This video is perhaps the most powerful I have ever seen. It is an interview with an engineer who is trying to keep the reactors at Fukushima from collapsing into a large pile of disaster. This is a highly educated man who trained to have a comfortable life managing one of Japan's most important power sources. Just remember, there were SIX reactors at Fukushima. His life is being shortened by nuclear exposure and he knows it. And yet he still goes to work to solve highly complex problems—problems he did not cause—when moving to Australia would seem a better choice.
(And there are people who actually say there is no "instinct of workmanship" and that Producers, by their very nature, cannot be heroic. Idiots!)
A note: This embedded video is mostly in German because it was originally made by ZDF. Maybe your browser plays the subtitles in the embed but if it does not, click on the YouTube logo in the lower right corner and it will open in YouTube. Then look for the red CC button on the bottom. Click that and you see the subtitles. It is pretty solid video—it CAN be watched full-screen.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Debating Peak Oil
Old men with heart conditions shouldn't go around arguing with people who have no intention of letting small things like facts change their minds. But I got into a pointless debate over the weekend and it probably didn't do my heart any good. I am sure it changed no minds. The subject was Peak Oil.
In my mind, the questions surrounding Peak Oil are NOT very complicated. When an oil well comes in, those first barrels are incredibly easy to extract. In fact though they have become extremely rare, the wells that made people rich were called "gushers" because underground pressure pushed the crude up the drill-hole. But soon things are under control and pumps are connected to the field pipes. It has become a production well. As the well gets older, the flow of oil to the pumps slow. At some point, it isn't worth the costs and trouble to run the pump. The well has gone "dry." This is highly oversimplified because there are host of factors that determine how long the well produces and how much, but nothing changes the fact that even highly productive wells do not produce forever. They have a life span that is finite. And because wells are finite, oil fields are finite.
We have been drilling for oil since at least 1859—that's 153 years. We have learned a very great deal about the lifespans of oil fields. This knowledge was gained through known and tested methodologies. When Hubbard predicted the peak output for USA in 1956, he was only off by months even though the prediction was for 1970. This isn't like betting on sporting events—this is like predicting the dawn and can be done almost as accurately.
The problem with Peak Oil deniers is that they cannot differentiate in their minds between predictions on football and predictions on known scientific phenomenon. They know that predictions can be wrong—just look at how often the "experts" on the Sunday morning football shows get it wrong, they will say. And since they believe that predictions are mostly random guesses, they give priority to the beliefs in religious principles like: If oil runs short, the price will rise and there will be more incentive to extract hard-to-get oil. The MARKET will prevent a Peak Oil economic meltdown—because unlike predictions, the MARKET is ALWAYS right.
But over here in the world of Producers, we make predictions all the time in matters of life and death and get it wrong so seldom, our failures make headline news—like if one of our bridges falls into the river because one of the predictions (that some girder is large enough) was wrong. We are right about 99.99% of the time in our predictions. What's better, every time we get one wrong, we upgrade our prediction mechanisms so they are more accurate the next time.
Peak Oil Theory is a HIGHLY refined Producer Class prediction mechanism. The chance of it being wrong is TINY because it has already demonstrated countless times that it works. So there's your problem debating a Peak Oil denier. He doesn't even know there are whole classes of predictions that are VERY reliable. He cannot be bothered with understanding WHY Peak Oil is one of those very reliable predictions—mostly because it is too complicated. And since his lack of understanding for how the Producer Class makes predictions leads him towards confusion and frustration, he falls back on religious beliefs like the one about the "Free Market." It comforts him—so is a worthy substitute for his lack of understanding. Unfortunately, should you decide to debate this creature, facts don't work because they only confuse his belief structure—the same facts that would instantly convince a good Producer Class oil field pro. You are probably lucky if the fact-hater doesn't try to get violent with you.
In my mind, the questions surrounding Peak Oil are NOT very complicated. When an oil well comes in, those first barrels are incredibly easy to extract. In fact though they have become extremely rare, the wells that made people rich were called "gushers" because underground pressure pushed the crude up the drill-hole. But soon things are under control and pumps are connected to the field pipes. It has become a production well. As the well gets older, the flow of oil to the pumps slow. At some point, it isn't worth the costs and trouble to run the pump. The well has gone "dry." This is highly oversimplified because there are host of factors that determine how long the well produces and how much, but nothing changes the fact that even highly productive wells do not produce forever. They have a life span that is finite. And because wells are finite, oil fields are finite.
We have been drilling for oil since at least 1859—that's 153 years. We have learned a very great deal about the lifespans of oil fields. This knowledge was gained through known and tested methodologies. When Hubbard predicted the peak output for USA in 1956, he was only off by months even though the prediction was for 1970. This isn't like betting on sporting events—this is like predicting the dawn and can be done almost as accurately.
The problem with Peak Oil deniers is that they cannot differentiate in their minds between predictions on football and predictions on known scientific phenomenon. They know that predictions can be wrong—just look at how often the "experts" on the Sunday morning football shows get it wrong, they will say. And since they believe that predictions are mostly random guesses, they give priority to the beliefs in religious principles like: If oil runs short, the price will rise and there will be more incentive to extract hard-to-get oil. The MARKET will prevent a Peak Oil economic meltdown—because unlike predictions, the MARKET is ALWAYS right.
