So, today a second US aircraft carrier has entered the Persian Gulf to "send a message to Iran," presumably about their supposedly bad behavior in Iraq. However, Juan Cole reports today that a major spokesman in Najaf for Moqtada al-Sadr, the figure the Iranians are supposedly supporting and arming against the al-Maliki government has just denounced Iran for supporting the long-term security agreement in negotiation between the al-Maliki and Bush governments, although this denunciation was in Arabic in an Arabic newspaper. This supports Cole's long-time contention that Iran is more closely allied with al-Maliki and his ally, al-Hakim, who leads the SIIC, and spent many years in exile in Tehran. In the meantime the NY Times reports that there has not been any increased flow of arms from Iran to Iraq and that it appears that they arm many militias on all sides, also a contention of Cole's (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/world/middleeast/26military/html?ref=middleeast).
So, the question is: Are the Bush people unable to read Arabic and therefore do not know what they are doing? Are they being consciously taken in by al-Maliki and his allies (perhaps because those guys speak English and the al-Sadr people do not),who are telling them that they are not allied with Iran, when they clearly are? Or are they consciously lying about what is going on to provide an excuse for beating up on Iran over its nonexistent nuclear weapons program or to provide election fodder for McCain by whipping up anti-Iran war hysteria based on garbage?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Online Interview Regarding The Confiscation of American Prosperity
Jon Bailes and Cihan Aksan of the online publication, state of nature, conducted an online interview with me regarding my book, The Confiscation of American Prosperity, which just appeared.
http://www.stateofnature.org/michaelPerelman.html
http://www.stateofnature.org/michaelPerelman.html
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Thoughts on Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine
I have only read a hundred pages of Naomi Klein's shocked doctrine, but I thought that it was a very valuable work so far. It should not be judged either as an work of economic history as an all-encompassing theory of capitalism.
Even so, pointing out the commonality between New Orleans, Chile, and Iraq was very valuable. Making such a point does not exclude a certain degree of voluntarism associated with capitalism. Rather, it exposes an unseemly side of capitalism that is not frequently discussed.
The connection between the dreadful psychological experiments in Montréal and Hayek in Chile is not necessarily fanciful.
The author was grateful that I pointed out to her that Hayek spent the last years of his life developing The Sensory Order, a book that expanded on the ideas of Donald Hebb, who began the work that culminated in the atrocious psychological programming of Ewen Cameron.
I am halfway through another fascinating book, written by two very conventional economists on the history of world trade.
Findlay, Ronald and Kevin H. O'Rourke. 2007. Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
I have not yet reached the period of the Industrial Revolution, so thoroughgoing capitalism was not yet part of the story. The following quote suggests the flavor of the book:
xviii-xix: "The greatest expansions of world trade have tended to come not from the bloodless tatonnement of some fictional Walrasian auctioneer but from the barrel of a Maxim gun, the edge of a scimitar, or the ferocity of nomadic horsemen .... For much of our period the pattern of trade can only be understood as being the outcome of some military or political equilibrium between contending powers."
Even so, pointing out the commonality between New Orleans, Chile, and Iraq was very valuable. Making such a point does not exclude a certain degree of voluntarism associated with capitalism. Rather, it exposes an unseemly side of capitalism that is not frequently discussed.
The connection between the dreadful psychological experiments in Montréal and Hayek in Chile is not necessarily fanciful.
The author was grateful that I pointed out to her that Hayek spent the last years of his life developing The Sensory Order, a book that expanded on the ideas of Donald Hebb, who began the work that culminated in the atrocious psychological programming of Ewen Cameron.
I am halfway through another fascinating book, written by two very conventional economists on the history of world trade.
Findlay, Ronald and Kevin H. O'Rourke. 2007. Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
I have not yet reached the period of the Industrial Revolution, so thoroughgoing capitalism was not yet part of the story. The following quote suggests the flavor of the book:
xviii-xix: "The greatest expansions of world trade have tended to come not from the bloodless tatonnement of some fictional Walrasian auctioneer but from the barrel of a Maxim gun, the edge of a scimitar, or the ferocity of nomadic horsemen .... For much of our period the pattern of trade can only be understood as being the outcome of some military or political equilibrium between contending powers."
