The commentariat and many politicians have been unhappy about the prospect of war with Iran, while almost universally they have repeated the mantra that "Of course there is a problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons," somewhat similar to the mantras about social security being "in crisis" that are also widely repeated. I have for some time denied that there was an Iranians nuclear weapons program, on this blog, on Maxspeak, and in comments elsewhere, often to derision and skepticism.
The reason for my argument I learned from Juan Cole, something barely reported on in the US media, and usually to immediately stated skeptical addenda. This was that on August 9, 2005, Head of State, Supreme Jurisprudent and leader of Iranian Shi'i Muslims, and Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military, Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, while supporting a civilian nuclear power program. People who claimed that President Ahmadinejad was in charge were warmongering hysterics, ignorant of their real relationship, and that Ahmadinejad's party got whomped in the last local elections. Although the US media and politicians did not do so, this fatwa was and is to be taken seriously, and it is now clear that it was issued in the wake of the late 2003 cessation of what had been an active nuclear weapons program, almost certainly to cement in that decision.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
NAFTA Suits Against Governments
This article supports the NAFTA clause that lets foreign firms sue the US governments for redress of trade wrongs. The story is especially interesting because it shows how down and out people may enjoy punishing corporations. The author obviously sympathizes with the Canadian firm, but the story of the trial is entertaining. The Canadian firm was totally outlawyered and maybe even treated unfairly, but if it wins, the precedent will be terribly destructive.
"Nafta Meets the American Torts Process: O'Keefe V. Loewen."
George Mason Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69-98, Fall 2000
Contact: MICHAEL I. KRAUSS
George Mason University School of Law
Email: mkrauss@gmu.edu
http://ssrn.com/abstract=271265
ABSTRACT: The systematic bias against out-of-state defendants in American tort law is acutely illustrated in the important Mississippi case, O'Keefe v Loewen. This case, which resulted in the bankruptcy of the Canadian defendant, has itself become an international cause celebre because of the NAFTA challenge it has spawned. In this article, the factual backdrop of the case is described, the NAFTA challenge analyzed, and the implications of the challenge for tort reform are discussed.
"Nafta Meets the American Torts Process: O'Keefe V. Loewen."
George Mason Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69-98, Fall 2000
Contact: MICHAEL I. KRAUSS
George Mason University School of Law
Email: mkrauss@gmu.edu
http://ssrn.com/abstract=271265
ABSTRACT: The systematic bias against out-of-state defendants in American tort law is acutely illustrated in the important Mississippi case, O'Keefe v Loewen. This case, which resulted in the bankruptcy of the Canadian defendant, has itself become an international cause celebre because of the NAFTA challenge it has spawned. In this article, the factual backdrop of the case is described, the NAFTA challenge analyzed, and the implications of the challenge for tort reform are discussed.
Bush and Cheney Blocked NIE Report on Iran Nukes for Over a Year
Gareth Porter reports that the NIE had the news about no Iranian nuclear weapons program over a year ago in 2006, but that Cheney and Bush fought to have it revised and kept it suppressed until after they could get summary statements of particular findings blocked in late October this year (which allows for unexamined claims of previous nuke weapons programs to remain in the NIE), being unable to shake the findings of the more independent members of the intelligence community. Apparently John Negroponte was forced out as Director of National Intelligence last year because he refused to go along with this fraudulent scheming by Bush and Cheney, and the earlier NIE also disagreed with the claim that Iran was arming Shi'i militants in Iraq.
Porter's report can be accessed at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978. Juan Cole today also provides lots of interesting and relevant related material on this shocking (if not ultimately surprising) set of lies and manipulations by Bush and Cheney.
Porter's report can be accessed at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978. Juan Cole today also provides lots of interesting and relevant related material on this shocking (if not ultimately surprising) set of lies and manipulations by Bush and Cheney.
On the proper way to learn economics
vi: "We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things."
Posted outside the mathematics reading room, Tromse University
Oksendal, B., 2007. Stochastic Differential Equations (New York: Springer).
Posted outside the mathematics reading room, Tromse University
Oksendal, B., 2007. Stochastic Differential Equations (New York: Springer).
Bush Lies About Iranian Nukes
President Bush lied in his press conference just over a half an hour ago. He stated that he first learned that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program just last week. However, the front page story on the Washington Post reports that he first learned of it months ago, most particularly, PRIOR to his incendiary remark about how if Iran got a nuclear weapon, this could lead to World War III.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The Elite Universities Play Pacman with the Educational System
Continuing with the discussion of elite universities, Business Week reports on the difference between elite universities and the rest. With massive endowments and donations from the wealthy, these schools can poach the most promising or famous faculty with bloated salaries, while Stanford can provide a nice stable for students to keep their horses and Princeton can build a luxurious mansion/dorm. At the same time, public universities fall further behind.
"It's only fitting that Whitman College, Princeton's new student residence, is named for eBay CEO Meg Whitman, because it's a billionaire's mansion in the form of a dorm. After Whitman (Class of '77) pledged $30 million, administrators tore up their budget and gave architect Demetri Porphyrios virtual carte blanche. Each student room has triple-glazed mahogany casement windows made of leaded glass. The dining hall boasts a 35-foot ceiling gabled in oak and a "state of the art servery." By the time the 10-building complex in the Collegiate Gothic style opened in August, it had cost Princeton $136 million, or $272,000 for each of the 500 undergraduates who will live there."
"Whitman College's extravagance epitomizes the fabulous prosperity of America's top tier of private universities. Princeton and its "Ivy Plus" peers (the seven other members of the Ivy League, plus Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology) have long flourished as elite institutions, both socially and academically."
"The gilding of the Ivies offers a striking manifestation of the contemporary American tendency of the rich to get much richer."
