Biodiversity Convention COP

I saw Hank Paulson on Bloomberg TV talking about a report his foundation has done for the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention.  A press release about the report can be found here, and the report itself can be found here.

At the State Department in the 1992, I was the deputy director of the office of Environment, Health, and Conservation in the Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science (OES/EHC).  My boss, Eleanor Savage, spent about a year in Nairobi, Kenya, as the senior US representative negotiating the Biodiversity Convention.  The Convention was one of the three main agreements that were to be adopted at a big UN conference in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations Convention on Environment and Development (UNCED), held June 3-14, 1992.  The other agreements were the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

President George H.W. Bush (Bush I) attended the conference.  As planning began for it, President Bush said that the Republicans would not let him sign two environmental agreements; he had to choose between the Biodiversity Convention and the Climate Change Convention.  He felt that the climate convention was the most important; so, he could not sign the Biodiversity Convention.  The main opposition to the Biodiversity Convention was led by the office of Vice President Quayle, particularly his chief of staff, the conservative pundit William Kristol.

The Assistant Secretary for the OES Bureau was Buff Bohlen, a member of the famous Bohlen family. His uncle, Chip Bohlen, was Ambassador to the Soviet Union, among other countries.  Chip’s daughter, Avis, also became an ambassador.  Buff (E.U. Curtis) Bohlen had been president of the World Wildlife Fund before he was named assistant secretary.  In that capacity he had been one of the principal architects of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and preservation of wildlife was his main personal concern, which meant that he very much wanted the United States to sign the Biodiversity Convention, but political pressure on the President from Republicans like Kristol meant that we would not sign it.  I remember the disappointment on his face at a staff meeting when it became clear that there was no way to reverse the decision not to sign it.

Although the US did not sign the convention, many other countries did; there are now has 196 parties to it.  Every country that is a member of the UN has ratified the treaty, except the US.  It is now about to hold its 15th Conference of the Parties in Kunming, China, for which the Paulson Institute has prepared its report.

Fed Market Manipulations

It is unclear to me what the long term effect will be of the Fed’s huge role in the financial markets, not just for the pandemic, but since the 2008 great recession.  Interest rates have been close to zero despite stock and real estate markets that have been on fire.  Part of the reason may have been the Fed’s program of buying all kinds of bonds and other assets.

When people want to buy bonds, interest rates stay low.  Governments or companies do not have to offer higher rates to entice investors to buy the bonds.  If it is hard to sell bonds, then borrowers have to offer higher interest rates to persuade buyers to buy.  If the bond market is unattractive to ordinary bond buyers, but the Fed steps in to buy at any price, the Fed keeps rates lower than they would be in a free market.

What happens if these bonds go bad?  The Fed currently holds about $7 trillion in assets.  Presumably most of these are US government bonds, but include private commercial assets as well.  While the Fed’s ability to purchase assets is unlimited, its ability to sell assets is limited by the amount of assets it holds.  If those assets become worthless, the Fed’s ability to sell them becomes more and more limited.  The Fed sells assets to fight inflation and keep interest rates low.  Currently there is no need to do this, since interest rates are zero.

At some point, however, the dollar could threaten to become worthless.  Currently the dollar is the main international currency, which means that the US and other countries borrow in dollars.  China holds an enormous amount of US dollars.  According to MarketWatch, China holds $1.2 trillion of US debt; Japan holds $1 trillion, Brazil and Ireland hold $300 billion each, while other countries hold lesser amounts.  If the dollar became worthless, i.e., its value dropped precipitously against the yuan and the yen, the US would have to start paying much more for imports and perhaps pay in other currencies, such as the Euro.  More expensive imports would be inflationary, creating pressure on the Fed to sell assets that are becoming worthless.

Although this scenario seems unlikely at the moment, with inflation at zero and the economy doing well, it is not out of the question for the future.  The Fed should be thinking about how to unwind its huge asset holdings. The last time the US faced a debt problem like this, during World War II, it issued savings bonds and encouraged patriotic Americans to buy them, basically to finance the war effort.  It is not clear that most Americans are patriotic enough to do that again, especially if there is no threat of a physical, military invasion.