Monday, April 28, 2008
Wikiality, or the Death of Libraries
In yesterday's Style section of the Washington Post there was an article by Monica Hesse, "Can You Handle It? Truth, Better Yet: Do You Know It When You See It?" The main thrust of the article is how people believe things even when they hear them denied, and how misinformation is everywhere, especially on the internet in Wikipedia and blogs, and so forth. But, what concerned me more than this obvious, point, is that students are apparently seriously using only the internet, especially Wikipedia, and abandoning libraries and the reading of books in droves.
I am more aware of this than usual, being in the middle of grading term papers, and seeing ones with nothing but websites with incomprehensible names as sources. Quotes from students in the article make it clear that many find it annoying when a professor demands that they use a book as a source, and many think Wikipedia is a fully sufficient source, and many never set foot in a library. Yes, Wikipedia does not do too badly compared to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 4 found errors for every 3 in EBO, but Wikipedia remains subject to interested parties manipulating it for truthiness or wikiality, with the resulting misinformation getting spread far and wide and widely believed. Just how many people think that Iran is out to get nuclear weapons and that al Qaeda was involved in 9/11? And if you read Wikipedia entries about guns, they look like they were written by John Lott or his buddies.
I am more aware of this than usual, being in the middle of grading term papers, and seeing ones with nothing but websites with incomprehensible names as sources. Quotes from students in the article make it clear that many find it annoying when a professor demands that they use a book as a source, and many think Wikipedia is a fully sufficient source, and many never set foot in a library. Yes, Wikipedia does not do too badly compared to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 4 found errors for every 3 in EBO, but Wikipedia remains subject to interested parties manipulating it for truthiness or wikiality, with the resulting misinformation getting spread far and wide and widely believed. Just how many people think that Iran is out to get nuclear weapons and that al Qaeda was involved in 9/11? And if you read Wikipedia entries about guns, they look like they were written by John Lott or his buddies.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Random Notes On The Crisis
I was talking to a Costco manager who told me that sales of most items are flat, but liquor sales are brisk.
The New York Times reports on a phenomenon that I have heard of locally -- that bees are finding homes in abandoned houses. Perhaps we have found a solution to the beat collapse. I should mention that one sentence suggests that many of the bees may be Africanized. If so, those bees may not be as welcome, because they would be illegal aliens from an undesirable continent. To make matters worse, people seem to be mixing these African bees with an American Queen and then releasing them on unsuspecting plants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20bees.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin
The New York Times reports on a phenomenon that I have heard of locally -- that bees are finding homes in abandoned houses. Perhaps we have found a solution to the beat collapse. I should mention that one sentence suggests that many of the bees may be Africanized. If so, those bees may not be as welcome, because they would be illegal aliens from an undesirable continent. To make matters worse, people seem to be mixing these African bees with an American Queen and then releasing them on unsuspecting plants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20bees.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin
That Syrian-North Korean "Reactor"
Juan Cole at http://www.juancole.com today posted a letter from an "informed reader" that makes some rather telling points about the supposed nuclear reactor that North Korea was supposedly helping Syria build that was bombed out back in September by the Israelis, and which the US CIA now claims was a reactor, although maybe, not necessarily, one to be used for weapons, with some crucial parts missing. The letter on Juan Cole makes the following further points.
The reactor design was supposedly based on the DPRK's Yongbyon, itself an old British design, and a "hunk of junk." Yongbyon uses lots of graphite. None reported from the area around the blast or of any moving into Syria. No evidence of boron-carbide or cadmium alloys that could be used for control rods. No reports of any missing uranium yellowcake to be used for fuel rods. Furthermore, the US knew there was construction going on at this site since 2001, but never asked the IAEA to carry out an inspection, even thought it also had known for some time that Israel had been plotting to hit the site. Syria has been a signatory of the NPT since 1969 in good standing (unlike Israel) and presumably would have responded favorably to an invitation for an IAEA inspection, or if it had not done so, that would have been a red flag. But no such move was ever made, and now we never will be able to find out what was really going on there or if the North Koreans really were involved (the CIA presentation's evidence for their involvement was one photo of a known North Korean with an unnamed man claimed to be a Syrian at an unnamed location at an unkown date that was supposedly provided by the Israelis, as were most of the photos used in the CIA presentation). So, this looks like a lot of phoney manipulation for purposes that remain unclear: pressure on North Korea, pressure on Iran, pressure to sandbag or enhance some secret negotiations between Israel and Syria? All are possible.
