laws of government cannot override the laws of economics

if we stopped growing crops in the desert, e.g. in california, the economy--locally, nationally, globally. we'd use less water out there, diverting it from over-used rivers to an inefficient irrigation system. we wouldn't have the same demand for labor as we do now--labor which in this case is generally fulfilled by illegal immigrants. prices for those crops would go up, not just in american but globally.

the ramifications of all this balloon outwards unimaginably, really beyond our ability to understand. we don't know what all would happen, though we can guess. if prices went up, especially if trade barriers came down, then people elsewhere in the world would make more money. if governments didn't regulate these markets the growing would shift to more efficient places, as would labor. this has its own risks, since a place like brazil might find it profitable to grow more corn or sugar for ethanol--much more profitable than it is to let the amazon rainforests alone. how do we balance this deforestation? does brazil impose laws to cut back or even halt it? do other places around the world plant their own forests to make up for what has been lost? take into account that when the trees go down they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. if you're paying for trees to be planted every time you fly, in order to offset your impact on the environment generated by the horrible inefficiency and pollution from the airplane, and they burn down, then you've failed completely--you may even have made things work.

i digress, and this rant and ramble has plenty of room to careen all over the place, but i have to wrap up my work and go home. i want your thoughts about this. i want to discuss. please feel free to link to this entry and give me your thoughts on it. i'm happy to link back and reply. i'm happy to carry on a debate and figure out where we stand. i don't have hard facts--i'm no economist--but i have my own ideas about how the world could be run. i want to know yours.

america in freefall

will congress continue to sit idly by while the president illegally expands his power or will they finally move to impeach the bastard for his illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power?

even if you feel impeachment is too far, certainly you can't believe that this expanded invasion of privacy (any threat of invasion of anyone's privacy is an actual invasion of your privacy) is a good thing. certainly you can't believe that the president should be able to give himself new powers when signing a bill into law, especially when that bill does not give him such powers.

it's like this congress has to make laws that specifically lay out what the president can and cannot do, and then add statements that require him to follow the law as written, and not modify it with a "signing statement". it's incredible how he has given himself new and expanded powers just by adding a few words to his signature. the republicans made no move to curtail or criticise this. will a democrat majority have the spine, the principles, the fucking decency to do what is right?

i doubt it.