Probably not. We start out with a pretty decent list of the problems being inflicted on the real economy and why these problems are routinely ignored. You'll have to click on the link to see Johnson's solutions. Mostly they involve sending money to his pet non-profits.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Huge disconnect between bank deposits and bank lending
A huge disconnect between bank deposits and bank lending has developed since the crash. A stunning graph from ZeroHedge a few days ago clearly shows how dysfunctional the U.S. financial system has become. What's happened is that the Federal Reserve has created trillions of dollars in new deposits to prop up the TBTF banks, but rather than use those new deposits to advance new loans into the economy (as the myth of fractional reserve banking posits should happen), the banksters have grabbed the money and run off to play in their speculative derivatives casino.
And, as the ZeroHedge comtributor writres, it also "proves undisputedly that the US economy is much weaker now than it is purported to be as end consumers and business have far less desire to risk becoming indebted even in a zero interest rate environment."
And, as the ZeroHedge comtributor writres, it also "proves undisputedly that the US economy is much weaker now than it is purported to be as end consumers and business have far less desire to risk becoming indebted even in a zero interest rate environment."
Drive a stake in banksters' hearts - MINT THE COIN
Fortunately, the idea of the U.S. Treasury minting a $1 trillion platinum coin has broken into the open.
Unfortunately, a lot of people seem bewildered by the outlandishness of the idea.
But most unfortunate of all, people do not realize what the real, HUGE issue of platinum coin seigniorage is: breaking the monopoly hold of private banks' (ie, Wall Street's) over creating new money.
This is what the whole issue really comes down to: can we, as a sovereign nation, create our own money that is dedicated to the general welfare, or must we rely on bankers to create money only for private gain?
General welfare versus private gain. Which goal do you want your monetary system oriented toward?
Reading the various blogs that have appeared the past few days about the issue, it is downright shameful how few supposedly progressive bloggers and commenters understand this issue, and the need to destroy the banksters' monopoly on creating money, and retsoring the government's role in creation and allocation of money and credit.
The good thing is that this issue of seigniorage (seigniorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it) shows that the financial crash is finally forcing into public debate the issue of our monetary system, who owns it, and for what purpose they operate it.
So, this is similar to the late 1870s to 1880s, when the Farmers Alliances were forced to recognize that local organizing of cooperatives alone could not beat back the sustained assault of financiers and bankers. This new consciousness by the Farmers Alliances led directly to their organizing for reform of the monetary and banking systems - organizing which unleashed the grass roots forces that created the populist movement of the 1880s. The combination of the financial crash of 2007-2008, with the craven attempt by the rich to avoid taxes, has led to these ridiculous political showdowns over imaginary "fiscal cliffs." The only positive aspect is that this has forced American citizens to begin considering the very nature of the financial and monetary systems.
Joe Firestone (who uses the internet handle "letsgetitdone") recently offered an outstanding intellectual history of the trillion dollar coin idea, which includes links to the very first substantial proposal for minting a $1 trillion platinum coin; the intense discussion and debate of platinum coin seigniorage at Warren Mosler's blog; and what Firestone identifies as "the most comprehensive and rigorous discussion available of the relationship between" coin seigniorage and inflation, by Scott Wiler.
Unfortunately, a lot of people seem bewildered by the outlandishness of the idea.
But most unfortunate of all, people do not realize what the real, HUGE issue of platinum coin seigniorage is: breaking the monopoly hold of private banks' (ie, Wall Street's) over creating new money.
This is what the whole issue really comes down to: can we, as a sovereign nation, create our own money that is dedicated to the general welfare, or must we rely on bankers to create money only for private gain?
General welfare versus private gain. Which goal do you want your monetary system oriented toward?
Reading the various blogs that have appeared the past few days about the issue, it is downright shameful how few supposedly progressive bloggers and commenters understand this issue, and the need to destroy the banksters' monopoly on creating money, and retsoring the government's role in creation and allocation of money and credit.
The good thing is that this issue of seigniorage (seigniorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it) shows that the financial crash is finally forcing into public debate the issue of our monetary system, who owns it, and for what purpose they operate it.