But over here in the world of Producers, we make predictions all the time in matters of life and death and get it wrong so seldom, our failures make headline news—like if one of our bridges falls into the river because one of the predictions (that some girder is large enough) was wrong. We are right about 99.99% of the time in our predictions. What's better, every time we get one wrong, we upgrade our prediction mechanisms so they are more accurate the next time.
Peak Oil Theory is a HIGHLY refined Producer Class prediction mechanism. The chance of it being wrong is TINY because it has already demonstrated countless times that it works. So there's your problem debating a Peak Oil denier. He doesn't even know there are whole classes of predictions that are VERY reliable. He cannot be bothered with understanding WHY Peak Oil is one of those very reliable predictions—mostly because it is too complicated. And since his lack of understanding for how the Producer Class makes predictions leads him towards confusion and frustration, he falls back on religious beliefs like the one about the "Free Market." It comforts him—so is a worthy substitute for his lack of understanding. Unfortunately, should you decide to debate this creature, facts don't work because they only confuse his belief structure—the same facts that would instantly convince a good Producer Class oil field pro. You are probably lucky if the fact-hater doesn't try to get violent with you.
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Gold Standard? (sigh)
I am at LEAST a third generation hater of the gold standard. I had grandfathers who tried to making a living growing food in Kansas and Minnesota which put them both squarely in the middle of the organized fight against the gold bugs. My mother's father worked actively for congressman Lindbergh—a man perhaps best known for his speeches and a book against the Money Trusts. My father's father farmed in Kansas—home to perhaps the most intellectual wing of the People's Party and one of the prime stomping grounds for Nebraskan William Jennings Bryan of the famous "Cross of Gold" speech.
Farmers hated the gold standard for a wide assortment of reasons but one of the primary complaints was gold's inflexibility. When farmers brought their crop to market in the fall, an inflexible currency would cause a shortage of money which would drive down prices. For the farmer, this defeated all his hard work. For the robber barons, this was gold's main feature. So out here in the heartland, the abolition of the the gold standard was priority #1 for farmers and their political organizations, from 1873 when USA went back on a very harsh version of the gold standard, to at least 1933 when Roosevelt REALLY modified the gold standard by making it illegal for USA citizens to hold gold. Nixon drove the final nail in the coffin in 1971 when he closed the international gold window.
So a legitimate question could be asked, "Did the People's Party ultimately win a major victory?" After all, if there is no gold standard, shouldn't the currency now be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the real economy? Well, in theory monetary policy should work like that now that money is information on a server somewhere. And yes, electronic money is indeed more flexible. But keep in mind the central demand of the agrarian monetary reformers was for democratic control on the creation of money—so even winning this minor detail would have hardly satisfied my grandfathers.
Unfortunately, since the primary function of money is to convey information, there is nothing that says electronic money cannot be just as onerous and regressive as the old gold standard. If fact, as is argued below, that is exactly what is happening.
Farmers hated the gold standard for a wide assortment of reasons but one of the primary complaints was gold's inflexibility. When farmers brought their crop to market in the fall, an inflexible currency would cause a shortage of money which would drive down prices. For the farmer, this defeated all his hard work. For the robber barons, this was gold's main feature. So out here in the heartland, the abolition of the the gold standard was priority #1 for farmers and their political organizations, from 1873 when USA went back on a very harsh version of the gold standard, to at least 1933 when Roosevelt REALLY modified the gold standard by making it illegal for USA citizens to hold gold. Nixon drove the final nail in the coffin in 1971 when he closed the international gold window.
So a legitimate question could be asked, "Did the People's Party ultimately win a major victory?" After all, if there is no gold standard, shouldn't the currency now be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the real economy? Well, in theory monetary policy should work like that now that money is information on a server somewhere. And yes, electronic money is indeed more flexible. But keep in mind the central demand of the agrarian monetary reformers was for democratic control on the creation of money—so even winning this minor detail would have hardly satisfied my grandfathers.
Unfortunately, since the primary function of money is to convey information, there is nothing that says electronic money cannot be just as onerous and regressive as the old gold standard. If fact, as is argued below, that is exactly what is happening.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Neoliberalism and today's Sweden
This article confirms what I have long suspected—that the Sweden I discovered in 1970, 1972, and 1989 exists only in the history books these days. I saw the evidence for myself in 1995 that neoliberalism had come to dominate Sweden and especially the Social Democratic Party just as certainly as in USA and with the Democrats. I just didn't want to believe it. Bigotry must have been working, I confess, because even though the Nobel Committee was handing out their "Memorial" Prize in Economics to one neoliberal crackpot after another, I just assumed that "my" tribe was just too sane to be caught up in this madness. I was clutching at straws when I saw that Sweden didn't join the Euro, or when they handled their banking crises in 1992 by nationalizing the bad actors.
Then last sumer when I was visited by a college professor from Finland, I was utterly shocked at how far to the right he had drifted politically. He still maintained his Nordic political correctness, only now it was in service of the Leisure Classes. For example, when I suggested that the banksters had committed so many serious crimes that the citizenry might well be thinking of greasing up the old guillotines, he informed me quite primly that such a crack would now be labeled "hate speech" in Finland. And while Finland is not Sweden, the big difference is that the Finns are only truly happy when they are outperforming their old colonial masters. So I am pretty sure that my friend was an A+ version of whatever is going on in Sweden.
