Ok, I have been trying to take a break from boring you all to death with economics, but here's an interesting article that is very critical of the financial reform bill. Since there is no chance in hell that I will be reading that 2000+ page bit of legislation, I will be taking his word (and the words of others) for it when he says that there are no measures that actually attack the problem of a lack of transparency. From what I have read elsewhere there will be increased reserve requirements, but what does it matter if you have to hold 20% or 30% of what is lent out if you have no idea of the true value of those assets?
I was relieved to see that none of these new regulations take place immediately, and also that they weren't so harsh as to cause a second crash in the market, but from what I have read, it really seems they could've made the bill 1/10th as long (so normal Joes could actually READ IT!) and twice as effective. It sounds like they are just going to make the new Minerals and Management Services for banks :\ Let's pray for a competently drawn up hierarchy with minimal conflicts of interest.
PS: Can someone please propose a maximum of 500 pages on any bill to be voted on? This is really absurd. If it's too long for me to even be willing to read, how are the legislators supposed to read it, digest it, and decide if the ENTIRE thing is worth voting yes or no on. Break it up into smaller chunks!
PPS: I'm still reading Crisis Economics, and that book just keeps getting better! GO GET IT!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
New Cold War... no, not because of the suburban spies
With the capitalist markets of the West on the verge of perpetuating their own crash, and with China gaining new supporters and growing bolder by the day, we are looking at a New Cold War; this time, between the capitalists and state-capitalists, and things are not looking to be in our favor. We are facing an opponent with comparable technology, better education, more citizens, fewer rules, cheaper labor, a more stable economic model, less civil unrest, dangerous friends who do not like us, and whom we are funding with the interest on our debt and a vast trade imbalance.
What happened in the last cold war? There was a lot of military posturing between countries only loosely established to be enemies, covert missions, secret pacts, and (the only real benefit) a space race! Back to the present time, it appears, at least for now, that China is mostly satisfied with an economic takeover, leaving the majority of the military posturing and secret pacts to their neighbors and friends. But where is our parallel to the space race? The last space race created NASA whose accomplishments filled us with a sense of security, pride, and optimism as we put a man on the moon. It also brought countless innovations to the public market (memory foam, velcro, scratch resistant lenses, long distance telecommunications, etc.). But where is our space race, you ask? We have all the other traits of two fundamentally incompatible models, but where's the urgent goal and peaceful form of competition?
The next urgent technology race and matter of national security is freedom from oil! Rather than spending millions on providing internet to the remote towns in S. Dakota, let's setup a 'get us the hell of of oil' science association (GUTHOOOSA). Let's draw some completely unattainable line in the sand, say reduce our oil per capita oil consumption by 50% by the year 2025, and let's achieve the impossible! Projects could include individualized solar or wind powered hydrogen production units that would be distributed to gas stations across the country. We could do the same thing with bio-diesel generators, along with a network of collection agencies to gather used oil from fast food restaurants (yes, you can make bio-diesel with that). Also, now that the government has a controlling interest in some of the major car companies we could steer them toward the technologies we plan to develop, to take some of the gamble out of the game. Some companies such as BMW already have a hydrogen fuel cell car FOR SALE and waiting for the supporting infrastructure, but most others are waiting to see which technologies will catch on. We can take out that mystery and get a head start on developing the market for both the cars and the machines that facilitate the transition.
Other projects could include various forms of energy capture such as vibrational energy capture, new applications of solar energy capture such as solar paint, see if we can extract power from photosynthetic plants. The possibilities are endless and I'm sure the best are yet unimagined, which is the whole point of having a NASA-like entity at the core of the operation. With NASA on a hiatus of sorts, we could keep many of those scientests and engineers on staff, as well as use NASA research facilities. Manufacturing could be done by under-utilized portions of the auto industry, distribution and services could possibly be privatized, and jobs would be coming out of the wood works!
