On this Thanksgiving weekend, people have traveled to family and friends, enjoyed good meals, probably watched some football, some movies, etc. And for those dear ones who we couldn’t visit, there were phone calls, text messages, Facebook posts, etc. Some of the more patriotic among us might have expressed thanks for living in the United States, etc. But one major factor that was left out, and may not have even been given a thought is this: You should be thankful that you live in the 21^st century!

By living in the 21^st century (in the West, anyway), you are living better (even if you are considered poor) than more than 99% of people who have ever lived on planet earth. How so? Well, for one thing indoor plumbing did not exist for most of human existence. Even in 1940 in America, half of American houses didn’t have hot piped water and 1/3 didn’t have flush toilets. Imagine not being able to take a hot shower every day, or having to stumble out into the open air on a cold night to take a trip to the outhouse when there is snow on the ground. Most of us in the U.S. have never had to have that experience, but it was a reality for most of human existence (and still is in some parts of the world).

How about transportation? Did you have to drive 3 or 4 hours to a person’s home? Did you have to fly? For most of human existence, most people lived their lives within a 30 mile radius of where they were born. Today, with modern transportation possibilities, you have more geographic mobility than the richest people, even 100 years ago.

Communication? How about cell phones and the internet? These technologies have shrunk the world in ways unimaginable even 25 years ago. We can organize ways to meet a group of people on the spur of the moment in ways we couldn’t before. My boss met his wife on a double date in the late 80’s. His wife later said that she wanted to cancel, but wasn’t able to contact anyone and didn’t want to just not show up. With cell phones, Facebook, and text messages, she would have been able to get ahold of someone to cancel and they would never have met. His kids actually owe their lives to the fact that these technologies hadn’t been invented yet. When my sister was in Iraq, she would call my dad occasionally on a cell phone. For most of humanity, soldiers had no way of communicating with their families. Then, for several generations, they would have to write letters which would be weeks or months in transit. Today, they can talk with their families while their base is under rocket attack.

Hygiene? While movies may depict life in Medieval or Colonial Times as just like ours today except that people wore different clothes (and seemed to often speak with English accents), the truth is far different. They didn’t bathe often (you wouldn’t either if cold baths were often the best that you could do), their dental hygiene left a lot to be desired (which left a lot of toothless middle-aged people with bad breath), and most had their skin exposed to the elements more than we do today. Think of those homeless guys and gals that you see. Most people looked (and smelled) a lot like that (give or take some of the alcohol smell) for a large fraction of human history.

Health? Health awareness and the ability to maintain health and to be cured of disease is better today than at any time in human history. Even in the United States in a lot of areas, people seem to age slower today than even 45 years ago (A 45 year-old in 1970 often seems to look about 8-10 years older than a similar person today). There may be several reasons for this including less industrial pollution and the fact that people don’t smoke as much today as they did then, among others. And the ability to detect cancer, perform extremely delicate surgery, and other health advances mean that people are enjoying active productive lifestyles far longer than they were at any time in the past.

In short, the wealth of the West, that has been the result of economic growth, has provided a standard of living unequaled in human history. Today in the West is the best time to be alive in all of human history. If you want to be thankful for something, be thankful that you are alive today to experience it.

Often in the popular press, which up until the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq really had very few people with any understanding of military matters, economic policy is often seen as being completely separate from foreign policy and light years from waging war. However, these are in fact very closely related. If you are able to strangle your enemy’s economy, you in fact reduce his capacity to effectively wage war against you. That is one reason why the U.S. engaged in strategic bombing against the cities of Germany and Japan in WWII; to destroy the factories that were building tanks, planes and ships. In fact, the reason Japan suddenly attacked Pearl Harbor was not, as is often assumed, to eventually conquer the U.S., but rather to get the U.S. to sue for peace that would include relaxing its oil embargo which was strangling Japan economically. In this light, what is currently happening to oil prices is of massive strategic importance to us in relation to our enemies, specifically Russia and Iran.

Recently, the Federal Reserve ended its bond buying program, also known as quantitative easing. The impact of this has been to reduce the downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. This, coupled with the fact that the world is still economically weak and in political turmoil (i.e. the Middle East, the Ukraine, etc.) and the fact that the U.S. economy (although admittedly sluggish) is still better than most, means that the U.S. is still seen as a safe haven which has the effect of strengthening the U.S. dollar. Because international oil prices are still quoted in U.S. dollars, a strengthening of the dollar has the effect of lowering oil prices.