In particular, black Americans do not like America.  They expect the government to give them money.  They are not interested in giving money to the government so that the country can survive.  Blacks probably won’t buy savings bonds, like white Americans did during World War II.  So, the government and the Fed would have to find some other mechanism to help the United States survive a different kind of economic calamity.  For now, we’ll just hope it doesn’t come, and that the government and the Fed can just keep throwing money into the air for whoever can catch it first, probably Wall Street tycoons, while many blacks will continue to receive various types of government welfare.

Is the Democratic Party Failing?

Fareed Zakaria’s recent op-ed and Sunday morning TV show raise the question of whether the Democratic Party really represents the poorer, working-class base  that it claims to.  Discussing a new book by Michael Lind, “The New Class War,” Zakaria points out that the Democratic desire to keep the country closed because of Covid-19 benefits educated elites who can work from home, but punishes lower paid workers who cannot.

Whether the Democratic Party is failing depends partly on who you believe its constituency is?  Is it the low-income black and brown immigrants, or is it the elite graduates of the most selective universities?  In the time of Covid-19, these two constituencies are in conflict.  As Fareed notes, the elites can work from home, while most low-paid workers cannot.  They have to go into their jobs doing maintenance, driving trucks, stocking shelves, working cash registers, etc.  The elites say we can’t take a chance by stopping stay-at-home too soon; the workers say they need to get back to work to feed their families.  Ironically, the lower-paid workers are the most likely to catch Covid-19 on the job.   The Democrats say they want to protect them, but it is almost lke the old Vietnam cliché, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

An added Democratic incentive is the opportunity to get Trump out of office.  If the Democrats can keep the economy closed long enough, Trump may lose many of his supporters.  Since the elite Democrats are not losing their jobs or income, especially with the stock market going up, keeping the economy closed affects them very little, while it is hard on many Trump supporters.

One of the most conspicuous examples of Democratic elitism is Hillary Clinton. A product of the Ivy League, she despised the people of Arkansas when Bill Clinton was their governor and she was first lady of Arkansas.  She delighted in her elite status as New York Senator and Secretary of State, but average people perceived that she looked down on them.  Thus, one of her campaign handicaps was that she was not likeable.  This perception of her was one of the main reasons for her defeat by a terrible candidate, Donald Trump.  Culturally, the Democratic Party is still Hillary Clinton’s party, dominated by highly educated  elitists.  Even as black and brown politicians increase their share of the Party, the elitists remain dominant, as illustrated by the recent Democratic primary.

Reviews of “The New Class War” by the NYT and The Guardian are not very complimentary because it challenges their liberal biases.  They criticize the book as a failed defense of Trump supporters, but they miss the point that it illustrates the Democrats own failure to appeal to its base.  They fail to see that the Democrats’ elitism has alienated many who should be their supporters.  It is similar to the Democratic failures pointed out in “What’s the Matter with Kansas” by Thomas Frank.  Additionally they tend to see the difference between Middle America and Coastal Elites as racial, when it is much more than that.  Middle Americans perceive that the Coastal Elites despise them, not on a racial basis, but simply as inferior human beings.  Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi know that they are God’s gifts to the fools in the heartland, whom they need to save from their own idiocy.

The voters in the heartland may not like Trump a lot, expecially farmers who have lost much because of him, but at least he doesn’t despise them and look down o them like the Democrats.  Joe Biden is not really a card-carrying member of the Coastal Elites, but neither does he bring anything new to the Democrats.  He is basically an empty suit saying “I am not Donald Trump.”  Because he doesn’t personally alienate people like Hillary Clinton did, he may have a chance in the coming election, but he is not going to change the nature  of the Democratic Party, many of whom of Hillary’s cultural heirs.

Fareed is smart enough to realize that no matter how terrible a President Trump is, he sitll has a chance of reelection mainly because of the failures of the Democratic Party.  He is warning the many decent people among the Coastal Elites that they had better worry and get busy to make the Democratic Party more attractive to average, ordinary people.