Redstate

As we've been reporting/speculating for some time, Snow's resignation has been expected, but the White House has been unable to recruit an effective candidate for his replacement.

KUDLOW?

In reading up on Henry Paulson, I see that he is the Chairman of the Board of The Nature Conservancy - one of the leading environmental activist groups in the country.

http://www.nature.org/pressroom/leadership/

According to their own website, their mission is:

"The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive."

Their position on Global Warming is, as expected, in line with most prominent environmental activist groups:

"Scientific research shows that the Earth's climate is changing. Climate change, commonly known as global warming, is caused by the emission of heat trapping gases produced by vehicles, power plants and deforestation. As these gases build up, they act like a big blanket, over-heating the planet and threatening our health, our economy and our environment.

The Nature Conservancy on Global Warming

If left unchecked, global warming will irrevocably alter the lands and waters that make up our natural heritage. Some of our most important and threatened ecosystems are also the most vulnerable to global warming."

http://www.nature.org/magazine/summer2004/climate_change/

It would seem that Mr. Paulson has more in common with Al Gore's beliefs than the President's.

Anyone else find it strange that President Bush would nominate an environmental lefty to be his steward of the US economy?

So long as he keeps the economy running at current pace AND can get the American people to realize such, Paulson can hug as many trees as he wants as far as I'm concerned.

And if this was an attempt to cause trouble here, well, don't do that again.

in that environmental groups tend to favor heavy regulation of human activity. If we are looking to simplify the tax code, that might give pause.

Actually, the Nature Conservancy, unlike many environmental groups, uses a relatively capitalistic approach to conservation.  It describes its priorities as "Preserving wild nature by buying land."

When government places undue regulation on private property rights, conservatives often say, "if you want to limit what I can do with my land, you should just buy it."  That's what the Nature Conservancy does.  It buys land and either keeps it or donates it to governments on the condition that it be kept in a natural state.

You can agree or disagree that it is good to preserve land in its natural state, but if it's going to be done, Nature Conservancy is doing it in the correct way, without interfering with private property rights.

I thought I remembered hearing something like this about that orginization.

Lots of conservatives are outdoorsman and believe in stewardship of the environment, just not by coercive means.

not much to worry about.  They actually believe in acquiring lands to preserve them through outright ownership, rather than using the club of gubmint regulatory "takings" or private property to advance an environmental agenda.  In fact the NC is regularly criticized by "mainstream" enviros for a lack of rigor and lack of lockstep orthodoxy.

You may want to review where the Nature Conservancy gets the money it uses to buy property. It continues to amaze me that there are so many in this country who support ridiculous expenditures for birds and bees while people sleep in the streets.

An example of this stupidity can be found here. $8.0 million for 3 fish.

"sleep in the streets"?  Yeah, sure, since so many cities insist on aiding and abetting this particular habit as a "lifestyle choice."

It continues to amaze me that there are so many in this country who support ridiculous expenditures for birds and bees while people sleep in the streets.
An example of this stupidity can be found here. $8.0 million for 3 fish.

Excuse me, but the Casitas Municipal Water District appears to be a GOVERNMENT agency, is it such? If so, any argument about the spending of PRIVATE MONEY, which is what The Nature Conservancy uses, is irrelevant to this discussion. I may be mistaken, but you seem to be coming from a somewhat collectivist perspective, which desperately requires the ignoring of the crucial differences between government and society.

price controls? That wouldn't seem to bode well for government deregulation. But maybe he didn't agree with that part of the Nixon program.

WHY has Snow's resignation been "expected"? I know the MSM has wanted to see him, and all effective members of the administration, go (and presents only those reports, articles and columns which advance their agenda), but I haven't seen any indication from Snow HIMSELF, have you?
THIS review of Snow's accomplishments may come as a surprise to those who rely only on the MSM.

John Snow also served in the Nixon administration, in the Dept of Transportation.  I must have missed John Snow calling for price controls.  And Rummy was Ford's Defense Secy.  I'm not sure guilt-by-association is going to work out here.

All of it? How much of the "private money" was subsidized by a tax deduction?