Sweden is already paying a high price for her embrace of neoliberalism. Youth unemployment is ridiculously high and in 2011, more Swedes emigrated than at any time since 1887. Apparently, parroting right-wing economics will destroy (at least partially) the hard-won global reputation for having the most admirable and advanced political system in the world.
Then last sumer when I was visited by a college professor from Finland, I was utterly shocked at how far to the right he had drifted politically. He still maintained his Nordic political correctness, only now it was in service of the Leisure Classes. For example, when I suggested that the banksters had committed so many serious crimes that the citizenry might well be thinking of greasing up the old guillotines, he informed me quite primly that such a crack would now be labeled "hate speech" in Finland. And while Finland is not Sweden, the big difference is that the Finns are only truly happy when they are outperforming their old colonial masters. So I am pretty sure that my friend was an A+ version of whatever is going on in Sweden.
Sweden is already paying a high price for her embrace of neoliberalism. Youth unemployment is ridiculously high and in 2011, more Swedes emigrated than at any time since 1887. Apparently, parroting right-wing economics will destroy (at least partially) the hard-won global reputation for having the most admirable and advanced political system in the world.
The cultural importance of religion
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
I Timothy 6:10
One of the great teachings of Christianity is that while it is good to organize a society so that folks prosper, that society WILL fail if the pursuit is money is substituted for the pursuit of production excellence. Big difference! HUGE!
Of the all the fallacies of the Marxist worldview, the greatest is that in his telling, religion is merely an opiate that folks should lose like any other harmful addiction. This is very likely why he never understood the Industrial Revolution even though he liked to write about it. Because the Industrial Revolution was PROFOUNDLY religious.
In England, the Protestant Reformation was an uneven affair. The Church of England (CoE) was founded by a greedy, overweight, serial killer whose split with the mother church was driven by sexual needs and power politics. When Henry VIII actually thought about religion, he damned the Protestants to hell—his screed against Luther got him the title "Defender of the Faith" which the British monarch uses until this day. So "official" Protestantism had almost nothing to do with matters of faith.
On the other hand, Britain had plenty of Protestants who WERE motivated by matters of faith and conscience. They were the "dissenting" Protestants and they included the Puritans, the Presbyterians, and perhaps most interestingly, the Quakers. Because if you look at the history of industrialization, the Quakers are just everywhere. In hindsight this was not surprising—they were banned from establishment CoE schools like Oxford and Cambridge but because of their thrift and hard work, had money to invest and bright young folks for whom to provide opportunities. They loved precision and honored inventiveness. Sounds like a recipe for precision manufacture to me.
An interesting example of the Quaker influence in USA can be seen in the life of Ben Franklin. In Puritan Boston he was a furious young man with a very limited future. In Quaker Philadelphia, he just explodes with bright ideas and is welcomed into the community as someone who had been given a mega-dose of inner light. BTW, Max Weber who is often considered an authority on the Protestant Work Ethic, uses Franklin as an example of Calvinism—which most assuredly applied to his Boston childhood but certainly did not apply to the colony where he became a rich man.
Back to England. While the Industrial Revolution flourished in the Midlands and Scotland, the CoE types surrounding the king conspired to appropriate the fruits of the new wealth-generation for themselves. And through an assortment of methods, were quite successful. What Marx called Capitalism was the humanism of Industrialization seized by Predators determined to suck every farthing out those "dirty" enterprises up north. Marx's Capitalism was the outcome of the conflict between the cynics who believed Protestantism was just another way to get laid and those who actually believed a religious life should lead one to higher callings—like creating the means for universal prosperity.
Poor Marx! By writing off religion as a subject worth examining, he missed the critically important nuances of the historical event that was easily the most interesting revolution in human history. It's no damn wonder his followers would some day build Ladas. Because if you confuse money and prosperity, it's pretty easy to confuse industrialization with Capitalism. And if you confuse those, your desire to regulate or destroy Capitalism has the unfortunate side effect of crippling the output of the Producing Classes. And Trabants, Wartburgs, and Moskovichs are examples that prove Ladas weren't even the worst. (You cannot make this shit up.)
Anyway, here we have a real Quaker writing in the Washington Post trying to explain how the economic thinking of their sect differs from the "Capitalism" as described by Marx.
I Timothy 6:10
One of the great teachings of Christianity is that while it is good to organize a society so that folks prosper, that society WILL fail if the pursuit is money is substituted for the pursuit of production excellence. Big difference! HUGE!
Of the all the fallacies of the Marxist worldview, the greatest is that in his telling, religion is merely an opiate that folks should lose like any other harmful addiction. This is very likely why he never understood the Industrial Revolution even though he liked to write about it. Because the Industrial Revolution was PROFOUNDLY religious.
In England, the Protestant Reformation was an uneven affair. The Church of England (CoE) was founded by a greedy, overweight, serial killer whose split with the mother church was driven by sexual needs and power politics. When Henry VIII actually thought about religion, he damned the Protestants to hell—his screed against Luther got him the title "Defender of the Faith" which the British monarch uses until this day. So "official" Protestantism had almost nothing to do with matters of faith.