The reactor design was supposedly based on the DPRK's Yongbyon, itself an old British design, and a "hunk of junk." Yongbyon uses lots of graphite. None reported from the area around the blast or of any moving into Syria. No evidence of boron-carbide or cadmium alloys that could be used for control rods. No reports of any missing uranium yellowcake to be used for fuel rods. Furthermore, the US knew there was construction going on at this site since 2001, but never asked the IAEA to carry out an inspection, even thought it also had known for some time that Israel had been plotting to hit the site. Syria has been a signatory of the NPT since 1969 in good standing (unlike Israel) and presumably would have responded favorably to an invitation for an IAEA inspection, or if it had not done so, that would have been a red flag. But no such move was ever made, and now we never will be able to find out what was really going on there or if the North Koreans really were involved (the CIA presentation's evidence for their involvement was one photo of a known North Korean with an unnamed man claimed to be a Syrian at an unnamed location at an unkown date that was supposedly provided by the Israelis, as were most of the photos used in the CIA presentation). So, this looks like a lot of phoney manipulation for purposes that remain unclear: pressure on North Korea, pressure on Iran, pressure to sandbag or enhance some secret negotiations between Israel and Syria? All are possible.
THE EFFECTS OF EARLY RETIREMENT ON YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
by the Sandwichman
This is just bizarre:
The idea that forcing elderly workers out of the labor market before the statutory age of retirement would provide jobs for the unemployed young has been for a long time widely accepted in several European countries, particularly in Belgium where indeed youth unemployment is particularly high both in absolute and in relative terms. For most economists and fortunately an increasing number of Belgian this view is based on the erroneous belief in a fixed amount of work. Economists call this allegedly widespread view the "lump of labor fallacy".
No, the rationales I've heard for early retirement usually had to do with workforce reduction. Since layoffs would primarily affect the most recently hired -- and among them younger people -- the option of early retirement would thus presumably provide an alternative to layoffs, not a bonanza of job openings. The second rationale I've heard, though, does have to do with opening places for advancement of younger staff who otherwise have nowhere to go on the promotion ladder. So this early retirement business was not about some "erroneous belief in a fixed amount of work" but about coping with a declining amount of jobs or advancement possibilities in particular organizations.
I don't know if early retirement is an effective method for reducing a workforce while avoiding layoffs of workers without seniority. I would assume it depends on how it is implemented. But what is the point of assigning it some other purported purpose and then finding it didn't achieve something it was never expected to do?
Admittedly, the authors did cite a Belgian program that existed from 1983 to 1991 and that allowed a 5-year relaxation of the retirement age, without reduction of benefits, if the employer commited to replacing the retiree with an unemployed person receiving unemployment insurance. Such a program sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare but it wouldn't assume a fixed amount of work; it would prescribe a tit for tat. Some anti-dismissal legislation also allowed firms to lay off older workers provided they hired unemployed people collecting benefits. Same story. With only the authors' second-hand account to go on, those provisions sound more like loopholes with fig leafs than they do legitimate job creation strategies.
Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work. Yet it is too convenient to yield the burden of the proof on the advocates of the lump of labor fallacy. In our study we want to show that preretirement to make room for the young didn't work.
This is even more bizarre: if those who make the claim offer no evidence... CASE DISMISSED. If there's no evidence for the claim, there's no point in showing that a policy that, as far as we know, WASN'T based on the supposed belief may or may not have worked in accordance with that non-existent belief. If there's no evidence that X killed Y, there's no point to proving (or disproving) that it was in self defense.
© 2008 International Monetary Fund WP/08/30
IMF Working Paper
Fiscal Affairs Department
The Effects of Early Retirement on Youth Unemployment: The Case of Belgium
Prepared by Alain Jousten, M. Lefèbvre, S. Perelman and P. Pestieau1
Authorized for distribution by Isaias Coelho
February 2008
This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.