"Fancifying campus living isn't the half of it. The Ivy Plus schools also are investing huge sums to enlarge their central role in research. Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania are developing whole new science-centric campuses, and Yale just acquired one ready-made, buying a 30-building complex from pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The schools are adding more top-notch faculty members and shrinking class sizes. And they are increasing financial aid outlays for lower-income students who otherwise couldn't afford to attend."
"... the increasingly plush Ivy Plus model casts into sharp relief the travails of America's public institutions of higher learning, which educate 75% of the country's college students. While the Ivies, which account for less than 1% of the total, lift their spending into the stratosphere, many public colleges and universities are struggling to cope with rising enrollments in an era when most states are devoting a dwindling share of their budgets to higher ed. "Policymakers seem to have concluded that flat funding is all that public higher education can expect from the state," says Ronald G. Ehrenberg, an economist who directs Cornell University's Higher Education Research Institute."
"Even the most prestigious of public universities are increasingly hard-pressed to repulse richly financed Ivy Plus raiding sorties seeking to steal distinguished faculty members and their research grants. Public schools are being drained for the benefit of the ultra-elite, says Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. "The further you project into the future, the more frightening it becomes"."
"It's unlikely that more money has ever been lavished on the education of so few. Even as Ivy Plus budgets have spiraled upward, the schools' enrollments have barely budged. From the 1997-98 academic year through 2006-07, graduate enrollment at the 10 institutions inched up by 10%, to 55,708, while the number of undergraduates actually fell by 1.4%, to 68,492."
"Meanwhile, the wealth gap between the Ivies and everyone else has never been wider. The $5.7 billion in investment gains generated by Harvard's endowment for the year that ended June 30 exceeded the total endowment assets of all but six U.S. universities, five of which were Ivy Plus: Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, and Columbia. Ivy dominance extends to fund-raising. A mere 10 schools accounted for half the growth in donations to all U.S. colleges and universities last year. All of the top five on the list were Ivies, led by Stanford, which set a record for higher education in 2006, collecting $911 million in gifts."
"During 2006-07, the Ivy "Big Three"-Harvard, Yale, and Princeton-collectively spent $6.5 billion on operations, up over 100% from a decade ago. This was more than double the 41% average budget increase for all U.S. colleges and universities over this period and quadruple the 26% rise in the consumer price index. The Big Three sank a further $1.2 billion into new construction and other capital spending last year. "Yale is wealthier now, so we can add resources in almost every dimension," says its president, Richard C. Levin."
"Stanford spent $4 million to restore the Red Barn, a Victorian-era structure that's part of the university's equestrian center and now provides a place for undergraduates to house their own horses at a cost of $500 a month. Seven employees groom and feed the steeds and clean their stalls."
"The $106,496 average salary earned by full professors at PhD-granting public universities in 2006-07 amounted to just 78% of what their counterparts earned at private universities, according to the American Association of University Professors. This figure was 91% in 1980-81."
"One of the many academic areas in which Yale has brought its financial muscle to bear is physics, which until recently was chaired by Ramamurti Shankar. "Yale told us: Let's go after who you want. We will make it happen,'" says Shankar, who is particularly proud of having bested several other top private schools to lure the quantum mechanics expert Steven M. Girvin away from Indiana University, a Big Ten public stalwart. "There was a huge war," Shankar says. "Everybody wanted him." Shankar declines to disclose the price he paid for Girvin in 2002, but says that the going annual rate today for theoreticians of his caliber is $400,000 to $600,000, which includes salary and research support. This is for an assistant professor, the level at which Yale does most of its hiring. The price tag for top experimentalists, who have far more extensive laboratory needs, is $1.5 million to $2 million, according to Shankar, who remains on the Yale faculty."
"To house their enlarged faculties, the Ivies have turned their campuses into continuous construction zones. Each now boasts a new science facility that is its most expensive structure ever. At Stanford, the distinction belongs to the $140 million "Bio-X" building. Designed by the famed British architect Norman Foster, the glass-walled center provides offices and labs for 30 faculty members whose research combines cutting-edge subspecialties in biology and medicine. Over the next few years, says Stanford President John L. Hennessy, the school plans to invest an additional $600 million to put up five more buildings at an astronomical cost of $800 per square foot on average. Under President Amy Gutmann, Penn is launching its expansion onto 24 acres adjoining its Philadelphia campus by building three high-tech medical research facilities at a total cost of $682 million. Harvard is beginning work on a $1 billion complex that includes a new stem cell institute, the first stage of a planned 200-acre adjunct campus in Allston, Mass."
"The research productivity of elite private universities is roughly twice that of their public counterparts, according to a recent study of America's 102 top research universities by economists James D. Adams and J. Roger Clemmons. The study measured volume of academic papers and citations during 1981-99. "You are going to have an edge in research if you have great students, but not too many students; freedom from bureaucratic and political meddling; and generous alums who are more interested in academics than the football program," says Adams, acting head of economics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a private college in Troy, N.Y."
Bianco, Anthony. 2007. "The Dangerous Wealth of the Ivy League." Business Week (29 November).
"It's only fitting that Whitman College, Princeton's new student residence, is named for eBay CEO Meg Whitman, because it's a billionaire's mansion in the form of a dorm. After Whitman (Class of '77) pledged $30 million, administrators tore up their budget and gave architect Demetri Porphyrios virtual carte blanche. Each student room has triple-glazed mahogany casement windows made of leaded glass. The dining hall boasts a 35-foot ceiling gabled in oak and a "state of the art servery." By the time the 10-building complex in the Collegiate Gothic style opened in August, it had cost Princeton $136 million, or $272,000 for each of the 500 undergraduates who will live there."
"Whitman College's extravagance epitomizes the fabulous prosperity of America's top tier of private universities. Princeton and its "Ivy Plus" peers (the seven other members of the Ivy League, plus Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology) have long flourished as elite institutions, both socially and academically."
