotic Efforts to Limit Carbon Emissions

John Mauldin's Outside the Box e-mail newsletter this week ("On Energy Production and U.S. Intelligence Failures") features two essays worth reading, especially the first one ("Bound to Burn") by Peter Huber. A few excerpts from Huber's essay follow.

Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions -- because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still.

We don't control the global supply of carbon.

[...]

We no longer control the demand for carbon, either. The 5 billion poor -- the other 80 percent -- are already the main problem, not us. Collectively, they emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do. We burn a lot more carbon individually, but they have a lot more children. Their fecundity has eclipsed our gluttony, and the gap is now widening fast. China, not the United States, is now the planet's largest emitter. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and others are in hot pursuit. And these countries have all made it clear that they aren't interested in spending what money they have on low-carb diets. It is idle to argue, as some have done, that global warming can be solved -- decades hence -- at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy. Eighty percent of the global population hasn't signed on to pay more than 0 percent.

[...]

Might we instead manage to give the world something cheaper than carbon? The moon-shot law of economics says yes, of course we can. If we just put our minds to it, it will happen. Atom bomb, moon landing, ultracheap energy -- all it takes is a triumph of political will.

Really? For the very poorest, this would mean beating the price of the free rain forest that they burn down to clear land to plant a subsistence crop. For the slightly less poor, it would mean beating the price of coal used to generate electricity at under 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

[...]

And with one important exception [nuclear power], which we will return to shortly, no carbon-free fuel or technology comes remotely close to being able to do that. Fossil fuels are extremely cheap because geological forces happen to have created large deposits of these dense forms of energy in accessible places. Find a mountain of coal, and you can just shovel gargantuan amounts of energy into the boxcars.

Shoveling wind and sun is much, much harder. Windmills are now 50-story skyscrapers. Yet one windmill generates a piddling 2 to 3 megawatts. A jumbo jet needs 100 megawatts to get off the ground; Google is building 100-megawatt server farms. Meeting New York City's total energy demand would require 13,000 of those skyscrapers spinning at top speed, which would require scattering about 50,000 of them across the state, to make sure that you always hit enough windy spots. To answer the howls of green protest that inevitably greet realistic engineering estimates like these, note that real-world systems must be able to meet peak, not average, demand; that reserve margins are essential; and that converting electric power into liquid or gaseous fuels to power the existing transportation and heating systems would entail substantial losses. What was Mayor Bloomberg thinking when he suggested that he might just tuck windmills into Manhattan? Such thoughts betray a deep ignorance about how difficult it is to get a lot of energy out of sources as thin and dilute as wind and sun.

It's often suggested that technology improvements and mass production will sharply lower the cost of wind and solar. But engineers have pursued these technologies for decades, and while costs of some components have fallen, there is no serious prospect of costs plummeting and performance soaring as they have in our laptops and cell phones. When you replace conventional with renewable energy, everything gets bigger, not smaller -- and bigger costs more, not less. Even if solar cells themselves were free, solar power would remain very expensive because of the huge structures and support systems required to extract large amounts of electricity from a source so weak that it takes hours to deliver a tan.

The second essay in this week's Outside the Box newsletter, "Torture and the U.S. Intelligence Failure", by Stratfor's George Friedman, I won't excerpt from here, as this post is long enough already, but it stands out from some of the more hysterical recent punditry on this subject in its calmly-worded survey of the subject.

The photo above, of Denmark's Middelgrunden offshore windmill farm, comes from Daylife.com. As a small, geographically compact country on the windy North Sea, Denmark may be one of the few places where wind energy can fulfill a large percentage of electricity. According to Wikipedia, wind power currently provides 19% of Denmark's electricity (the largest percentage provided by wind power anywhere). Globally, Wikipedia says that wind power fuels 1.5% of electricity use, though this number sounds a little high.

The Danish Economic Model

Today's Financial Times interview with Peter Sutherland, chairman of BP and also Goldman Sachs International ("Lunch with the FT: Peter Sutherland") includes this paragraph on the Danish economy:

“Yes, there are questions we should be asking ourselves, especially in the Anglo-Saxon economies. If you look at Denmark as an economy, you have higher marginal rates of tax, lower unemployment, a very high safety net support, and GDP per capita significantly higher than this country’s. This is the social model everyone was moaning about. But maybe it works rather well. What you also have, agreed with the unions, is a flexible labour market. Labour market flexibility is to my mind very, very important – far more important than the ability to earn very large sums of money.”

The labor market flexibility and low unemployment rate Sutherland mentions are key differentiators between Denmark other European countries with high marginal tax rates and generous welfare states; usually, the trade-offs in these countries (e.g., France) include inflexible labor markets (where, since it's difficult for companies to fire workers, they are wary of hiring new workers) and high unemployment. Sutherland's mention of Denmark brought to mind a 2006 Wall Street Journal article on Denmark's labor policies, "For the Danish, A Job Loss Can Be Learning Experience". Below is an excerpt from that article:

Most of Western Europe is fighting to hold on to its traditionally strong job protections while in some cases cutting jobless benefits, as the region struggles to compete in a globalized economy. Denmark has gone the other way.

The government allows liberal hiring and firing as in the U.S. And it has imposed limits on the duration of its high unemployment benefits. But it also invests more than any other country, as a percentage of its gross domestic product, in retraining the jobless -- a combination it calls "flexicurity." Its unusual mix of the free market and big government has helped Denmark cut its unemployment rate in half, from about 10% in the early 1990s to U.S.-style levels of under 5% now. The economy has been relatively robust, growing 3.4% last year. Meanwhile, France and Germany are at or above the Danish jobless rate of a decade ago.

Even though Danes are among the most easily laid-off workers in Europe, polls show the country's workers are the most secure about their future.

Back to the Financial Times interview with Sutherland, which concluded with this paragraph:

Just as I am formulating a response to this [Sutherland's invidious comparison of the "Anglo-Saxon" model to the Danish one], Sutherland takes the words out of my mouth. “I feel somewhat hypocritical because I’ve been a beneficiary of this” – and judging by the well-cut suits around us he is not the only one – “but I don’t think that has interfered with my thinking processes. I do think we need to reflect on a certain culture of excess.”

One could say Sutherland's lunch tab reflects a "certain culture of excess". From the FT:

Wiltons
Jermyn Street, London SW1

1 x wild Scottish smoked salmon £28.00
1 x Lobster bisque Newburg £13.00
1 x seared scallops £28.00
1 x grilled halibut £26.00
2 x spinach £10.00
1 x brussels sprouts £5.00
1 x fresh raspberries £12.00
1 x crème brûlée £10.00
4 x glass Chablis £32.00
2 x double espresso £ 10.00
2 x espresso £9.00
1 x mineral water £5.00

Total (inc. service) £211.50