Well, I'm glad to hear that. I wonder, though, if there isn't some minimum level of coherence that an argument should attain before being distributed by the International Monetary Fund? I mean, if those who make the claim offer no evidence, what is the point of proceeding (other than to lend spurious credence to a claim for which no evidence has been offered)?
To be perfectly clear, Sandwichman doesn't much like the idea of early retirement and doesn't see it as a feasible strategy for re-assigning jobs. But that lack of enthusiasm has nothing to do with anyone else's supposed assumptions about a fixed amount of work.
BUT the positive side to this dumb paper is the sentence, "Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work." That's a paraphrase of what the Sandwichman has been saying for 10 years! Some reviewer of the paper probably questioned the authors about evidence for the fallacy claim and they put that in as a "qualifying phrase" rather than throw out the whole paper just because it was based on a chimera.
This is just bizarre:
The idea that forcing elderly workers out of the labor market before the statutory age of retirement would provide jobs for the unemployed young has been for a long time widely accepted in several European countries, particularly in Belgium where indeed youth unemployment is particularly high both in absolute and in relative terms. For most economists and fortunately an increasing number of Belgian this view is based on the erroneous belief in a fixed amount of work. Economists call this allegedly widespread view the "lump of labor fallacy".
No, the rationales I've heard for early retirement usually had to do with workforce reduction. Since layoffs would primarily affect the most recently hired -- and among them younger people -- the option of early retirement would thus presumably provide an alternative to layoffs, not a bonanza of job openings. The second rationale I've heard, though, does have to do with opening places for advancement of younger staff who otherwise have nowhere to go on the promotion ladder. So this early retirement business was not about some "erroneous belief in a fixed amount of work" but about coping with a declining amount of jobs or advancement possibilities in particular organizations.
I don't know if early retirement is an effective method for reducing a workforce while avoiding layoffs of workers without seniority. I would assume it depends on how it is implemented. But what is the point of assigning it some other purported purpose and then finding it didn't achieve something it was never expected to do?
Admittedly, the authors did cite a Belgian program that existed from 1983 to 1991 and that allowed a 5-year relaxation of the retirement age, without reduction of benefits, if the employer commited to replacing the retiree with an unemployed person receiving unemployment insurance. Such a program sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare but it wouldn't assume a fixed amount of work; it would prescribe a tit for tat. Some anti-dismissal legislation also allowed firms to lay off older workers provided they hired unemployed people collecting benefits. Same story. With only the authors' second-hand account to go on, those provisions sound more like loopholes with fig leafs than they do legitimate job creation strategies.
Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work. Yet it is too convenient to yield the burden of the proof on the advocates of the lump of labor fallacy. In our study we want to show that preretirement to make room for the young didn't work.
This is even more bizarre: if those who make the claim offer no evidence... CASE DISMISSED. If there's no evidence for the claim, there's no point in showing that a policy that, as far as we know, WASN'T based on the supposed belief may or may not have worked in accordance with that non-existent belief. If there's no evidence that X killed Y, there's no point to proving (or disproving) that it was in self defense.
© 2008 International Monetary Fund WP/08/30
IMF Working Paper
Fiscal Affairs Department
The Effects of Early Retirement on Youth Unemployment: The Case of Belgium
Prepared by Alain Jousten, M. Lefèbvre, S. Perelman and P. Pestieau1
Authorized for distribution by Isaias Coelho
February 2008
This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.
Well, I'm glad to hear that. I wonder, though, if there isn't some minimum level of coherence that an argument should attain before being distributed by the International Monetary Fund? I mean, if those who make the claim offer no evidence, what is the point of proceeding (other than to lend spurious credence to a claim for which no evidence has been offered)?
To be perfectly clear, Sandwichman doesn't much like the idea of early retirement and doesn't see it as a feasible strategy for re-assigning jobs. But that lack of enthusiasm has nothing to do with anyone else's supposed assumptions about a fixed amount of work.
BUT the positive side to this dumb paper is the sentence, "Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work." That's a paraphrase of what the Sandwichman has been saying for 10 years! Some reviewer of the paper probably questioned the authors about evidence for the fallacy claim and they put that in as a "qualifying phrase" rather than throw out the whole paper just because it was based on a chimera.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Genetic Engineering and Invasive Species
What follows is not an economic question. I have no expertise in genetic engineering, though I am a skeptic, worried about possible consequences -- and even more worried about corporations is having property rights in such matters. Here is the background to my question:
They are very successful breeders. Each pair of cane toads can lay 33,000 eggs per spawning (some published references estimate they produce as much as 60,000 eggs!). They are also an ecological disaster.