"The gilding of the Ivies offers a striking manifestation of the contemporary American tendency of the rich to get much richer."
"Fancifying campus living isn't the half of it. The Ivy Plus schools also are investing huge sums to enlarge their central role in research. Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania are developing whole new science-centric campuses, and Yale just acquired one ready-made, buying a 30-building complex from pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The schools are adding more top-notch faculty members and shrinking class sizes. And they are increasing financial aid outlays for lower-income students who otherwise couldn't afford to attend."
"... the increasingly plush Ivy Plus model casts into sharp relief the travails of America's public institutions of higher learning, which educate 75% of the country's college students. While the Ivies, which account for less than 1% of the total, lift their spending into the stratosphere, many public colleges and universities are struggling to cope with rising enrollments in an era when most states are devoting a dwindling share of their budgets to higher ed. "Policymakers seem to have concluded that flat funding is all that public higher education can expect from the state," says Ronald G. Ehrenberg, an economist who directs Cornell University's Higher Education Research Institute."
"Even the most prestigious of public universities are increasingly hard-pressed to repulse richly financed Ivy Plus raiding sorties seeking to steal distinguished faculty members and their research grants. Public schools are being drained for the benefit of the ultra-elite, says Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. "The further you project into the future, the more frightening it becomes"."
"It's unlikely that more money has ever been lavished on the education of so few. Even as Ivy Plus budgets have spiraled upward, the schools' enrollments have barely budged. From the 1997-98 academic year through 2006-07, graduate enrollment at the 10 institutions inched up by 10%, to 55,708, while the number of undergraduates actually fell by 1.4%, to 68,492."
"Meanwhile, the wealth gap between the Ivies and everyone else has never been wider. The $5.7 billion in investment gains generated by Harvard's endowment for the year that ended June 30 exceeded the total endowment assets of all but six U.S. universities, five of which were Ivy Plus: Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, and Columbia. Ivy dominance extends to fund-raising. A mere 10 schools accounted for half the growth in donations to all U.S. colleges and universities last year. All of the top five on the list were Ivies, led by Stanford, which set a record for higher education in 2006, collecting $911 million in gifts."
"During 2006-07, the Ivy "Big Three"-Harvard, Yale, and Princeton-collectively spent $6.5 billion on operations, up over 100% from a decade ago. This was more than double the 41% average budget increase for all U.S. colleges and universities over this period and quadruple the 26% rise in the consumer price index. The Big Three sank a further $1.2 billion into new construction and other capital spending last year. "Yale is wealthier now, so we can add resources in almost every dimension," says its president, Richard C. Levin."
"Stanford spent $4 million to restore the Red Barn, a Victorian-era structure that's part of the university's equestrian center and now provides a place for undergraduates to house their own horses at a cost of $500 a month. Seven employees groom and feed the steeds and clean their stalls."
"The $106,496 average salary earned by full professors at PhD-granting public universities in 2006-07 amounted to just 78% of what their counterparts earned at private universities, according to the American Association of University Professors. This figure was 91% in 1980-81."
"One of the many academic areas in which Yale has brought its financial muscle to bear is physics, which until recently was chaired by Ramamurti Shankar. "Yale told us: Let's go after who you want. We will make it happen,'" says Shankar, who is particularly proud of having bested several other top private schools to lure the quantum mechanics expert Steven M. Girvin away from Indiana University, a Big Ten public stalwart. "There was a huge war," Shankar says. "Everybody wanted him." Shankar declines to disclose the price he paid for Girvin in 2002, but says that the going annual rate today for theoreticians of his caliber is $400,000 to $600,000, which includes salary and research support. This is for an assistant professor, the level at which Yale does most of its hiring. The price tag for top experimentalists, who have far more extensive laboratory needs, is $1.5 million to $2 million, according to Shankar, who remains on the Yale faculty."
"To house their enlarged faculties, the Ivies have turned their campuses into continuous construction zones. Each now boasts a new science facility that is its most expensive structure ever. At Stanford, the distinction belongs to the $140 million "Bio-X" building. Designed by the famed British architect Norman Foster, the glass-walled center provides offices and labs for 30 faculty members whose research combines cutting-edge subspecialties in biology and medicine. Over the next few years, says Stanford President John L. Hennessy, the school plans to invest an additional $600 million to put up five more buildings at an astronomical cost of $800 per square foot on average. Under President Amy Gutmann, Penn is launching its expansion onto 24 acres adjoining its Philadelphia campus by building three high-tech medical research facilities at a total cost of $682 million. Harvard is beginning work on a $1 billion complex that includes a new stem cell institute, the first stage of a planned 200-acre adjunct campus in Allston, Mass."
"The research productivity of elite private universities is roughly twice that of their public counterparts, according to a recent study of America's 102 top research universities by economists James D. Adams and J. Roger Clemmons. The study measured volume of academic papers and citations during 1981-99. "You are going to have an edge in research if you have great students, but not too many students; freedom from bureaucratic and political meddling; and generous alums who are more interested in academics than the football program," says Adams, acting head of economics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a private college in Troy, N.Y."
Bianco, Anthony. 2007. "The Dangerous Wealth of the Ivy League." Business Week (29 November).
National Debt Grows $1 Million a Minute
A lefty friend of mine sent me the following article [and I'm testing to see if I can finally get the formatting right on Econospeak messages].
National Debt Grows $1 Million a Minute
By TOM RAUM, AP
One problem we have on the left is that we like the idea of crisis so much that we sometimes fall under the influence on non-crises that are disguised as crises. This is one of them.
The national debt is $9.13 trillion, about $30,000 for every person in the U.S. The total is worrisome because interest payments on the debt strain government resources -- and things could get worse if the economy slows down, as some economists predict.