On the other hand, Britain had plenty of Protestants who WERE motivated by matters of faith and conscience. They were the "dissenting" Protestants and they included the Puritans, the Presbyterians, and perhaps most interestingly, the Quakers. Because if you look at the history of industrialization, the Quakers are just everywhere. In hindsight this was not surprising—they were banned from establishment CoE schools like Oxford and Cambridge but because of their thrift and hard work, had money to invest and bright young folks for whom to provide opportunities. They loved precision and honored inventiveness. Sounds like a recipe for precision manufacture to me.
An interesting example of the Quaker influence in USA can be seen in the life of Ben Franklin. In Puritan Boston he was a furious young man with a very limited future. In Quaker Philadelphia, he just explodes with bright ideas and is welcomed into the community as someone who had been given a mega-dose of inner light. BTW, Max Weber who is often considered an authority on the Protestant Work Ethic, uses Franklin as an example of Calvinism—which most assuredly applied to his Boston childhood but certainly did not apply to the colony where he became a rich man.
Back to England. While the Industrial Revolution flourished in the Midlands and Scotland, the CoE types surrounding the king conspired to appropriate the fruits of the new wealth-generation for themselves. And through an assortment of methods, were quite successful. What Marx called Capitalism was the humanism of Industrialization seized by Predators determined to suck every farthing out those "dirty" enterprises up north. Marx's Capitalism was the outcome of the conflict between the cynics who believed Protestantism was just another way to get laid and those who actually believed a religious life should lead one to higher callings—like creating the means for universal prosperity.
Poor Marx! By writing off religion as a subject worth examining, he missed the critically important nuances of the historical event that was easily the most interesting revolution in human history. It's no damn wonder his followers would some day build Ladas. Because if you confuse money and prosperity, it's pretty easy to confuse industrialization with Capitalism. And if you confuse those, your desire to regulate or destroy Capitalism has the unfortunate side effect of crippling the output of the Producing Classes. And Trabants, Wartburgs, and Moskovichs are examples that prove Ladas weren't even the worst. (You cannot make this shit up.)
Anyway, here we have a real Quaker writing in the Washington Post trying to explain how the economic thinking of their sect differs from the "Capitalism" as described by Marx.
About those trade sanctions against Iran
It is not so very surprising that trade sanctions against a country that exports the world's most desirable commodity are extremely difficult to enforce. In fact, because sanctions against Iran are almost certain to fail, it is likely that she will emerge far stronger for the experience. Iran will develop a new customer base, new strategic alliances, and new suppliers. And unless her enemies start bombing out of sheer frustration, she will probably look on these sanctions as an historic opportunity.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Speculators and oil prices
It's damn interesting the lengths someone or institution will go to to avoid saying, "Speculators will always take a bad situation and make it so much worse. They are, after all, the Predator's Predators."
If gasoline was $5 a gallon and you knew that $2.50 was going to finance the necessary alternative infrastructure we are going to need as the easy-to-get oil runs out, bring it on. But knowing that gasoline will probably hit $5 this summer (with the bulk of the increased prices going to the nastiest of speculators who will contribute less than NOTHING to the social order) is possibly the single greatest reason for laughing neoliberalism out of any discussions by sane adults dealing with real problems.
But hey, even the St. Louis Fed has come to the earth-shattering conclusion that speculators "exacerbate" the price swings in oil.
If gasoline was $5 a gallon and you knew that $2.50 was going to finance the necessary alternative infrastructure we are going to need as the easy-to-get oil runs out, bring it on. But knowing that gasoline will probably hit $5 this summer (with the bulk of the increased prices going to the nastiest of speculators who will contribute less than NOTHING to the social order) is possibly the single greatest reason for laughing neoliberalism out of any discussions by sane adults dealing with real problems.
But hey, even the St. Louis Fed has come to the earth-shattering conclusion that speculators "exacerbate" the price swings in oil.
Friday, March 23, 2012
World Bank boasting on poverty reduction called a lie
The World Bank's claim that it has helped reduce poverty worldwide by one half is being called a lie by scholars and observers independent of the neo-liberal monolith.
I always thought the World Bank's program was a cruel joke. A few years ago, I read about the WB boasting that poverty had been significantly reduced because a few hundred million people had doubled their incomes. There were no longer living on just one dollar a day. They now had two dollars a day to survive on.
I always thought the World Bank's program was a cruel joke. A few years ago, I read about the WB boasting that poverty had been significantly reduced because a few hundred million people had doubled their incomes. There were no longer living on just one dollar a day. They now had two dollars a day to survive on.
And now Portugal one more time
This is sick. The austerity ghouls, having worked their financial magic on Greece, will now turn their attention to Portugal (again). Just remember, doing this dirty work is someone's full-time job at places like IMF. And things won't get better until the austerity ghouls get new marching order they can believe in. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Carbon fiber?
One of my life's highlights was attending a meeting of a group of guys who were teaching each other how to make glider parts out of carbon fiber. The finished sailplane would have a 12 meter wingspan (39 ft.) and yet weigh less than 300 pounds (136 kg.) They were passing around some of the smaller completed parts and they were absurdly light—it was as if gravity had been suspended. Of course, the reason for the gathering was to exchange building tips because carbon fiber is insanely fussy to work with. The key to superlight parts is to lay up the fabric with just enough epoxy to wet every fiber—but not one drop more. Add in the regular problems of proper cure time and temperature, regulating the humidity, accurately mixing the epoxy, etc. and it became quite clear that fabricating the carbon-fiber parts for that 300# sailplane would be a LOT harder than it looked. As I held an aileron hinge that weighed about as much as a postage stamp, I decided that I would wait a couple of generations before I flew in any airplane made of this exotic wonder-material.