My question is, do we have anything to learn from the experience with the introduction of invasive species?
Friday, April 25, 2008
Dems Cave on Guns
Lost in the huffing and puffing over Obama's "bittergate" remarks on gun owners is the fact that he and the rest of the leading Dems have completely caved on the issue of gun control, much as they did on the death penalty after the disastrous 1988 prez race of Dukakis. After that Dem prez candidates had to show they could execute the young and mentally ill to get elected. Now there will be no more pushing for assault weapons bans, handgun restrictions, heightened gun registration, or anything else. West Virginia and other states that used to go Dem but went for Bush need to be fought for, and since Kerry's defeat it is clear that kowtowing to the NRA has been an aim of the Dems. (And, ironically, Kerry was a card-carrying NRA member and longtime hunting gun owner, but when he showed up shortly before the election in Ohio in a frou-frou designer hunting outfit, he might as well have bowled a gutter ball in Altoona and denounced xenophobia by rural religious gun nuts.)
So, in the awful ABC debate that also saw Hillary ready to defend the entire Middle East against Iran (or maybe Syria?), Obama agreed with the NRA position on the Second Amendment as it relates to the case before the Supreme Court about D.C.'s gun ownership restrictions. He said it guarantees an individual right to own guns, against the traditional interpretation that the Second Amendment is about a "well-regulated militia." In any case, even the slaughter at Virginia Tech last year has not moved the Dems (and certainly not blind duck Hillary) to push for what Hillary's husband got, restrictions on the most extreme of assault weapons. By my calculation if the madman at Virginia Tech had only had guns allowed during the 1990s, he would have been able to kill only about a third fewer than he did because of the fewer rounds of shots one can get off with those allowed guns. But, we cannot pursue such matters any more. The NRA and the gun nuts must be assuaged, even though I fear that is hopeless for Obama now.
So, in the awful ABC debate that also saw Hillary ready to defend the entire Middle East against Iran (or maybe Syria?), Obama agreed with the NRA position on the Second Amendment as it relates to the case before the Supreme Court about D.C.'s gun ownership restrictions. He said it guarantees an individual right to own guns, against the traditional interpretation that the Second Amendment is about a "well-regulated militia." In any case, even the slaughter at Virginia Tech last year has not moved the Dems (and certainly not blind duck Hillary) to push for what Hillary's husband got, restrictions on the most extreme of assault weapons. By my calculation if the madman at Virginia Tech had only had guns allowed during the 1990s, he would have been able to kill only about a third fewer than he did because of the fewer rounds of shots one can get off with those allowed guns. But, we cannot pursue such matters any more. The NRA and the gun nuts must be assuaged, even though I fear that is hopeless for Obama now.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
THE $10,000 "LUMP-SUM" CHALLENGE
by the Sandwichman
I've been thinking about an offer I made some three-and-a-half years ago, in October 2004, on MaxSpeak. At the time, a report on economic growth had just been presented to the French Finance Minister, Sarkozy, by Michel Camdessus, former head of the International Monetary Fund, in which it was alleged that advocates of reduced working time believe there is only a fixed amount of work to be done. That was, of course, the proverbial lump-of-labor fallacy claim, which I had disemboweled in an article published several years earlier. I offered $5,000 to anyone who could refute my refutation of the abominable strawman.
Of course there were no takers. But that could easily have been because I would have been the judge of whether any rebuttal was successful. Who could have trusted that my verdict would be impartial? After more thought, I've decided to raise the award to $10,000 and to establish an adjudication process untouched by Sandwichman hands.
So here's the plan:
In the meanwhile, I've had a second article, "Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor" published in the Review of Social Economy. That article was motivated by irritation at the Camdessus report and several other dewy-eyed obeisances to the mythical fallacy claim, including one by the managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Timothy Taylor (not in the JEP, though).