It should NOT be called the "national" debt. It's the _government's_debt and about 75% of it is owed to people in the U.S. So 75% percent of it should be considered part of the nation's assets. If you don't see this, please e-mail me and I will give you my home address -- so you can mail me your government bonds. If they're such a burden, I'll take them off your hands.
The interest payments on the _government's_ debt do represent a problem in the government's budget. (But remember that about 75% are paid to people inside the U.S.!) The problem of interest payments is not a problem in the short run, even if a recession hits, because the Federal government can and does run deficits -- it does not have to balance its budget. Smart economists and politicians don't force a budget balance in a recession, since they know it makes matters worse.
Over the long haul, the economy grows, generating more & more tax revenues for the government. These (along with tax hikes or spending cuts) allow the government to pay interest. The problem occurs only if the government debt grows _faster_ than the economy for several years, so that the government debt to GDP ratio rises. But last time I looked, the government debt was not at its previous peak (67% of GDP in 1996, for gross debt). It was far below its previous peak (122% of GDP) at the end of WW2. It's like 66% now. Note that the US economy did very well during the 1950s, despite the debts left over from WW2.
The government's debt is going to be more of a problem in the future if the medical-cost inflation problem isn't solved (because the Federal government's Medicare costs rise with those of the private sector), if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are not allowed to lapse, if the Iraq war is allowed to continue and grow, and if the "alternative minimum tax" problem (which is pushing more and more middle-class people into rich-people tax brackets)is fixed without compensating tax hikes.
Even so, the government's deficit would not be a problem if the borrowing went to do something productive, i.e., that promotes the growth of the economy. Examples include fixing New Orleans and investing in public health and education. Of course, the government squandered the borrowed money on tax cuts for the administration's rich friends, and the effort to conquer Iraq.
Instead of worrying about the government's debt, worry about:
1. the way the government has wasted its borrowings (see above).
2. the severe debt loads that private consumers have -- and they, unlike the US government, are likely to go bankrupt.
3. the increasing deficits of state and local governments, most of which are forced by law to balance their budgets.
4. the deficit of services that are needed but the government does not provide.
5. global warming.
6. etc.
--
Jim Devine
National Debt Grows $1 Million a Minute
By TOM RAUM, AP
WASHINGTON (Dec. 3) - Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day - or nearly $1 million a minute.
One problem we have on the left is that we like the idea of crisis so much that we sometimes fall under the influence on non-crises that are disguised as crises. This is one of them.
The national debt is $9.13 trillion, about $30,000 for every person in the U.S. The total is worrisome because interest payments on the debt strain government resources -- and things could get worse if the economy slows down, as some economists predict.
It should NOT be called the "national" debt. It's the _government's_debt and about 75% of it is owed to people in the U.S. So 75% percent of it should be considered part of the nation's assets. If you don't see this, please e-mail me and I will give you my home address -- so you can mail me your government bonds. If they're such a burden, I'll take them off your hands.
The interest payments on the _government's_ debt do represent a problem in the government's budget. (But remember that about 75% are paid to people inside the U.S.!) The problem of interest payments is not a problem in the short run, even if a recession hits, because the Federal government can and does run deficits -- it does not have to balance its budget. Smart economists and politicians don't force a budget balance in a recession, since they know it makes matters worse.
Over the long haul, the economy grows, generating more & more tax revenues for the government. These (along with tax hikes or spending cuts) allow the government to pay interest. The problem occurs only if the government debt grows _faster_ than the economy for several years, so that the government debt to GDP ratio rises. But last time I looked, the government debt was not at its previous peak (67% of GDP in 1996, for gross debt). It was far below its previous peak (122% of GDP) at the end of WW2. It's like 66% now. Note that the US economy did very well during the 1950s, despite the debts left over from WW2.
The government's debt is going to be more of a problem in the future if the medical-cost inflation problem isn't solved (because the Federal government's Medicare costs rise with those of the private sector), if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are not allowed to lapse, if the Iraq war is allowed to continue and grow, and if the "alternative minimum tax" problem (which is pushing more and more middle-class people into rich-people tax brackets)is fixed without compensating tax hikes.
Even so, the government's deficit would not be a problem if the borrowing went to do something productive, i.e., that promotes the growth of the economy. Examples include fixing New Orleans and investing in public health and education. Of course, the government squandered the borrowed money on tax cuts for the administration's rich friends, and the effort to conquer Iraq.
Instead of worrying about the government's debt, worry about:
1. the way the government has wasted its borrowings (see above).
2. the severe debt loads that private consumers have -- and they, unlike the US government, are likely to go bankrupt.
3. the increasing deficits of state and local governments, most of which are forced by law to balance their budgets.
4. the deficit of services that are needed but the government does not provide.
5. global warming.
6. etc.
--
Jim Devine
Has Obama Pulled Back on his Attack on Social Security?
Watching the news I have seen nothing out of Obama lately on social security, and a quick googling shows nothing visible since mid-November, when he went after Hillary on the question, only to get Krugman and a lot of the rest of us on his case. Did he learn to lay low on this, or even maybe change his mind? Or is he still hoping to pander to ignorant youths who think that the probability of seeing a UFO is greater than receiving a social security check? Krugman was on his case on Nov. 30 about the incompleteness of his health care proposal coverage of the population, and compared it to his blunder on social security. All of this has been too bad, given his more reasonable record and position on foreign policy than Hillary or Edwards, if not Richardson.
Again, for the record, anyone who wants to see how totally ignorant American youth is, in this case undergrad econ majors, check out the survey I did with three colleagues up on my website at http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb, entitled "Student Ignorance about Social Security." A very serious question is just how did we get into such a situation where American youth has been so badly misled into such extreme and pathetic ignorance on this important issue.?