So, this is similar to the late 1870s to 1880s, when the Farmers Alliances were forced to recognize that local organizing of cooperatives alone could not beat back the sustained assault of financiers and bankers. This new consciousness by the Farmers Alliances led directly to their organizing for reform of the monetary and banking systems - organizing which unleashed the grass roots forces that created the populist movement of the 1880s. The combination of the financial crash of 2007-2008, with the craven attempt by the rich to avoid taxes, has led to these ridiculous political showdowns over imaginary "fiscal cliffs." The only positive aspect is that this has forced American citizens to begin considering the very nature of the financial and monetary systems.
Joe Firestone (who uses the internet handle "letsgetitdone") recently offered an outstanding intellectual history of the trillion dollar coin idea, which includes links to the very first substantial proposal for minting a $1 trillion platinum coin; the intense discussion and debate of platinum coin seigniorage at Warren Mosler's blog; and what Firestone identifies as "the most comprehensive and rigorous discussion available of the relationship between" coin seigniorage and inflation, by Scott Wiler.
Solar plods forward
In theory, anyone blessed with an oil boom should immediately start thinking about what the new-found wealth should be spent on. Unfortunately, since the temptations of materialism are virtually infinite, altogether too many oil nouveau riche opt for the Beverly Hillbillies solution by demonstrating their primitive ways out by the cement pond. However, those who like the idea of being rich and intend to stay that way for many generations would immediately start figuring out how to make their oil windfall last beyond the life of the oil fields.
Actually, this is a pretty obvious solution. Oil is natural capital. The income from extracting this capital should be invested in harvesting energy income. Turn that short-term income into something nearly perpetual. This SEEMS to be what is happening in Qatar. And since they have both significant oil income and land being blasted by solar energy, this conversion to a long-term income stream is mostly a matter of investing in some smarts.
Actually, this is a pretty obvious solution. Oil is natural capital. The income from extracting this capital should be invested in harvesting energy income. Turn that short-term income into something nearly perpetual. This SEEMS to be what is happening in Qatar. And since they have both significant oil income and land being blasted by solar energy, this conversion to a long-term income stream is mostly a matter of investing in some smarts.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Japan's experiment with stimulus
The actions of Japan's Prime Minister-elect Abe to reduce the Yen's value has the money wise guys thoroughly confused. In their world, they cannot imagine anyone wanting to drive down the value of their own currency. After all, they have just spent decades bullying the countries of the world with the threat of sabotaging the value of their currencies. So how do you bully someone who wants the same outcome?
Well, you do what the financial press has done—throw up your hands in cultural horror at Japan's "unconventional" actions. The scribblers must do SOMETHING. After all, if Japan succeeds here—and there is a very good chance that they will—everything the purveyors of the "sound money" conventional "wisdom" have claimed over the years will have been proven wrong (again!). Of course, merely being wrong will barely slow them down—after all, George Will and Thomas Friedman are usually wrong about something every damn day and they still have their gigs.
Well, you do what the financial press has done—throw up your hands in cultural horror at Japan's "unconventional" actions. The scribblers must do SOMETHING. After all, if Japan succeeds here—and there is a very good chance that they will—everything the purveyors of the "sound money" conventional "wisdom" have claimed over the years will have been proven wrong (again!). Of course, merely being wrong will barely slow them down—after all, George Will and Thomas Friedman are usually wrong about something every damn day and they still have their gigs.
Climate change in the southern hemisphere
Those of us who worry about climate issues often neglect to look at the Southern Hemisphere. And for pretty good reasons. Only a small fraction of the earth's population actually lives south of the equator and they produce a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gasses. But as the temperatures soar through the Australian summer, it looks like they aren't escaping any of climate change's more baleful effects.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Stiglitz writes about the real economy
Stiglitz is an interesting guy. He grew up in a New Deal Democratic household in Gary Indiana—the classic South Shore steel town. He was born in 1943 so he was educated in the era of Keynesian dominance. Yet, he has been conventional enough to win the Clark and Riksbank (Nobel Memorial) prizes and his academic work has been appropriately narrow and trivial.
One is tempted to ignore anyone who has had conventional success in this era of neoliberal madness, and I guess I have been a little bit dismissive of Stiglitz. But in the essay below, he is as serious and deep as I could have ever wanted. I trace his big leap in seriousness to his participation in the IPPC study that won the 2007 Riksbank Prize. The subject of climate change will do that to you. Perhaps he is entering his sage stage of life, but I couldn't have ordered up better thoughts on the real economy than the following.