To qualify for the $10,000 prize, the candidate would need to write an article refuting the main conclusions of my September 2007 article and have it accepted for publication, as a peer-reviewed article, in one of the 30 top-ranked economics journals. Now, admittedly, that's a pretty tall order, so I would also offer a $1,000 consolation prize for a refutation published in one of the economics journals ranked 31-159. The point is that the so-called "best-known fallacy in economics" should be worthy of a publishable peer-reviewed full-length explication or it's bullshit. I say it's crap. I've shown it to be crap. And I'll put my money on it that it's crap.
I plan to formally announce the contest on May 1.
I've been thinking about an offer I made some three-and-a-half years ago, in October 2004, on MaxSpeak. At the time, a report on economic growth had just been presented to the French Finance Minister, Sarkozy, by Michel Camdessus, former head of the International Monetary Fund, in which it was alleged that advocates of reduced working time believe there is only a fixed amount of work to be done. That was, of course, the proverbial lump-of-labor fallacy claim, which I had disemboweled in an article published several years earlier. I offered $5,000 to anyone who could refute my refutation of the abominable strawman.
Of course there were no takers. But that could easily have been because I would have been the judge of whether any rebuttal was successful. Who could have trusted that my verdict would be impartial? After more thought, I've decided to raise the award to $10,000 and to establish an adjudication process untouched by Sandwichman hands.
So here's the plan:
In the meanwhile, I've had a second article, "Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor" published in the Review of Social Economy. That article was motivated by irritation at the Camdessus report and several other dewy-eyed obeisances to the mythical fallacy claim, including one by the managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Timothy Taylor (not in the JEP, though).
To qualify for the $10,000 prize, the candidate would need to write an article refuting the main conclusions of my September 2007 article and have it accepted for publication, as a peer-reviewed article, in one of the 30 top-ranked economics journals. Now, admittedly, that's a pretty tall order, so I would also offer a $1,000 consolation prize for a refutation published in one of the economics journals ranked 31-159. The point is that the so-called "best-known fallacy in economics" should be worthy of a publishable peer-reviewed full-length explication or it's bullshit. I say it's crap. I've shown it to be crap. And I'll put my money on it that it's crap.
I plan to formally announce the contest on May 1.
FAUSTIAN ECONOMICS AND LIMITS
by the Sandwichman
Wendell Berry has an essay in the May Harper's Magazine, "Faustian Economics: Hell hath no limits." The concluding paragraph reads, in part:
"Whichever way we turn, from now on, we are going to find a limit beyond which there will be no more. To hit these limits at top speed is not a rational choice. To start slowing down, with the idea of avoiding catastrophe, is a rational choice, and a viable one if we can recover the necessary political sanity."
I glanced at the title and on the way home, before reading Berry's essay, was thinking about those limits Hell (and growth economics) hath none of. Closest to home for me is the "only so much work to go 'round" of the infamous lump-of-labor fallacy. "Sharing the work" has always only one side of an equation the other side of which was limiting the hours of labor. English factory inspector, R.J. Saunders, observed in 1848, "Further steps toward a reformation of society can never be carried out with any hope of success, unless the hours of labour be limited, and the prescribed limit strictly enforced.
For some reason, something that an English factory inspector had the temerity to suggest 160 years ago, when the condition of the working class left a whole lot to be desired, is something most Americans know they "just can't afford" today. I don't get it. Unless it's a case of that knowledge without wisdom, which, to quote Berry paraphrasing John Milton's Archangel Raphael in Paradise Lost. "is not worth a fart..."
Wendell Berry has an essay in the May Harper's Magazine, "Faustian Economics: Hell hath no limits." The concluding paragraph reads, in part:
"Whichever way we turn, from now on, we are going to find a limit beyond which there will be no more. To hit these limits at top speed is not a rational choice. To start slowing down, with the idea of avoiding catastrophe, is a rational choice, and a viable one if we can recover the necessary political sanity."
I glanced at the title and on the way home, before reading Berry's essay, was thinking about those limits Hell (and growth economics) hath none of. Closest to home for me is the "only so much work to go 'round" of the infamous lump-of-labor fallacy. "Sharing the work" has always only one side of an equation the other side of which was limiting the hours of labor. English factory inspector, R.J. Saunders, observed in 1848, "Further steps toward a reformation of society can never be carried out with any hope of success, unless the hours of labour be limited, and the prescribed limit strictly enforced.