Again, for the record, anyone who wants to see how totally ignorant American youth is, in this case undergrad econ majors, check out the survey I did with three colleagues up on my website at http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb, entitled "Student Ignorance about Social Security." A very serious question is just how did we get into such a situation where American youth has been so badly misled into such extreme and pathetic ignorance on this important issue.?
Unsolicited Advice for the Bali Brigades
The eco-elite have descended on Bali to devise a successor regime to the Kyoto Protocol. I think most of them are asking the wrong questions and are likely to come up with the wrong answers.
To begin with, we should be clear on what the limitations of Kyoto are. They are not primarily the weak targets that were set for carbon reduction, nor were they the forbearance shown to developing countries. Why not?
The targets proved not to matter because they have not been met. In fact, there is no way at present to force a country to act decisively on curbing greenhouse gases, so discussion of specific targets is a sideshow. In any case, no country should pull back from taking aggressive action because an international treaty sets the bar several notches lower.
For the same reason, it was never a problem that Kyoto exempted low income countries from the expectations put on the industrialized world. Aside from the question of equity – climate change is driven by accumulated emissions, most of which came from us and not them – there is no way to force a country like China or India to make its development conditional on reaching carbon goals.
The one thing Kyoto did that “worked” shouldn’t have, carbon offsets. The evidence shows that much of the offsets actually offset nothing at all: they are fictitious carbon reductions. And others take money to mitigate one environmental hazard by creating another, like tree plantations that replace living forests.
So the first thing an enlightened eco-diplomat in Bali should understand is that Kyoto should not be fixed; it should be scrapped. I appreciate its symbolic value, but surely the time for symbolism is past.
What to do then? The starting point for reasonable negotiation is the awareness that the majority of the world’s people will be direct financial beneficiaries of controlling climate change, if the job is done properly. Any country that sets up a system of carbon permits, auctions them off and rebates the money to its citizens on a per capita basis will find that most will come out ahead. This is because climate-bashing consumption is disproportionately done by the rich. Make them pay for it, and distribute the proceeds equally; the lower- and middle-consumption majority will get back more than they pay in. To put it another way, societies have been giving away their crucial environmental resources, like the atmosphere in its role as a waste sink, for free to anyone who wants to take them. Charging a price puts money in the pockets of the owners – us.
Implication: we don’t need a global treaty for countries to set up serious carbon emission controls. That’s not what Bali should be about.
What it can do are two things. First, by far the most efficient point at which to control carbon is where it enters the economy, as oil, coal or gas at the mine or wellhead. This is far less complicated than trying to track it down in its myriad uses, and it leaves the fewest loopholes. For any individual country this will mean requiring permits to bring fossil fuels across the border. Negotiators of a new international framework can work to standardize these permits, so that their markets can be international. This would minimize disruption to cross-border economic life. (I’m a rootless cosmopolitan and favor this sort of thing.)
The most important topic to discuss, however, is how to insulate national economies from the possibility that carbon control could raise domestic costs of production, hurting domestic producers in international markets. (Yes, I know the argument from trade theory that says this is not a problem, and no, I don’t believe it.) It is becoming clear that this will have to take the form of carbon adjustment tariffs (CAT’s), something I weighed in on a few posts back. I think there is a real risk that lobbyists would swarm all over the process of deciding how large a tariff is needed to offset carbon cost differences, and that an internationally negotiated schedule would have more integrity. That, more than anything else, is what Bali should be about, setting up a framework for negotiating such tariff schedules, so that each country can decide for itself how aggressive to be in carbon policy without worrying about getting too far out front.
What Bali should not do is convey to anyone anywhere that local or national action has to wait until a worldwide consensus has been reached.
To begin with, we should be clear on what the limitations of Kyoto are. They are not primarily the weak targets that were set for carbon reduction, nor were they the forbearance shown to developing countries. Why not?
The targets proved not to matter because they have not been met. In fact, there is no way at present to force a country to act decisively on curbing greenhouse gases, so discussion of specific targets is a sideshow. In any case, no country should pull back from taking aggressive action because an international treaty sets the bar several notches lower.
For the same reason, it was never a problem that Kyoto exempted low income countries from the expectations put on the industrialized world. Aside from the question of equity – climate change is driven by accumulated emissions, most of which came from us and not them – there is no way to force a country like China or India to make its development conditional on reaching carbon goals.
The one thing Kyoto did that “worked” shouldn’t have, carbon offsets. The evidence shows that much of the offsets actually offset nothing at all: they are fictitious carbon reductions. And others take money to mitigate one environmental hazard by creating another, like tree plantations that replace living forests.
So the first thing an enlightened eco-diplomat in Bali should understand is that Kyoto should not be fixed; it should be scrapped. I appreciate its symbolic value, but surely the time for symbolism is past.
What to do then? The starting point for reasonable negotiation is the awareness that the majority of the world’s people will be direct financial beneficiaries of controlling climate change, if the job is done properly. Any country that sets up a system of carbon permits, auctions them off and rebates the money to its citizens on a per capita basis will find that most will come out ahead. This is because climate-bashing consumption is disproportionately done by the rich. Make them pay for it, and distribute the proceeds equally; the lower- and middle-consumption majority will get back more than they pay in. To put it another way, societies have been giving away their crucial environmental resources, like the atmosphere in its role as a waste sink, for free to anyone who wants to take them. Charging a price puts money in the pockets of the owners – us.
Implication: we don’t need a global treaty for countries to set up serious carbon emission controls. That’s not what Bali should be about.
What it can do are two things. First, by far the most efficient point at which to control carbon is where it enters the economy, as oil, coal or gas at the mine or wellhead. This is far less complicated than trying to track it down in its myriad uses, and it leaves the fewest loopholes. For any individual country this will mean requiring permits to bring fossil fuels across the border. Negotiators of a new international framework can work to standardize these permits, so that their markets can be international. This would minimize disruption to cross-border economic life. (I’m a rootless cosmopolitan and favor this sort of thing.)