One is tempted to ignore anyone who has had conventional success in this era of neoliberal madness, and I guess I have been a little bit dismissive of Stiglitz. But in the essay below, he is as serious and deep as I could have ever wanted. I trace his big leap in seriousness to his participation in the IPPC study that won the 2007 Riksbank Prize. The subject of climate change will do that to you. Perhaps he is entering his sage stage of life, but I couldn't have ordered up better thoughts on the real economy than the following.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Hudson on brutal austerity
Michael Hudson is a delightful throwback to the glory days when economists actually knew what they were talking about. Contrast this stuff with the foolishness of a Glenn Hubbard—the man who was going to be Mitt Romney's economic guru. Hubbard may be the Dean of Columbia's business school but as events of the past ten years have demonstrated, he hasn't been right about anything. The fact that a profession glorifies such a buffoon and does not exact major penalties for being catastrophically wrong is just further evidence that economics has devolved into a really bad (Westboro Baptist Church bad) religion.
This is the last of Hudson's new year's trilogy. I encourage everyone to read them all. They are superb. Read them and you will be about as well informed about modern economic problems as anyone you know.
Part One is here.
Part Two is here.
This is the last of Hudson's new year's trilogy. I encourage everyone to read them all. They are superb. Read them and you will be about as well informed about modern economic problems as anyone you know.
Part One is here.
Part Two is here.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Peak oil and secondary recovery
Because the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota is in the same general neighborhood as the town (Tioga) I lived in for 18 months when I was in high school, and because Bakken is one of the epicenters of the practice of fracking, I feel compelled to be extra-careful about what I say on the subject. I have had relatives in the oil business who probably think I am a Liberal Arts idiot anyway, so I have extra incentive to get this right.
But here's the basics. Peak Oil explains that when an oil field peaks, there is still as much oil left in the ground as has been extracted. But what has been extracted was the EASY half. Getting the rest will probably be very problematic. Getting the rest has inspired a host of "secondary" recovery techniques. Many things have been been tried including steam injection (one cousin remarked that this proved to be a particularly bad idea noting, "you would be astonished how hard it is, and how much energy it takes, to change the temperature of the earth.") But fracking seems to work after a fashion. It's an environmental disaster that has produced flaming drinking water and man-made earthquakes, but it does produce recoverable fuels.
And so North Dakota is having an oil boom that rivals the original in the 1950's and 60s. Keep in mind the original was pretty much a big boy game from the start. The wells could be over 3 miles (5km) deep. Such wells were very expensive to drill so there was serious need for sophisticated underground mapping techniques. This is North Dakota—a place where getting outdoor work done in the winter is nearly impossible. And even then the wells were not especially productive—a good well in western North Dakota produces in a month about as much crude as one of the superwells in Saudi Arabia or Iraq produce in a few hours. This was a modest enterprise. I lived in an oil town and except for the refinery and the little airport with a runway long enough for corporate jets, it was as unpretentious any other small town out on the high prairie.
Fracking is not a refutation of Peak Oil. In fact, it proves it. This is especially true of the economics. Fracking is pretty expensive (it's astonishing how much it costs to rearrange the underlying geology of the earth) and because it is a secondary recovery technique, production drops off pretty rapidly. Of course, none of this matters to the free marketeers with their 15-second time horizons who look at the current temporary glut of petroleum products and see a salvation for the fossil-fueled economy. That inspires article like this.
But here's the basics. Peak Oil explains that when an oil field peaks, there is still as much oil left in the ground as has been extracted. But what has been extracted was the EASY half. Getting the rest will probably be very problematic. Getting the rest has inspired a host of "secondary" recovery techniques. Many things have been been tried including steam injection (one cousin remarked that this proved to be a particularly bad idea noting, "you would be astonished how hard it is, and how much energy it takes, to change the temperature of the earth.") But fracking seems to work after a fashion. It's an environmental disaster that has produced flaming drinking water and man-made earthquakes, but it does produce recoverable fuels.
And so North Dakota is having an oil boom that rivals the original in the 1950's and 60s. Keep in mind the original was pretty much a big boy game from the start. The wells could be over 3 miles (5km) deep. Such wells were very expensive to drill so there was serious need for sophisticated underground mapping techniques. This is North Dakota—a place where getting outdoor work done in the winter is nearly impossible. And even then the wells were not especially productive—a good well in western North Dakota produces in a month about as much crude as one of the superwells in Saudi Arabia or Iraq produce in a few hours. This was a modest enterprise. I lived in an oil town and except for the refinery and the little airport with a runway long enough for corporate jets, it was as unpretentious any other small town out on the high prairie.