Well, folks, it turns out that Airbus' new super-jumbo is having problems with its carbon-fiber parts. Goodness knows it's hard enough to build such a plane out of aluminum—and all you have to do is call up the metal guys and they ship over material that has worked magnificently since the days of the DC-3. So substituting carbon fiber turns time-tested engineering into a crap shoot. Yes, we know quite a lot about fabricating parts of carbon fiber—but do we know enough to make jumbo-jets out of the stuff? But the weight savings and the resulting fuel savings are just too large a temptation to pass up. I mean, I REALLY want folks to solve these tricky fabrication problems because of the fuel savings but are we really ready to test our theories on transportation devices that will kill 400+ passengers at a crack if they fail?
(BTW, this isn't just an A380 question because Boeing's new 747-8 is also heavily into carbon—of course, if Boeing really has solved the fabrication problems, 747-8 will just destroy the A380 in the market. Because 747-8 is also late and over budget, we don't hear any gloating from Boeing...yet.)
Well, folks, it turns out that Airbus' new super-jumbo is having problems with its carbon-fiber parts. Goodness knows it's hard enough to build such a plane out of aluminum—and all you have to do is call up the metal guys and they ship over material that has worked magnificently since the days of the DC-3. So substituting carbon fiber turns time-tested engineering into a crap shoot. Yes, we know quite a lot about fabricating parts of carbon fiber—but do we know enough to make jumbo-jets out of the stuff? But the weight savings and the resulting fuel savings are just too large a temptation to pass up. I mean, I REALLY want folks to solve these tricky fabrication problems because of the fuel savings but are we really ready to test our theories on transportation devices that will kill 400+ passengers at a crack if they fail?
(BTW, this isn't just an A380 question because Boeing's new 747-8 is also heavily into carbon—of course, if Boeing really has solved the fabrication problems, 747-8 will just destroy the A380 in the market. Because 747-8 is also late and over budget, we don't hear any gloating from Boeing...yet.)
Renewable energy in Asia
Because there is so much manufacturing excellence in Asia, it is easy to assume that they could make sustainable energy work if only they would just choose to do it. The fact that they have not demonstrates some interesting things.
- Manufacturing excellence is great—but does it really trump fire?
- Playing industrial catch-up is easier than leading the pack.
- If Asia isn't setting the industrial pace—who is? If the answer is Germany, perhaps that explains the growing interest in renewables.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The criminals gunning for World Bank presidency
Since the World Bank has become a known hangout for neoliberal swine, it should not surprise anyone that two of the more disgusting neoliberals are competing to become its next president. Both are intellectual lightweights. Both have track records that would shame a normal person into disappearing into the life of a recluse. So not surprisingly, both have been part of the economics department at Harvard. That institution collects mega-failures who are arrogant enough to be bullies. It's a prime requirement to become a neoliberal, after all.
These are just two of the better-known applicants for the top job at the World Bank. There are probably dozens more from within the institution itself who are just as reactionary. The World Bank was formed with some pretty lofty intentions. It would actually be helpful if it fulfilled some of the founders' vision for it. But the World Bank lost the narrative sometime around the disastrous presidency of Robert Strange McNamera—another Harvard wünderkind—so maybe Summers or Sachs would be the "logical" choices.
These are just two of the better-known applicants for the top job at the World Bank. There are probably dozens more from within the institution itself who are just as reactionary. The World Bank was formed with some pretty lofty intentions. It would actually be helpful if it fulfilled some of the founders' vision for it. But the World Bank lost the narrative sometime around the disastrous presidency of Robert Strange McNamera—another Harvard wünderkind—so maybe Summers or Sachs would be the "logical" choices.
Can the technologically illiterate govern?
Ever since the Industrial Revolution and the rise in power of the Producing Classes, there has been a growing awareness of the yawning gap between the worldviews of the Industrial and Leisure Classes. To the technologically literate, the Leisure Classes usually sound like the ditz in Slap Shot who complains that her radio reception is poor in Charlestown (Johnstown) Pennsylvania because she is so far below sea level.
I must admit to having little patience with techno-cretins. I try to be polite but there are just times when some little thing makes me wish I had my own nukes. The best example comes from the days when VCRs became popular. I would visit someone's home and there it was, flashing 12:00 at me. For some reason, this drove me crazy because not only was it annoying, it meant the VCR's owners could not be bothered to learn how to make their machine record programs while they were out—which was the main reason to own one, after all. They would rather have a flashing light in front of them than read the sixteen instructions needed to get their machine to function. I actually told several people that I thought that anyone who wouldn't set their VCRs' clock was too lazy and ignorant to be allowed to vote. (So now you know how I get the reputation for being a bit harsh.)
Anyway, it's nice to know Kovacs of Mozilla thinks that anyone who cannot communicate with the Internet is unfit to govern.