The most important topic to discuss, however, is how to insulate national economies from the possibility that carbon control could raise domestic costs of production, hurting domestic producers in international markets. (Yes, I know the argument from trade theory that says this is not a problem, and no, I don’t believe it.) It is becoming clear that this will have to take the form of carbon adjustment tariffs (CAT’s), something I weighed in on a few posts back. I think there is a real risk that lobbyists would swarm all over the process of deciding how large a tariff is needed to offset carbon cost differences, and that an internationally negotiated schedule would have more integrity. That, more than anything else, is what Bali should be about, setting up a framework for negotiating such tariff schedules, so that each country can decide for itself how aggressive to be in carbon policy without worrying about getting too far out front.
What Bali should not do is convey to anyone anywhere that local or national action has to wait until a worldwide consensus has been reached.
President For Life
How often recently have you heard from the media that Hugo Chavez was trying with the latest referendum (which he lost) to become President-for-Life, to entrench dictatorship - instead of dropping Presidential term limits from the Constitution? It would seem to follow that prior to the passage of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, the US was a dictatorship.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Ethics of Elite Professors
I just read a fascinating study of the way Harvard professor (especially Dershowitz) rely on untrained assistants to do their work for them to allow the elite academics become public intellectuals, while doing shoddy work.
Russell, Jacob Hale. 2007. "A Million Little Writers." 02138 (November/December): p. 78.
http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1763.html
Russell, Jacob Hale. 2007. "A Million Little Writers." 02138 (November/December): p. 78.
http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1763.html
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Thanks regarding The Perverse Imbalances between Town and Country
I wanted thank everybody who commented on the papers. Your contributions were very informative.
Thanks again,
Michael
Thanks again,
Michael
For ye have the poor always with you
In the news:
December 1, 2007 / New York TIMES
As Always, an Unequal Pie
By DAN MITCHELL
initial comment: This does not follow logically. Just because total wealth production is larger (making "the U.S. the wealthiest nation in history") does not mean that the rich have the ability to take a larger share. Just because the pie is larger does not mean that the rich automatically have the ability to grab a bigger percentage of that pie.
The way this can make sense is if the "total wealth" is defined by the amount of wealth produced beyond a given subsistence level and the "share" going to the rich is defined as a fraction of total production (including the subsistence level). That is, as the pie grows relative to the minimum size of the pie needed for human survival, there is more room for the rich to grab a bigger piece of the total without cutting into that minimum subsistence part of the pie. The rich can gain while the non-rich do better than subsistence.
[In math: let "total wealth" produced per person be equal to W, the rich elite's per-person part of that total be R, and the production necessary to produce a subsistence living standard for one person be M (standing for "minimum"). The rich elite's percentage share -- also known as the "inequality extraction ratio" -- would equal R/W. Assume that M is constant. Having W be below M would have dire consequences (starvation, plague, revolution, etc.)
As W rises, there is a greater "surplus" above subsistence (S = W - M). Some of this broadly-defined surplus is received by the workers and peasants (call this extra per person income E). Ignoring the rich elite's attainment of subsistence, the total per-person income of the lower classes would be E + M.
On the other hand, the total surplus S would equal the total above-subsistence incomes of both classes, R + E. As S/W rises, there is more room for both a bigger share of total wealth production to go to the rich (R/W rising) and for the above-subsistence incomes of workers to represent a larger piece of the total pie (E/W rising).
Alternatively, note that by definition, total production W = R + E + M. Dividing through by W, this means that (the share of the rich, R/W) plus (the share of above-subsistence wages, E/W) plus (the share of subsistence income, M/W) equals unity. The rise in the surplus relative to W means that M/W falls. So both R/W and E/W can rise.]
In prose (whew!), if a country is at or near the subsistence level, there's no room for the rich to skim the cream. But if the country is far above subsistence, the rich can do so without empoverishing the rest, i.e., pushing them toward or below subsistence.
The role of subsistence is not discussed in the NYT. But this issue does appear in the original article: for example, the authors say that "As hunter-gathers slowly evolved into ancient agricultural settlements with surpluses above subsistence, income inequality must have risen."
This is very revealing. I can't claim to have read the whole (88 page) article which the basis for the pontifications of Mitchell and others, but it seems that "subsistence" is defined according to the standard of living of hunter-gatherers. Then, as we get further and further from producing at that level, the rich have more room to rob. The fact that they have not taken more is then used to praise them for being wise, moderate, or generous (see below). The share of total wealth production going to the rich has not risen, so the workers and peasants have seen their standards of living rise relative to subsistence.
[In math, R/W has been (roughly) constant. So the rising surplus as a percentage of total production (S/W) has been translated into a rising share of above-subsistence incomes of the workers and peasants in total production (E/W).)]
But what if the subsistence is not constant? The rise of civilization (as we know it) has been associated with an increase in all sorts of needs. (Needs, in my book, refer to the costs that must be paid to be a human living in society.) Nowadays, I "need" to have a car to get to work (because I live in Los Angeles), while I "need" to have indoor plumbing (by law). I cannot communicate with others without a telephone or some other electronic system. Living in an alienated society, I must have Prozac or some other drug. Etc. The costs of being a human being always seems to be rising. (It was relatively easy to be a hunter-gatherer.)
Rising subsistence means that the cost of maintaining the workers and peasants has been rising over time. The production of an economic surplus -- which is the source of the income for the rich -- likely has not increased as quickly as total production. The fact that the share going to the rich has not risen may not be a sign of their generosity or moderation at all. It might be the result of a rising subsistence level. As noted below, it might also be the result of efforts by the lower classes to resist the power grab by the rich.