Fracking is not a refutation of Peak Oil. In fact, it proves it. This is especially true of the economics. Fracking is pretty expensive (it's astonishing how much it costs to rearrange the underlying geology of the earth) and because it is a secondary recovery technique, production drops off pretty rapidly. Of course, none of this matters to the free marketeers with their 15-second time horizons who look at the current temporary glut of petroleum products and see a salvation for the fossil-fueled economy. That inspires article like this.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Inside UPS's gigantic Louisville hub
Hat tip to Barry Ritholtz, for pointing to this virtual tour of United Parcel Service's gigantic sorting and distribution center in Louisville, Kentucky. UPS calls it Worldport, and its 5.2 million-square-feet includes 70 aircraft docks and
155 miles of conveyor belts able to process and sorting 416,000 packages an hour during peak operations, serviced by UPS's fleet of 230 jet aircraft. During peak operations, meaning the holiday season, one UPS jet lands at Louisville nearly every minute. Worldport achieves a sorting accuracy rate 99.9994 percent - which means 16 packages need to be "rescued" each hour. The virtual tour explains how this happens.
Inside UPS' Worldport: How a shipping titan moves 2,000 packages every 17 seconds.
Inside UPS' Worldport: How a shipping titan moves 2,000 packages every 17 seconds.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Our home energy audit
So the other day, we finally got a serious energy audit of the home place. A big handsome guy with a truck full of instruments began to expose the 1958 thinking of how a house should be insulated. Not surprisingly, there were plenty of problems.
First of all, the first ceiling insulation attempt had been done with vermiculite—a substance that sometimes contains asbestos fibers. The immediate problem this caused was that it made it legally impossible to use his air door. So some of the big infiltration tests we wanted to run were not going to happen because the air door could suck stray fibers into the house.
Then we encountered the occupational bias of our auditor. His background was HVAC so while we got the 20-minute lecture about our primitive water heater and how it wasted energy, other subjects such as how many vents the roof needed got a much more cursory treatment.
Mostly, however, the audit was a real eye opener. His infrared sensor / camera revealed wall cavities that had been filled with something (what, we could not determine) that had settled over the years leaving a space of at least a foot at the top where there was no insulation whatsoever. And even without the air door, it was pretty easy to tell that the 55 year-old windows and doors were very leaky.
But what was most interesting about our auditor is that he had been trained to suggest solutions that had relatively short paybacks. In practice this meant that new windows were probably not a good idea from cost / benefit standpoint no matter how leaky they were. Even his suggestions about how to upgrade the water heater came with the caveat that it probably wouldn't pay for itself for a very long time "because natural gas prices are so low these days." In fact he must have brought up low gas prices at least a dozen times.
So unless someone like us wants to upgrade the insulation systems for the house to create a more comfortable and less drafty space, there really isn't a whole lot of reason to do anything right now. Of course, natural gas prices will not be forever low and when they rise, all those calculations change.
Because we don't believe it is a good idea to heat the outdoors during the winter, and because climate change is a real problem, we will be fixing our leaky old house. It's just that there isn't any economic pressure to do something right away. This is a good thing because fixing our house will require a lot of careful planning. But at least we have started the process.
First of all, the first ceiling insulation attempt had been done with vermiculite—a substance that sometimes contains asbestos fibers. The immediate problem this caused was that it made it legally impossible to use his air door. So some of the big infiltration tests we wanted to run were not going to happen because the air door could suck stray fibers into the house.
Then we encountered the occupational bias of our auditor. His background was HVAC so while we got the 20-minute lecture about our primitive water heater and how it wasted energy, other subjects such as how many vents the roof needed got a much more cursory treatment.
Mostly, however, the audit was a real eye opener. His infrared sensor / camera revealed wall cavities that had been filled with something (what, we could not determine) that had settled over the years leaving a space of at least a foot at the top where there was no insulation whatsoever. And even without the air door, it was pretty easy to tell that the 55 year-old windows and doors were very leaky.