I must admit to having little patience with techno-cretins. I try to be polite but there are just times when some little thing makes me wish I had my own nukes. The best example comes from the days when VCRs became popular. I would visit someone's home and there it was, flashing 12:00 at me. For some reason, this drove me crazy because not only was it annoying, it meant the VCR's owners could not be bothered to learn how to make their machine record programs while they were out—which was the main reason to own one, after all. They would rather have a flashing light in front of them than read the sixteen instructions needed to get their machine to function. I actually told several people that I thought that anyone who wouldn't set their VCRs' clock was too lazy and ignorant to be allowed to vote. (So now you know how I get the reputation for being a bit harsh.)
Anyway, it's nice to know Kovacs of Mozilla thinks that anyone who cannot communicate with the Internet is unfit to govern.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
A bankster foregoing profits in food speculation?
This a VERY small step towards returning the banking community to the civilized world. But we must celebrate even tiny steps because it might signal a turn.
DEUTSCHE BANK: We Will No Longer Create Certain Securities Until We're Sure They Don't Contribute To Food Poverty
When the economic rules changed
The economic history of the 1930s is probably the most interesting era of them all. By vastly expanding the means of production, industrialization had destroyed the assumptions of traditional Alfred Marshall economics. Conventional wisdom made the Great Depression inevitable. The only question was—what would replace it? In USSR, a sociopathic killer lurched between schemes for industrialization that could be excused by the (mostly preindustrial) teachings of Karl Marx. In Italy and Germany the economic rules would be set by the industrialists themselves which proved remarkably successful.
It was the English-speaking world that had the most awkward adjustment to the death of the conventional "wisdom." Part of this is due to a good thing—the English world was not as prepared to use naked police-state terror to change the economic debate as were the Communists and Nazis. So the new economics had to win by debate. And the debate had not been won as late as 1937. It could be argued that civilized behavior cost the English-speaking world the economic output of a decade.
It was the English-speaking world that had the most awkward adjustment to the death of the conventional "wisdom." Part of this is due to a good thing—the English world was not as prepared to use naked police-state terror to change the economic debate as were the Communists and Nazis. So the new economics had to win by debate. And the debate had not been won as late as 1937. It could be argued that civilized behavior cost the English-speaking world the economic output of a decade.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Screwing over the world's poor
Yes, I know that Dr. Yunus the founder of the Grameen Bank won the Noble Peace Prize in 2006. I even mentioned his institution during my introduction of Elegant Technology to the 1993 meeting of the American Economic Association when I said, "During the campaign, Bill Clinton spoke glowingly about the microlending practices of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh." I was quite appaled by this adding, "That we should need ideas from such a source says much."
So why was I so horrified by this praise for a third-world loan shark? Simple. The idea that a pitifully poor population could support a bunch of enterprises that had a 13+% nut to make was mathematically preposterous. As any Producer can tell you, while getting your hands on the necessary capital to get a new product or service to market is a significant problem, it is not nearly the problem of finding paying customers for your new enterprise—especially if your potential customers are already extremely poor. This was always the fatal flaw of "supply-side" economics. Unlike the bizarre teachings of Jean-Baptiste Say, supply does NOT create its own demand. Disproving this fallacy was central to the 1936 writings of John M. Keynes in his General Theory.
Microfinance would only work if usury suddenly became a LOT less harmful and Say was suddenly proven correct. What could possibly go wrong? Turns out, quite a lot.
So why was I so horrified by this praise for a third-world loan shark? Simple. The idea that a pitifully poor population could support a bunch of enterprises that had a 13+% nut to make was mathematically preposterous. As any Producer can tell you, while getting your hands on the necessary capital to get a new product or service to market is a significant problem, it is not nearly the problem of finding paying customers for your new enterprise—especially if your potential customers are already extremely poor. This was always the fatal flaw of "supply-side" economics. Unlike the bizarre teachings of Jean-Baptiste Say, supply does NOT create its own demand. Disproving this fallacy was central to the 1936 writings of John M. Keynes in his General Theory.
Microfinance would only work if usury suddenly became a LOT less harmful and Say was suddenly proven correct. What could possibly go wrong? Turns out, quite a lot.
A Lute wins a ceremonial title
One of the realizations that comes to folks who make up a minority culture is that for all practical purposes, we are invisible. And trust me, Lutes in USA are about as invisible as is possible to the human condition. But we DO have a celebrity who recognizes our existence—one Garrison Keillor who spins tall yarns about the Norwegian Lutherans in his fictional Lake Wobegon on American Public Radio. Not surprisingly, we Lutes love him. He describes the petty cultural characteristics of our tribe so well, I think one of the Lutheran colleges in the area should bestow on him an honorary Ph.D. in cultural anthropology. In his telling, we are honest, polite, slightly neurotic, diligent, and hard-working good neighbors, among other mostly endearing characteristics. Pretty harmless, all in all.
And we Lutes are actually like that most of the time. Considering we are descended from Vikings, the civilizing influence of the Lutheran Church has been quite remarkable. But Lutes are have not always been a tribe that consumes weak coffee and Jello in the church basement while we argue over whether teenagers should have to memorize Luther's catechism. This is an institution that has been a part of some extremely successful governments in the Nordic countries, has contributed incredible cultural gifts through composers like Bach, and has fielded great armies under commanders like Gustavus Adolphus. The Lutheran Church, believe it or not, has been a source of great moral courage over the years.
The latest outburst of Lutheran relevance came during the last days of DDR when the Lutes organized the main opposition to the brutal tyranny of the Communist puppets. The movement was centered in Leipzig—the city of J. S. Bach.