The article continues:
final comment: Or perhaps every time the working and poor classes start raising the share of the product they receive, the "elite" calls in the big guns (General Pinochet and his ilk) to suppress them? And every time the rich elite gets too greedy, it leads to a 1929-33 type collapse, a massive upsurge in class struggle from below, or something similar? But the time scale of this data does not allow anyone to conclude anything at all about the causes of the stability of the numbers. In any event, we cannot assume that society is "hard wired" in any way.
There are also more measurement problems than one can shake A Sunday New York TIMES at. How, for example, is the product of a self-sufficient peasant measured? it may be possible nowadays, but what about for one 1000 years ago? In the original article, the authors quote the SRPE winning economist, Simon Kuznets: “Do you really think you can get good conclusions from bad data?” The question is still apt.
Jim Devine
December 1, 2007 / New York TIMES
As Always, an Unequal Pie
By DAN MITCHELL
The distribution of wealth lies at the heart of political economics. Nations and empires have risen and fallen, and millions have died, as a result of humanity's struggle to decide how (or whether) to divide wealth.
But for all that, the level of wealth inequality has remained remarkably consistent over the last 2,000 years, according to a recent study by Branko Milanovic, a researcher with the World Bank, and two economics professors, Peter H. Lindert of the University of California, Davis, and Jeffrey G. Williamson of Harvard University.
While "human civilization has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past two millennia, income inequality has stayed relatively the same," Zubin Jelveh of Portfolio.com wrote about the study.
The "inequality extraction ratio" is basically the share of the wealth difference taken by "elites." Since the United States is the wealthiest nation in history, the potential for elites taking a bigger share of the wealth (without allowing mass starvation) is greater.
initial comment: This does not follow logically. Just because total wealth production is larger (making "the U.S. the wealthiest nation in history") does not mean that the rich have the ability to take a larger share. Just because the pie is larger does not mean that the rich automatically have the ability to grab a bigger percentage of that pie.
The way this can make sense is if the "total wealth" is defined by the amount of wealth produced beyond a given subsistence level and the "share" going to the rich is defined as a fraction of total production (including the subsistence level). That is, as the pie grows relative to the minimum size of the pie needed for human survival, there is more room for the rich to grab a bigger piece of the total without cutting into that minimum subsistence part of the pie. The rich can gain while the non-rich do better than subsistence.
[In math: let "total wealth" produced per person be equal to W, the rich elite's per-person part of that total be R, and the production necessary to produce a subsistence living standard for one person be M (standing for "minimum"). The rich elite's percentage share -- also known as the "inequality extraction ratio" -- would equal R/W. Assume that M is constant. Having W be below M would have dire consequences (starvation, plague, revolution, etc.)
As W rises, there is a greater "surplus" above subsistence (S = W - M). Some of this broadly-defined surplus is received by the workers and peasants (call this extra per person income E). Ignoring the rich elite's attainment of subsistence, the total per-person income of the lower classes would be E + M.
On the other hand, the total surplus S would equal the total above-subsistence incomes of both classes, R + E. As S/W rises, there is more room for both a bigger share of total wealth production to go to the rich (R/W rising) and for the above-subsistence incomes of workers to represent a larger piece of the total pie (E/W rising).
Alternatively, note that by definition, total production W = R + E + M. Dividing through by W, this means that (the share of the rich, R/W) plus (the share of above-subsistence wages, E/W) plus (the share of subsistence income, M/W) equals unity. The rise in the surplus relative to W means that M/W falls. So both R/W and E/W can rise.]
In prose (whew!), if a country is at or near the subsistence level, there's no room for the rich to skim the cream. But if the country is far above subsistence, the rich can do so without empoverishing the rest, i.e., pushing them toward or below subsistence.
The role of subsistence is not discussed in the NYT. But this issue does appear in the original article: for example, the authors say that "As hunter-gathers slowly evolved into ancient agricultural settlements with surpluses above subsistence, income inequality must have risen."
This is very revealing. I can't claim to have read the whole (88 page) article which the basis for the pontifications of Mitchell and others, but it seems that "subsistence" is defined according to the standard of living of hunter-gatherers. Then, as we get further and further from producing at that level, the rich have more room to rob. The fact that they have not taken more is then used to praise them for being wise, moderate, or generous (see below). The share of total wealth production going to the rich has not risen, so the workers and peasants have seen their standards of living rise relative to subsistence.
[In math, R/W has been (roughly) constant. So the rising surplus as a percentage of total production (S/W) has been translated into a rising share of above-subsistence incomes of the workers and peasants in total production (E/W).)]
But what if the subsistence is not constant? The rise of civilization (as we know it) has been associated with an increase in all sorts of needs. (Needs, in my book, refer to the costs that must be paid to be a human living in society.) Nowadays, I "need" to have a car to get to work (because I live in Los Angeles), while I "need" to have indoor plumbing (by law). I cannot communicate with others without a telephone or some other electronic system. Living in an alienated society, I must have Prozac or some other drug. Etc. The costs of being a human being always seems to be rising. (It was relatively easy to be a hunter-gatherer.)
Rising subsistence means that the cost of maintaining the workers and peasants has been rising over time. The production of an economic surplus -- which is the source of the income for the rich -- likely has not increased as quickly as total production. The fact that the share going to the rich has not risen may not be a sign of their generosity or moderation at all. It might be the result of a rising subsistence level. As noted below, it might also be the result of efforts by the lower classes to resist the power grab by the rich.
The article continues:
But they have not done so. "Thus," the researchers write, "the social consequences of increased inequality may not entail as much relative impoverishment, or as much perceived injustice, as might appear."
Tim Harford of Slate.com, writing about the same report, called this"faint praise for the United States, perhaps." But, he added: "It is interesting to observe that while modern societies are rich enough to be much more unequal than their predecessors, they show similar patterns of income inequality. Perhaps — I am speculating wildly —human societies have some hard-wired tolerance for inequality?"