But what was most interesting about our auditor is that he had been trained to suggest solutions that had relatively short paybacks. In practice this meant that new windows were probably not a good idea from cost / benefit standpoint no matter how leaky they were. Even his suggestions about how to upgrade the water heater came with the caveat that it probably wouldn't pay for itself for a very long time "because natural gas prices are so low these days." In fact he must have brought up low gas prices at least a dozen times.
So unless someone like us wants to upgrade the insulation systems for the house to create a more comfortable and less drafty space, there really isn't a whole lot of reason to do anything right now. Of course, natural gas prices will not be forever low and when they rise, all those calculations change.
Because we don't believe it is a good idea to heat the outdoors during the winter, and because climate change is a real problem, we will be fixing our leaky old house. It's just that there isn't any economic pressure to do something right away. This is a good thing because fixing our house will require a lot of careful planning. But at least we have started the process.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Predators win another one
I am old enough to remember when economists still made a huge distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income. Not surprisingly, the "unearned income" folks made out like bandits in the latest so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations. What is less surprising is that almost no one even brings up this distinction anymore. After all, this was a central concept of the Progressives and New Dealers that neoliberals have tried so hard to discredit. So I was pleased to find someone who has analyzed this latest economic debacle in terms I understand and approve of.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Glenn Hubbard stars again
Dean of Columbia's business school Glenn Hubbard is something of a celebrity—and quite famous by the standards of the economics profession. His star turn came as the snarling heavy in Charles Ferguson's documentary Inside Job (a real favorite around here) where he attacks his interviewer for having the temerity for asking how much he charged for his relentlessly pro-bankster advice.
Well now we know. It's about what a medium-priced hooker in the financial district charges. But I think it somewhat unfair to compare Hubbard to an honest working girl. In addition, it isn't really whoring because Hubbard actually believes the crazy shit he writes and since he is from the reality-optional, faith-based neoliberal community, he doesn't have to work as hard as he would if he actually trafficked in verifiable facts.
Just think, this wretched creature was being talked up as a possible Treasury Secretary in a Romney administration.
Well now we know. It's about what a medium-priced hooker in the financial district charges. But I think it somewhat unfair to compare Hubbard to an honest working girl. In addition, it isn't really whoring because Hubbard actually believes the crazy shit he writes and since he is from the reality-optional, faith-based neoliberal community, he doesn't have to work as hard as he would if he actually trafficked in verifiable facts.
Just think, this wretched creature was being talked up as a possible Treasury Secretary in a Romney administration.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
A Producing Class hero is something to be
Back in September, I posted an article about a brave crew that had sailed a 31' Hallberg-Rassy through the Northwest Passage thereby proving pretty conclusively that climate change was melting the Arctic Ice Cap.
Well, it turns out that the NW Passage had been navigated before including a trip in 2007 by a guy who, even though I never knew him, was almost a neighbor of mine. Roger Swanson was a perfect example of a regular phenomenon of my youth—the super-smart farm kid. He went off to the University of Minnesota to get a degree in electrical engineering but would soon return to the family farm—which is about 35 miles straight south of the tiny town where I grew up. Eventually he would put his obvious mechanical genius to work starting a half-dozen small manufacturing companies.
Swanson would soon have the spare cash and free time for a big-time hobby. Being a good Swede he decided to try his hand at sailing. The lakes in the vicinity of his farm were in the category of glorified mud puddles so it wasn't long before he was chartering larger boats in the Caribbean. One thing led to another and Swanson became the proud owner of 57' ketch. This folks, is a serious boat with something like 8 times the interior volume of the 31' Hallberg-Rassy (just remember, volume is a cube function.)
Swanson was a lot like the guy who taught me to sail—electrical engineer, inventive, and entrepreneurial. Apparently they also shared the desire to keep their boats absolutely shipshape and always had the perfect tool to fix anything that went wrong. Sailors like that tend to die in their beds of old age.
Well, it turns out that the NW Passage had been navigated before including a trip in 2007 by a guy who, even though I never knew him, was almost a neighbor of mine. Roger Swanson was a perfect example of a regular phenomenon of my youth—the super-smart farm kid. He went off to the University of Minnesota to get a degree in electrical engineering but would soon return to the family farm—which is about 35 miles straight south of the tiny town where I grew up. Eventually he would put his obvious mechanical genius to work starting a half-dozen small manufacturing companies.