Hank Paulson is a total heavy hitter. It may be a little much to put him in Bob Rubin's league, but he's not far off- and he's far above Snow's level. One thing both Paulson and Rubin have in common is a deep understanding of and credibility with the bond market. This is huge, given that so much of our economic success (and the government's success) depends on the continued attractiveness of the US to global capital.

And for those who are interested in a little history, there's a reason that Paulson is the number 1 guy at GSco right now- he used to be co-CEO, but his co-eval was forced out shortly after the Long-Term debacle in 1998. Having lost one of the best jobs in business, that other gentleman took a big step down and settled for politics. You may have heard of him: Jon Corzine.

...Wall Street crowd but his active support for Kyoto gives me pause.

He dose seem to be more than qualified.

Because we've already had one wacked-out global warming fanatic in the job. We don't need another. I don't want to see the new guy taking any tours of Africa with Bono, treasury related or not.

Here is a bizarre quote about his environmentalist cred:

Monica Fan, global head of FX strategy at RBC Capital Markets, also saw Mr Paulson's Chinese links as crucial. "Paulson's intimate knowledge of the Chinese administration and pro-environmental stance means he is more popular in China. He may be more effective in persuading China to allow greater currency appreciation," she said.

His pro-environmental stance makes him more popular with China? Yea, the Chinese government is all about environmental stewardship.

What do you think of this weak dollar business?

Tony Norfield, global head of FX strategy at ABN Amro, argued that Mr Paulson would not be as bad for the dollar as several other candidates for the Treasury job would have been, notably Don Evans, who was seen as reacting to the concerns of industry, and Martin Feldstein, who had said the dollar needed to fall by 30-40 per cent to help rein in global imbalances.

Indeed, the dollar had fallen in morning trading on speculation that Mr Evans was to be appointed, before initially firming on the news that Mr Paulson had been named, only to hit new lows later on. By mid-session New York trade, the dollar was down 1 per cent at $1.2866 to the euro, 1.3 per cent to $1.8818 against sterling, 1 per cent to SFr1.2119 against the Swiss franc, 0.2 per cent at Y112.23 against the yen, and 0.6 per cent to C$1.0995 against its Canadian counterpart, brushing 28-year lows.

Obviously it helps with exports but it seems to me it would be playing a not insignificant role in the run-up in the price of commodities, such as oil and metals.

Kudlow said on the John Batchelor program that he is now bullish on the dollar. If revenues continue to expand as they have been, the deficit will continue to decrease as a percentage of GDP, which will help the dollar.

I have about it is that it makes foreign investment here less attractive as the dollar continues to slide. I've been hoping it turns around.

too strong....now we have a dollar that, if anything, is too weak...Selfishly, I earn part of my income in Europe so the weak dollar helps me but I believe a dollar that trades $1.05-$1.15:1 to the Euro is much preferable to the current $1.29:1 for the reasons you stated about foreign investment.

Sorry I missed this, but I'm always wary of policies to strengthen or weaken currencies. Markets set the relative value of currencies, and there are all kinds of interlocking parts. You can always find someone who is helped or hurt by relative strength or weakness in the dollar. But the aggregate effects are so complex (and generally self-correcting) that you really can't say one way or another that we should have a stronger or weaker dollar.

In any case, one of the biggest influences on currency rates is the short interest rate available on securities denominated in that currency. If rates are relatively high, people will buy the currency in order to buy the securities. Treasury sets rates with an eye toward a lot of things, including global currency rates and national politics, but primarily toward managing inflation.

Rates in the US are now more or less in the middle of the pack (well above Japan, a bit below the EC, well below many developing markets), but they are (probably) rising now.

George Soros taught the world's governments that's there's only so much they can do to influence currency rates. If you try to do something the market doesn't agree with, then someone like him will earn a billion dollars overnight, and you'll end up with egg on your face and blood in your trousers.

By no means would I suggest actually defending the dollar but it seems we've been subtly talking it down (and certainly not talking it up) for years now. I'm not sure how much that psychological effect has on the currency market.