For some reason, something that an English factory inspector had the temerity to suggest 160 years ago, when the condition of the working class left a whole lot to be desired, is something most Americans know they "just can't afford" today. I don't get it. Unless it's a case of that knowledge without wisdom, which, to quote Berry paraphrasing John Milton's Archangel Raphael in Paradise Lost. "is not worth a fart..."
Back on the Carbon Trail
I’ve started working on a project related to the Western Climate Initiative, a process underway between seven US states and two Canadian provinces to put this scenic portion of the planet on a carbon budget. Because of this, I’ll be posting more frequently on topics related to climate change and how to limit it. Right now, I’m thinking of the decision to commit the WCI as a whole to auctioning only a portion, between 25 and 75%, of the carbon permits they intend to issue, distributing the rest gratis. Isn’t it generous to be handing out free money to the most polluting businesses?
Of course, it’s difficult for the general public to see just what’s going on. To remedy this, I propose the following: auction all the permits. Then take some of the money, between 75 and 25%, and deliver it to the doorstep of firms that emitted the most carbon in the past, preferably in suitcases with unmarked bills.
Maybe if you put the whole operation on YouTube people would get the point.
Of course, it’s difficult for the general public to see just what’s going on. To remedy this, I propose the following: auction all the permits. Then take some of the money, between 75 and 25%, and deliver it to the doorstep of firms that emitted the most carbon in the past, preferably in suitcases with unmarked bills.
Maybe if you put the whole operation on YouTube people would get the point.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The PA Catholic white working class vote
I know something about this demographic; they are my relatives: my parents are both Irish catholics from Philadelphia, both first-generation college and thus able to get out. And I'll tell you something about the people they left behind: they're not voting overwhelmingly for Hillary becuse they like her policy ideas. They're voting for her because she's white.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Joy of Crises: My Short Cathartic Outburst
How is it that the bastards that run the country are able to turn their mistakes into opportunities? Energy shortages demand the elimination of environmental restrictions. Food shortages demand more GE crops. The housing crisis requires tax cuts for corporations.
Nothing for the people who are being plowed under by the crisis. All we have to show for our troubles is Obama and Hillary.
Nothing for the people who are being plowed under by the crisis. All we have to show for our troubles is Obama and Hillary.
The Real Problem with the Last Dem Debate: Iran
I would have signed that letter complaining about the questions asked by ABC's Gibson and Stephanopolous if someone had asked me to. However, they may have done Obama a favor in the end by giving him a dry run with this sort of trivial stuff, which the Republicans will surely hit him on hard in the general election (although it is my understanding that John McCain does not wear flag lapel pins much more than Obama does, although clearly he can get away with that better than Obama).
No, the much bigger problem with the debate was Stephanopolous asserting (in contrast with the US NIE finding unanimously agreed to by all 18 US intel agencies) that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and asking the Dem candidates what they would do about it. Neither called him on what garbage this assertion is, especially in light of the fatwa against nuclear weaons by Vilayat-el-faqih and Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military, Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i. Instead they both declared how much they opposed this by Iran and supported defending Israel on the matter, although Hillary went much further than Obama, proposing a defense shield over all of the Middle East, something beyond anything advocated by either Bush or McCain. I observe that about the only media people to note the extreme nature of this declaration were Rachel Maddow and Patrick Buchanan on Olberman's show. This is far more appalling and serious than all the dreck posed in the first 45 minutes.
No, the much bigger problem with the debate was Stephanopolous asserting (in contrast with the US NIE finding unanimously agreed to by all 18 US intel agencies) that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and asking the Dem candidates what they would do about it. Neither called him on what garbage this assertion is, especially in light of the fatwa against nuclear weaons by Vilayat-el-faqih and Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military, Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i. Instead they both declared how much they opposed this by Iran and supported defending Israel on the matter, although Hillary went much further than Obama, proposing a defense shield over all of the Middle East, something beyond anything advocated by either Bush or McCain. I observe that about the only media people to note the extreme nature of this declaration were Rachel Maddow and Patrick Buchanan on Olberman's show. This is far more appalling and serious than all the dreck posed in the first 45 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)