Swanson would soon have the spare cash and free time for a big-time hobby. Being a good Swede he decided to try his hand at sailing. The lakes in the vicinity of his farm were in the category of glorified mud puddles so it wasn't long before he was chartering larger boats in the Caribbean. One thing led to another and Swanson became the proud owner of 57' ketch. This folks, is a serious boat with something like 8 times the interior volume of the 31' Hallberg-Rassy (just remember, volume is a cube function.)
Swanson was a lot like the guy who taught me to sail—electrical engineer, inventive, and entrepreneurial. Apparently they also shared the desire to keep their boats absolutely shipshape and always had the perfect tool to fix anything that went wrong. Sailors like that tend to die in their beds of old age.
Finance capitalism destroys everything else
I have been writing about the distinctions between finance and industrial capitalism since the 1980s It is truly amazing the massive destruction the moneychangers have been causing in their naked grab for whatever has not been nailed down (and much that is.) Any honest historian in the future will be at a loss to explain how one tiny sliver of the real economy was allowed to destroy the rest of it. Here Hudson offers some suggestions as to what actually happened.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Unnecessary pain
There is absolutely nothing novel in the talking points of today's neoliberal austerity ghouls. The inane economic theories of the Victorian era British economist Alfred Marshall have merely been computerized. The incredible economic blunders we are seeing in 2013 have been around since the dawn of industrialization. It stems from a failure to understand the nature of Producer Class potential.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Progressives and neoliberals
Thank you for this Mr. Black. For most of my adult life, I have watched the political party of my youth, the Minnesota DFL, go from a party of Producer Class empowerment, public virtue and investment, and the pro-prosperity economics of the Populists / Progressives, to a party of dozens of competing little identity groups who thought of nothing greater than how they got laid, whose ancestors had been most tormented, or who could get the rest of us to change the way we talked. The switch in focus from economics to identity politics / political correctness produced a strange creature—the sincere progressive who is, unfortunately, a right-wing ghoul when it comes to the important basics of economics.
Here Black cites three obvious examples of what I am talking about. Since there are thousands of other good ones, Black could have continued this piece for a very long time. Neoliberalism swept through the left while they were focusing on cultural issues and became the default economic assumptions almost as completely as on the Reaganite right. Anyone can easily cite examples from their own experience. My favorite comes from a dinner party I once attended filled with an educated and politically very correct liberal arts faculty who were abuzz because they had just discovered The Economist. Apparently, neoliberal goofiness sounded just fine by them if it was delivered with a British accent.
Here Black cites three obvious examples of what I am talking about. Since there are thousands of other good ones, Black could have continued this piece for a very long time. Neoliberalism swept through the left while they were focusing on cultural issues and became the default economic assumptions almost as completely as on the Reaganite right. Anyone can easily cite examples from their own experience. My favorite comes from a dinner party I once attended filled with an educated and politically very correct liberal arts faculty who were abuzz because they had just discovered The Economist. Apparently, neoliberal goofiness sounded just fine by them if it was delivered with a British accent.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
On criticism for my "Polish Coal-aholics" post
I suppose this is a milestone to be remarked upon passing. It seems I picked up an angry critic who seems especially annoyed at my take on climate deniers. According to him, my outrage was last Sunday's post entitled "Polish Coal-aholics" which contained an extended clip from a Der Spiegel post entitled Poland Wages War on Efforts to Save the Climate.
I happened to like that Der Spiegel post because it was soooo German. Energy policy is a highly complex subject but one thing is abundantly clear—burning coal to generate electricity is a very bad idea. Why? Because the whole point of changing the energy mix is to lessen the output of greenhouse gasses. Coal is mostly carbon. You burn (oxidize) carbon and you get carbon dioxide. (Well, you can also get carbon monoxide but it will become CO2 in about 20 minutes.) So coal burning is a problem—NOT a solution for climate change. Chemistry 101 is quite clear about this. And yet the Poles are opting for a coal-only future and an inquiring writer for Der Spiegel wanted to know why.
Yes. Me too! I want to know how any sentient being responds to climate change by suggesting much more of the same technology that caused the problem in the first place. I found it funny that a German publication would couch the possible answer in the form of an addiction they called coal-aholism. Now I am not a huge fan of "carbon addiction" as an explanation for much, but this was amusing because I have heard how some Germans I know criticize Polish drinking habits. It was as if the author was throwing up his hands at the crazy Polish insistence on building more coal-fired electrical generation as an irrational and very unhealthy act akin to drinking Wodka at 9:00 am.