One of those incredibly brave Lutheran preachers from DDR has just become Germany's new president. As the son of a Lutheran preacher, I want to take this moment to express my pride in one of my culture who was willing to struggle to make the world a better place. Such expressions of pride are so VERY un-Lutheran but it's OK, we'll be invisible again soon enough.
And we Lutes are actually like that most of the time. Considering we are descended from Vikings, the civilizing influence of the Lutheran Church has been quite remarkable. But Lutes are have not always been a tribe that consumes weak coffee and Jello in the church basement while we argue over whether teenagers should have to memorize Luther's catechism. This is an institution that has been a part of some extremely successful governments in the Nordic countries, has contributed incredible cultural gifts through composers like Bach, and has fielded great armies under commanders like Gustavus Adolphus. The Lutheran Church, believe it or not, has been a source of great moral courage over the years.
The latest outburst of Lutheran relevance came during the last days of DDR when the Lutes organized the main opposition to the brutal tyranny of the Communist puppets. The movement was centered in Leipzig—the city of J. S. Bach.
One of those incredibly brave Lutheran preachers from DDR has just become Germany's new president. As the son of a Lutheran preacher, I want to take this moment to express my pride in one of my culture who was willing to struggle to make the world a better place. Such expressions of pride are so VERY un-Lutheran but it's OK, we'll be invisible again soon enough.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The role of state technologies
One of my favorite professors had a term he used for technologies that were too expensive and complex to be produced without massive government involvement. He called them "state technologies" and while he mostly used the term to describe nuclear power generation, it also applied to things like moon rockets and satellites.
Large airliners come under the heading of a state technology. It is inconceivable that Boeing would have been able to build the 707 without the big order it had for the KC-135. For that matter, it is impossible to imagine that Boeing would have had the expertise to build 707 if had not already built the B-52, the B-29, and the B-17—all projects paid for by the USA taxpayers. So while Boeing is a private company with a listing on the NYSE, the very idea that air transport would even exist in USA without government orders, subsidies, and investments is absurd.
Even though air transport meets the classic definition of a state technology, we have had a ongoing battle between Boeing and Airbus over who has gotten an unfair advantage because of money funneled to them by governments. In this case, both of them got money. So we have the situation where some theological argument (that somehow makes sense to economists) provides the basis for expensive legal wrangling over who has committed the greater sin in pursuing the ability to build air transportation devices—devices whose mere existence proves that the builders are clearly "economic sinners".
Unfortunately, this legal fracas is not the only example where economists have failed in their task to describe the world and decided to prescribe how the world should work based on some (usually preindustrial) pet theories. Were that it were so—because this sort counterproductive behavior is one of the main obstacles standing in the way of producing the technologies needed to address Peak Oil and Climate Change.
We can also be reasonably certain that the money spent by Boeing and Airbus to bring their cases in front of the World Trade Organization will not be spent making their airplanes safer, more fuel efficient, or more reliable. But of course, if it were not for this sort of nonsense, how would the Predators extract their pound of flesh from a Producer Class activity like building airplanes? (I mean besides the normal methods like rents and usury.)
Large airliners come under the heading of a state technology. It is inconceivable that Boeing would have been able to build the 707 without the big order it had for the KC-135. For that matter, it is impossible to imagine that Boeing would have had the expertise to build 707 if had not already built the B-52, the B-29, and the B-17—all projects paid for by the USA taxpayers. So while Boeing is a private company with a listing on the NYSE, the very idea that air transport would even exist in USA without government orders, subsidies, and investments is absurd.
Even though air transport meets the classic definition of a state technology, we have had a ongoing battle between Boeing and Airbus over who has gotten an unfair advantage because of money funneled to them by governments. In this case, both of them got money. So we have the situation where some theological argument (that somehow makes sense to economists) provides the basis for expensive legal wrangling over who has committed the greater sin in pursuing the ability to build air transportation devices—devices whose mere existence proves that the builders are clearly "economic sinners".
Unfortunately, this legal fracas is not the only example where economists have failed in their task to describe the world and decided to prescribe how the world should work based on some (usually preindustrial) pet theories. Were that it were so—because this sort counterproductive behavior is one of the main obstacles standing in the way of producing the technologies needed to address Peak Oil and Climate Change.
We can also be reasonably certain that the money spent by Boeing and Airbus to bring their cases in front of the World Trade Organization will not be spent making their airplanes safer, more fuel efficient, or more reliable. But of course, if it were not for this sort of nonsense, how would the Predators extract their pound of flesh from a Producer Class activity like building airplanes? (I mean besides the normal methods like rents and usury.)
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Time to hire the Producers
The trouble with most political activists is that they want their hectoring to become a paying job. And if we have learned anything from the environmental movement in the last 30 years it is this: if any of these organizations ever become financially self-sustaining, the pressure is OFF to actually accomplish anything. Except, of course, for getting their funders to renew their funding.
But utterly tame and irrelevant environmental bureaucracies explain only part of the problem of not accomplishing anything. Some of the big problems like Peak Oil or Climate Change are not going to be solved by community organizing, or sit-down strikes, or heartfelt folk music, or another interpretive center or freaking conference. And some variation of these things is what these organizations do. This won't help much because the big problems can only be solved by the elite Producers—engineers, industrial designers, materials specialists and the high-end construction companies that can put complex and difficult plans into action. About the only thing the hippies can do to help solve these life-threatening problems is to organize so that the Producer elites have the major money (like $2-3 trillion per year) they need to do their work well. Oh, and get out of the way!