Or perhaps, no matter how wealthy a society, there will always be income inequality, whether or not we are "hard wired" for it.
final comment: Or perhaps every time the working and poor classes start raising the share of the product they receive, the "elite" calls in the big guns (General Pinochet and his ilk) to suppress them? And every time the rich elite gets too greedy, it leads to a 1929-33 type collapse, a massive upsurge in class struggle from below, or something similar? But the time scale of this data does not allow anyone to conclude anything at all about the causes of the stability of the numbers. In any event, we cannot assume that society is "hard wired" in any way.
There are also more measurement problems than one can shake A Sunday New York TIMES at. How, for example, is the product of a self-sufficient peasant measured? it may be possible nowadays, but what about for one 1000 years ago? In the original article, the authors quote the SRPE winning economist, Simon Kuznets: “Do you really think you can get good conclusions from bad data?” The question is still apt.
Jim Devine
Friday, November 30, 2007
Iran and North Korea: The Role of China?
In today's Washington Post there is mostly sensible column by Zbigniew Brzezinski (he engages in some unnecessary Russia-bashing, although I am no fan of Putin's recent anti-democratic conduct). In it he argues that as it did with North Korea, China may well be able to serve as a negotiating conduit between the US and Iran. He reports, after visiting China, that they accept the Iranian claims that they are not currently actively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that a reasonable and mutually face-saving agreement is possible, assuming that the the US does not push too hard to an unavoidable military option by insisting on sanctions against Iran that will not work and will only push the Iranians towards building nuclear weapons, rather like the stupid Bush policies against North Korea led to that outcome, with more recent reasonable policies having been brokered significantly by China.
It is worth remembering how badly Bush screwed up with North Korea. Clinton made a deal with the North Koreans that they would shut down plutonium production, which they did, although we were not fulfilling our side of the deal fully. North Korea continued to enrich uranium, as Iran is doing, not explicitly part of the deal, although the Bush people declared it a violation when it was revealed, even though now it is recognized it was not at a level to lead to nuclear weapons. Two months into Bush's first term, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung visited the White House, and after being assured by Colin Powell the administration would continue to follow the Clinton policy, was suddenly rebuffed and humiliated when Bush changed his mind under the influence of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who argued that a tough policy would bring the collapse of the North Korean regime. Instead, the South Koreans now hate our guts, and the North Koreans withdrew from the NPT, restarted their plutonium production, and built and tested fission bombs, all without their regime collapsing. After much effort, especially with the help of the Chinese, we are now back to something like what Clinton had achieved, except that now the North Koreans have nuclear weapons.
It is worth remembering how badly Bush screwed up with North Korea. Clinton made a deal with the North Koreans that they would shut down plutonium production, which they did, although we were not fulfilling our side of the deal fully. North Korea continued to enrich uranium, as Iran is doing, not explicitly part of the deal, although the Bush people declared it a violation when it was revealed, even though now it is recognized it was not at a level to lead to nuclear weapons. Two months into Bush's first term, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung visited the White House, and after being assured by Colin Powell the administration would continue to follow the Clinton policy, was suddenly rebuffed and humiliated when Bush changed his mind under the influence of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who argued that a tough policy would bring the collapse of the North Korean regime. Instead, the South Koreans now hate our guts, and the North Koreans withdrew from the NPT, restarted their plutonium production, and built and tested fission bombs, all without their regime collapsing. After much effort, especially with the help of the Chinese, we are now back to something like what Clinton had achieved, except that now the North Koreans have nuclear weapons.
Handicapping Profits
In The Confiscation of American Prosperity, I looked at the correlation of poor corporate profitability with CEO's low golf handicaps, as well as the use of corporate jets, and membership in far off country clubs.
Later, I learnt of the relationship between CEO's oversize mansions and negative corporate performance.
Liu, Crocker and David Yermack. 2007. "Where Are The Shareholders' Mansions? Ceos' Home Purchases, Stock Sales, and Subsequent Company Performance."
http://ssrn.com/abstract=970413
Now I see that Business Week has found a similar relationship (though not statistically analyzed between gold handicaps and subprime mortgage losses.
"... we started with Golf Digest's inaugural ranking of the top 150 golfers in finance (October 2007). We then averaged the handicap indices of the best three at each firm. At the head of the list is Bear Stearns. The company and its CEO, James Cayne, have been in the news as two of their hedge funds melted down in the subprime mortgage crisis."
At the time of the subprime meltdown, with banks bleeding money, Here is the Handicap index for the top firms: Bear Stearns, 0.3; Morgan Stanley, 1.3; Lehman Brothers, 1.5; Merrill Lynch, 1.9.
Foust, Dean. 2007. "Wall Street's Leader Board." Business Week (12 November): p. 102.
Later, I learnt of the relationship between CEO's oversize mansions and negative corporate performance.
Liu, Crocker and David Yermack. 2007. "Where Are The Shareholders' Mansions? Ceos' Home Purchases, Stock Sales, and Subsequent Company Performance."
http://ssrn.com/abstract=970413
Now I see that Business Week has found a similar relationship (though not statistically analyzed between gold handicaps and subprime mortgage losses.
"... we started with Golf Digest's inaugural ranking of the top 150 golfers in finance (October 2007). We then averaged the handicap indices of the best three at each firm. At the head of the list is Bear Stearns. The company and its CEO, James Cayne, have been in the news as two of their hedge funds melted down in the subprime mortgage crisis."
At the time of the subprime meltdown, with banks bleeding money, Here is the Handicap index for the top firms: Bear Stearns, 0.3; Morgan Stanley, 1.3; Lehman Brothers, 1.5; Merrill Lynch, 1.9.
Foust, Dean. 2007. "Wall Street's Leader Board." Business Week (12 November): p. 102.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)