Anyway, my critic accuses me of "serious" sins. In no particular order they are:
1) I used an article that slanders people for a technological choice.
Absolutely. I am guilty as charged. I reposted that article precisely because it was sort of a mild Polish joke. However, my guess is that my critic was not so offended by the criticism of the Polish people as he was offended by the dismissive attitude people like us have for people who think like him.
2) I rely heavily on Der Spiegel for my information.
Again. Guilty as charged. I go to their website every day. I understand they are a neoliberal publication in the heart of Social Democratic (SPD) turf (Hamburg) but I think their world-view is close enough to my own to make the necessary adjustments. My people came from southern Sweden. From the 13th century on, we have been in the economic orbit of Hanseatic League thinking. Hamburg was the first among equals in the league. So I go to Hansa-based site to get my daily dose of Hansa thinking. Since these people are still among the most prosperous on the planet, I find it instructive. However, just because I happen to like Der Spiegel does not mean I use them exclusively. And just because my critic finds them untrustworthy does not make them wrong.
3) I am probably not as technologically literate as I advertise myself to be.
Hey, I could get into a chest-beating contest over who has more patents, or mastered more tools, or built more complex things at a young age, but whatever would be the point. I am certainly technologically literate enough to comment on technology issues. But let's assume that my critic is a senior combustion engineer for ABB (or similar) and really IS more technologically literate than I, I am still dealing with a critic who actually believes that burning coal to boil water is still an acceptable way to power a society. It is not. The age of steam is over and we hang on to it's remnants at our peril. It matters not at all that it is cheaper, easier, and more reliable to power a country with coal, climate change makes burning coal NOT AN OPTION! Because it absolutely essential we figure out how to live without most kinds of fire if we are going to survive, reminding us again how wonderful fire is, is not exactly helpful. It really doesn't matter how technologically literate one is, if you aren't interested in deploying your talents designing and building the post-fire society, you are a long, LONG way from the leading edge. History will not look kindly on technologists who defended an obsolete technology that was clearly destroying the atmosphere.
4) The German effort to power their society with renewables has been given up as a failure and now that they are about to phase out their nukes, they will be building new coal-fired plants too.
Yes, I understand the Germans are having some second thoughts about their commitment to renewable energy. Most of these doubts stem from the fact that renewables are expensive at a time when the zeitgeist preaches austerity. But the science of climate change is not in doubt in German society. As a young German explained to me last summer, "We have climate change deniers, too. We just don't treat them seriously nor let them close to important jobs."
There were probably other sins but I didn't read his piece especially carefully. I make it a habit not to waste time on climate deniers and I removed some nasty little comments here by some of his acolytes. But it was my first brush with denialism and it sort of rattled me because I carefully place myself in the middle of the global mainstream of climate change opinion.
And no, I am not going to link to the site that took time to criticize a reasoned and reasonable post. I really have no interest in debating climate change deniers. Just knowing there are people out there who can deny so much factual evidence is quite depressing. And there really is no point in arguing with them—if they can ignore the evidence of just 2012, what could I possibly say to them that would change their extremist positions.
I happened to like that Der Spiegel post because it was soooo German. Energy policy is a highly complex subject but one thing is abundantly clear—burning coal to generate electricity is a very bad idea. Why? Because the whole point of changing the energy mix is to lessen the output of greenhouse gasses. Coal is mostly carbon. You burn (oxidize) carbon and you get carbon dioxide. (Well, you can also get carbon monoxide but it will become CO2 in about 20 minutes.) So coal burning is a problem—NOT a solution for climate change. Chemistry 101 is quite clear about this. And yet the Poles are opting for a coal-only future and an inquiring writer for Der Spiegel wanted to know why.
Yes. Me too! I want to know how any sentient being responds to climate change by suggesting much more of the same technology that caused the problem in the first place. I found it funny that a German publication would couch the possible answer in the form of an addiction they called coal-aholism. Now I am not a huge fan of "carbon addiction" as an explanation for much, but this was amusing because I have heard how some Germans I know criticize Polish drinking habits. It was as if the author was throwing up his hands at the crazy Polish insistence on building more coal-fired electrical generation as an irrational and very unhealthy act akin to drinking Wodka at 9:00 am.