Also of note is that increased U.S. oil production (the highest in 30 years) is also driving down the oil price. Normally, OPEC would cut production in order to prop the price of oil up. However, Saudi Arabia has indicated that it is completely willing to live with a low oil price (currently in the mid-70s, down from over $100). Why? Because a low oil price is undercutting Saudi Arabia’s mortal enemy’s (Iran) ability to support its economy, which is very dependent on oil exports. In addition, from our perspective, the low oil price is hurting several of our enemies. For example, Venezuela needs $120/barrel oil to keep its economy afloat, Iran needs $136/barrel, and  Russia needs oil to be somewhere around $110/barrel. Keeping oil prices low hampers the ability of these governments to grow their economies thereby undermining support for the regimes and also reducing the ability and incentive of these states to make mischief over the long term, something which is in our best interest.

Now are any of these things Obama’s doing? Given that he has, to say the least, not shown a lot of leadership and toughness on the world stage (and that everyone seems to ignore him) certainly allows for some skepticism in this regard. However, the fact that the independence of the Federal Reserve from political pressure has been called into question in recent years along with the fact that he appointed Janet Yellen to head the Fed (as opposed to simply holding over Ben Bernanke from the Bush Administration) at least leaves open the possibility that he is having more influence than he theoretically should. And if he isn’t having this influence, at least he doesn’t appear to be actively trying to undermine the positive effects that a stronger dollar is having on the geopolitical stage. Whatever the case, more oil production and a stronger dollar are undermining our enemies. Obama should either keep doing what he is doing on this front, or at least not get in the way of these positive developments.

Over the last week, many on both the left and the right have made suggestions to the GOP on what they should try and accomplish with their newfound majority in the Senate. So in keeping with the punditry spirit, here are my suggestions as to what I would do if I were the GOP leadership:

1.)    Repair the damage to the Senate.

Harry Reid inflicted damage to the Senate as an institution in an attempt to gain partisan advantage. As their first step, the Republicans should restore the 60 vote filibuster rule for judicial nominations, and restore all other procedural rights for the minority party that were stripped by Harry Reid and the Democrats. The reason to do this is that it really doesn’t cost the Republicans anything. The Republicans can still block Obama’s judicial nominations on a party-line vote, and anything else can already be filibustered. Repairing the damage allows the Republicans to position themselves for the 2016 run as the mature political party. It allows them to show the moderate and swing voters that they will need in 2016 to hold their majority and capture the White House that they are about making sure all sides get heard (in implied contrast to Harry Reid Democrats who are only about making sure that their side gets heard).

2.)    Approve the Keystone pipeline.

This is a project that has been languishing for years. It has broad support and would pass easily, likely with some Democrat support. Most importantly, it will create good middle-class jobs in a way that can be easily understood by voters. If Obama vetoes it, especially if the project has some Democrat support, he (and by extension a Democrat in the White House) becomes viewed as the obstructionist. If he doesn’t, then the Republicans look like the party that can get things done.

3.)    Reduce environmental regulation, but change the messaging.

For years, Republicans have been harping on “small government/less regulation”, which many have interpreted to mean “no government”. Rather, Republicans should talk about eliminating “excessive regulation”. One reason (among several) that many manufacturing jobs have been offshored is the excessive environmental regulation here. While environmentalists may imagine that they are helping the environment by piling more regulations on American businesses, sending factory jobs to China or other places with laxer environmental controls does nothing for the environment, and perhaps might even end up hurting it. Often what happens is that we export our pollution. While the air over Cleveland might be cleaner, the industrial impact on the climate is the same whether the pollution is “Made in China” or “Made in the USA”. The American people want more middle class jobs, and the environment is one of their lesser concerns. A program of reducing regulations along with a PR campaign promoting the reason for reducing regulations (increase well-paying industrial jobs), could be a win for the economy and a win for the Republicans politically.

4.)    Prepare an immigration reform bill.

The Republicans should be ready with some sort of immigration reform bill that is in line with their party’s priorities as well as being based on reality. While some in the Republican caucus want to shut down the southern border, round up all illegal aliens, and shove them on a bus back to Mexico, such an action simply isn’t going to happen. However, the fear of many on the right is that if you couple legalization first and border security later, you will see the legalization and not the border security. This is a legitimate concern. Consequently, the Republicans should expand immigration allowances for high skilled workers from other countries, who the U.S. desperately needs.  At the same time the bill should contain a solid, guarantee- to-happen, border security provision with acceptable verification. Upon verification (which should likely require that the governors and legislatures of the border states sign off that the border is acceptable secure), all illegal aliens should be legalized. While this would grate on law-and-order types (they are rewarded for breaking the law), they will have to be ignored. Stopping the flow of illegal aliens (i.e. low-skill labor) will reduce downward pressure on wages at the low end of the scale (a concern of the labor leader Cesar Chavez), and make the U.S. more secure.