Right now, the Producer elites are drawing unemployment or working at Home Depot trying to keep body and soul together. And the planet dies because we cannot seem to grab influence from the Powerpoint jockeys who think that the goal in life is to "raise awareness" in the hearts and minds of people (who usually cannot do a damn thing with their newfound awareness anyway.)
Last Friday, I heard about a perfect example of the insanity that comes of giving too much power to the pencil-necked geeks who believe that problems are solved because of their wise edicts. Minnesota is worried about agricultural run-off in the Minnesota River watershed. And it IS a problem—massive amounts of soil washes into the river which is slowly filling up the incredibly beautiful Lake Pepin, while the nitrogen fertilizer carries all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico where it creates this massive dead zone. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture thinks the solution is more and better police powers. They want the authority to individually regulate each farmer. And they want to buy a drone to monitor those recalcitrant peasants. Meanwhile NONE of this high-priced regulation (a DRONE?!) buys better drainage systems or anything else that would solve the problems.
This sort of behavior is utterly crazy. Take the money you would spend on drones and set up a fund that farmers can tap into as they figure out better ways to control their runoff. When they have the new systems in place, they can send a picture of it along with a projection of how much runoff will be reduced. That's it! Look, real solutions can only come from people who already live in rural areas. Most of them do NOT need to be reminded how much they would rather not have their topsoil and expensive fertilizer washed away. And they would change their methods in a heartbeat if someone could help with systems redesign and the capital expenses.
That's the problem with the Leisure Classes—the only motivational tactic they can even imagine is whipping people. The idea of actually putting extra resources in the hands of those filthy Producers doesn't even show up on their radar. Besides if the Leisure Classes cannot regulate, how can they possibly take credit for any improvement?
If there ever was a Leisure Class organization that existed to exist, it is our friends at Moveon.org. They initially organized to get the country to move past the Lewinski scandal. When this problem had passed, they decided that their organizational skills should be worth something so they have been looking for a big issue ever since. So now they have decided to sell their services to someone who wants to ensure the #OWS doesn't get out of line—The New Republic model.
Anyway, I simply cannot imagine Moveon organizing to get $2 trillion a year into the hands of the Producers so they can get on with the business of ensuring the planet's survival.
But utterly tame and irrelevant environmental bureaucracies explain only part of the problem of not accomplishing anything. Some of the big problems like Peak Oil or Climate Change are not going to be solved by community organizing, or sit-down strikes, or heartfelt folk music, or another interpretive center or freaking conference. And some variation of these things is what these organizations do. This won't help much because the big problems can only be solved by the elite Producers—engineers, industrial designers, materials specialists and the high-end construction companies that can put complex and difficult plans into action. About the only thing the hippies can do to help solve these life-threatening problems is to organize so that the Producer elites have the major money (like $2-3 trillion per year) they need to do their work well. Oh, and get out of the way!
Right now, the Producer elites are drawing unemployment or working at Home Depot trying to keep body and soul together. And the planet dies because we cannot seem to grab influence from the Powerpoint jockeys who think that the goal in life is to "raise awareness" in the hearts and minds of people (who usually cannot do a damn thing with their newfound awareness anyway.)
Last Friday, I heard about a perfect example of the insanity that comes of giving too much power to the pencil-necked geeks who believe that problems are solved because of their wise edicts. Minnesota is worried about agricultural run-off in the Minnesota River watershed. And it IS a problem—massive amounts of soil washes into the river which is slowly filling up the incredibly beautiful Lake Pepin, while the nitrogen fertilizer carries all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico where it creates this massive dead zone. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture thinks the solution is more and better police powers. They want the authority to individually regulate each farmer. And they want to buy a drone to monitor those recalcitrant peasants. Meanwhile NONE of this high-priced regulation (a DRONE?!) buys better drainage systems or anything else that would solve the problems.
This sort of behavior is utterly crazy. Take the money you would spend on drones and set up a fund that farmers can tap into as they figure out better ways to control their runoff. When they have the new systems in place, they can send a picture of it along with a projection of how much runoff will be reduced. That's it! Look, real solutions can only come from people who already live in rural areas. Most of them do NOT need to be reminded how much they would rather not have their topsoil and expensive fertilizer washed away. And they would change their methods in a heartbeat if someone could help with systems redesign and the capital expenses.
That's the problem with the Leisure Classes—the only motivational tactic they can even imagine is whipping people. The idea of actually putting extra resources in the hands of those filthy Producers doesn't even show up on their radar. Besides if the Leisure Classes cannot regulate, how can they possibly take credit for any improvement?
If there ever was a Leisure Class organization that existed to exist, it is our friends at Moveon.org. They initially organized to get the country to move past the Lewinski scandal. When this problem had passed, they decided that their organizational skills should be worth something so they have been looking for a big issue ever since. So now they have decided to sell their services to someone who wants to ensure the #OWS doesn't get out of line—The New Republic model.
Anyway, I simply cannot imagine Moveon organizing to get $2 trillion a year into the hands of the Producers so they can get on with the business of ensuring the planet's survival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