Anyway, my critic accuses me of "serious" sins. In no particular order they are:
1) I used an article that slanders people for a technological choice.
Absolutely. I am guilty as charged. I reposted that article precisely because it was sort of a mild Polish joke. However, my guess is that my critic was not so offended by the criticism of the Polish people as he was offended by the dismissive attitude people like us have for people who think like him.
2) I rely heavily on Der Spiegel for my information.
Again. Guilty as charged. I go to their website every day. I understand they are a neoliberal publication in the heart of Social Democratic (SPD) turf (Hamburg) but I think their world-view is close enough to my own to make the necessary adjustments. My people came from southern Sweden. From the 13th century on, we have been in the economic orbit of Hanseatic League thinking. Hamburg was the first among equals in the league. So I go to Hansa-based site to get my daily dose of Hansa thinking. Since these people are still among the most prosperous on the planet, I find it instructive. However, just because I happen to like Der Spiegel does not mean I use them exclusively. And just because my critic finds them untrustworthy does not make them wrong.
3) I am probably not as technologically literate as I advertise myself to be.
Hey, I could get into a chest-beating contest over who has more patents, or mastered more tools, or built more complex things at a young age, but whatever would be the point. I am certainly technologically literate enough to comment on technology issues. But let's assume that my critic is a senior combustion engineer for ABB (or similar) and really IS more technologically literate than I, I am still dealing with a critic who actually believes that burning coal to boil water is still an acceptable way to power a society. It is not. The age of steam is over and we hang on to it's remnants at our peril. It matters not at all that it is cheaper, easier, and more reliable to power a country with coal, climate change makes burning coal NOT AN OPTION! Because it absolutely essential we figure out how to live without most kinds of fire if we are going to survive, reminding us again how wonderful fire is, is not exactly helpful. It really doesn't matter how technologically literate one is, if you aren't interested in deploying your talents designing and building the post-fire society, you are a long, LONG way from the leading edge. History will not look kindly on technologists who defended an obsolete technology that was clearly destroying the atmosphere.
4) The German effort to power their society with renewables has been given up as a failure and now that they are about to phase out their nukes, they will be building new coal-fired plants too.
Yes, I understand the Germans are having some second thoughts about their commitment to renewable energy. Most of these doubts stem from the fact that renewables are expensive at a time when the zeitgeist preaches austerity. But the science of climate change is not in doubt in German society. As a young German explained to me last summer, "We have climate change deniers, too. We just don't treat them seriously nor let them close to important jobs."
There were probably other sins but I didn't read his piece especially carefully. I make it a habit not to waste time on climate deniers and I removed some nasty little comments here by some of his acolytes. But it was my first brush with denialism and it sort of rattled me because I carefully place myself in the middle of the global mainstream of climate change opinion.
And no, I am not going to link to the site that took time to criticize a reasoned and reasonable post. I really have no interest in debating climate change deniers. Just knowing there are people out there who can deny so much factual evidence is quite depressing. And there really is no point in arguing with them—if they can ignore the evidence of just 2012, what could I possibly say to them that would change their extremist positions.
Saturday toons 29 DEC 12
Yes indeed Mr. Keillor, you and I grew up in the same state and attended the same University.
Friday, December 28, 2012
The vultures get stuffed (again)
No matter the slapstick elements of this story, it is actually very important. There is a ton of un-payable, illegitimate, garbage debt out there that simply must be restructured. If the vulture funds are able to sabotage restructuring agreements, then there really is no hope for emerging from the current economic mess that overwhelms the global economy.
While there are seemingly endless opportunities for vulture-funded corruption, the legal system has long ago come to the conclusion that a civil society simply must have ways to rewrite debt agreements. So mega-vulture Paul Singer has not only lost a bunch legal battles, a court in Belgium recently has ordered that he pays everyone's legal fees. I am not sure this will slow Singer down because he obviously enjoys jerking around sovereign nations and has the money to fund his perverse little hobby.
While there are seemingly endless opportunities for vulture-funded corruption, the legal system has long ago come to the conclusion that a civil society simply must have ways to rewrite debt agreements. So mega-vulture Paul Singer has not only lost a bunch legal battles, a court in Belgium recently has ordered that he pays everyone's legal fees. I am not sure this will slow Singer down because he obviously enjoys jerking around sovereign nations and has the money to fund his perverse little hobby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