While such a bill would be unlikely to be signed by Obama, it would mark a real attempt to fix the border. Furthermore, it would allow the Republicans to combat any executive action Obama takes on the subject, as it would show that Republicans were willing to put forth a serious bill and Obama wasn’t willing to work with them. It would also show the Republicans to be the more mature political party. In addition, such a bill would be a signal to the Hispanic community that Republicans are willing to work with them and aren’t just a “go back home where you came from” type of party where illegal immigrants are concerned.

5.)    Work to mitigate the worst effects of Obamacare.

Let’s face it. Obamacare isn’t popular and isn’t going to be popular. At the same time, a full repeal isn’t going to happen as long as Obama is in office. Consequently, the Republicans should pass bills that would mitigate the worst effects of the law. At the same time, Republicans HAVE to develop an alternate plan. “Repeal And Replace” can’t be allowed to simply be “Repeal And Maybe Someday In The Distant Future We Will Think About Coming Up With Some Reforms”.  By working to mitigate the worst effects, which is also likely to undermine the law, the Republicans will again show that they are serious about governing.

6.)    Put A Muzzle On Ted Cruz.

The Republicans won the Senate and Ted Cruz did not dominate the airwaves. There is a reason for this. The American people as a whole simply do not respond well to rhetorical “bomb throwers”, and Ted Cruz (and people like him) are the sort of people who can take a good idea and turn people off to it. It doesn’t mean that Cruz or others like him have no good ideas, but a political party that has strident people like that as its face is not one that is going convince anyone and will turn a lot of the moderate and swing voters off. The Republican Party, if it wants to be the majority and win the White House in 2016, has to be seen as a responsible governing party, not a party that wants to blow up the government.

In short, neither political party has much trust from the American people. The Democrats have squandered the trust that they had in 2008. The Republican Party has been given another chance, not because voters necessarily like them better, but rather there is no other major political party that voters can turn to at this time. If Republicans want to improve their standing in the eyes of the American people, they need to show that they are the party of responsible governing, and that they have honest solutions to offer. If they do this, they may convince many of the moderate and swing voters (partisan Democrats will never be convinced) that they can govern. If they do this, they may find 2016 may be a good year for them as well. If not, then the voters will likely turn back to the Democrats in 2016 and the Republicans will deserve their defeat.

As we come to the end of another election campaign, we continue to hear (and read) partisans of various political sides argue about the state of the economy, whether President Obama has mishandled it or been victimized by it, and what should be done going forward. The problem with much of what is out there passing for argumentation is often merely someone’s politics masquerading as economic discussion. The problem isn’t as much what is being said as much as it is that the same people are making the same case for the same policies year after year and decade after decade. These people, and I include certain Nobel Prize winning economists writing for certain well-known publications in this, are writing about economics as if they are advocating for a religion.

What I mean by “advocating for a religion” is that no matter what the economic circumstance, the prescription is the same. The Republicans always argue for tax cuts and less business regulation as the method for spurring economic growth and Democrats always argue for more government spending. While this may work for a religion with a God who never changes, it doesn’t work so well for economic policy. An economy is more like a human body. As such, policies that are appropriate at one point in time may not be appropriate at another point in time. In fact, the other guy’s policies are virtually guaranteed to be the appropriate policies at some point in time. Those who simply argue for “their” side’s policies and against the other guy’s policies again and again and again are really no better than a doctor listens to a patient and prescribes the same medicine (say, chemotherapy) no matter whether the patient is describing cancer, a heart attack, a stroke, or a broken leg. Sometimes the medicine is appropriate, and sometimes it is not.

Where economic ideology ultimately has brought us to in society is that economic policy debates have taken on characteristics more reminiscent of religious arguments than a relatively dispassionate debate that should characterize such as dry a subject as economic policy. When you have certain political pundits characterizing those who oppose their economic point of view as “mean”, you know that they are saying that opposing their economic viewpoint is not merely mistaken (diagnosing a heart attack instead of a stroke) but morally wrong. Having this view of economic policy is not conducive to rational discussion, and in fact inhibits the process of finding the appropriate policy as some large group is going to be morally opposed to what ultimately will be the correct policy mix at a given point in time. As long as we look at economic policy ideologically instead of ‘medically’, we will continue to have more dissention in society than is necessary.