The reason I want to bounce this idea off of everybody is, I don't know if the conservatives think this is too much like the Tennessee Valley Authority - which I'm under the impression you don't like because Reagan was against it in the 60's - even though it was created by a Republican, dutifully served its purpose of creating jobs in the recovery from the Great Depression, secured waterways and produced electricity in the Tennessee Valley, and after much deregulation and introduction of competition it has become a profitable entity. I honestly have a very difficult time forecasting what conservatives will and will not like. Do you guys like NASA for that matter, at least old school NASA? I'm kind of under the impression this could ONLY work if a popular Republican were to propose it.
If you know of a better way to bolster American pride, generate jobs, kick start a generation of technology, and show off the power of capitalism, I'd like to hear it.
What happened in the last cold war? There was a lot of military posturing between countries only loosely established to be enemies, covert missions, secret pacts, and (the only real benefit) a space race! Back to the present time, it appears, at least for now, that China is mostly satisfied with an economic takeover, leaving the majority of the military posturing and secret pacts to their neighbors and friends. But where is our parallel to the space race? The last space race created NASA whose accomplishments filled us with a sense of security, pride, and optimism as we put a man on the moon. It also brought countless innovations to the public market (memory foam, velcro, scratch resistant lenses, long distance telecommunications, etc.). But where is our space race, you ask? We have all the other traits of two fundamentally incompatible models, but where's the urgent goal and peaceful form of competition?
The next urgent technology race and matter of national security is freedom from oil! Rather than spending millions on providing internet to the remote towns in S. Dakota, let's setup a 'get us the hell of of oil' science association (GUTHOOOSA). Let's draw some completely unattainable line in the sand, say reduce our oil per capita oil consumption by 50% by the year 2025, and let's achieve the impossible! Projects could include individualized solar or wind powered hydrogen production units that would be distributed to gas stations across the country. We could do the same thing with bio-diesel generators, along with a network of collection agencies to gather used oil from fast food restaurants (yes, you can make bio-diesel with that). Also, now that the government has a controlling interest in some of the major car companies we could steer them toward the technologies we plan to develop, to take some of the gamble out of the game. Some companies such as BMW already have a hydrogen fuel cell car FOR SALE and waiting for the supporting infrastructure, but most others are waiting to see which technologies will catch on. We can take out that mystery and get a head start on developing the market for both the cars and the machines that facilitate the transition.
Other projects could include various forms of energy capture such as vibrational energy capture, new applications of solar energy capture such as solar paint, see if we can extract power from photosynthetic plants. The possibilities are endless and I'm sure the best are yet unimagined, which is the whole point of having a NASA-like entity at the core of the operation. With NASA on a hiatus of sorts, we could keep many of those scientests and engineers on staff, as well as use NASA research facilities. Manufacturing could be done by under-utilized portions of the auto industry, distribution and services could possibly be privatized, and jobs would be coming out of the wood works!
The reason I want to bounce this idea off of everybody is, I don't know if the conservatives think this is too much like the Tennessee Valley Authority - which I'm under the impression you don't like because Reagan was against it in the 60's - even though it was created by a Republican, dutifully served its purpose of creating jobs in the recovery from the Great Depression, secured waterways and produced electricity in the Tennessee Valley, and after much deregulation and introduction of competition it has become a profitable entity. I honestly have a very difficult time forecasting what conservatives will and will not like. Do you guys like NASA for that matter, at least old school NASA? I'm kind of under the impression this could ONLY work if a popular Republican were to propose it.
If you know of a better way to bolster American pride, generate jobs, kick start a generation of technology, and show off the power of capitalism, I'd like to hear it.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
comic relief
Haha, when you can't bang your head against the wall anymore, ya gotta have some comic relief :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gurd72bTiYs&feature=popt00us11
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Plausibility
Long post today, because I have literally lost sleep in the last couple of weeks over what will happen here in the months that follow. There will be a political riff in November, and the economic consequences need to be considered. Along with countless articles online, I have been reading Crisis Economics by Nouriel Roubini (aka Dr. Doom), one of the first economists to blow the whistle on the upcoming crisis back in 2006, and in fairly accurate detail. I'm still reading, but at this point I would highly recommend the book. Chapter two gives a brief but in depth review of economic theories and the theorists behind them. He runs through where we came from, what we've learned, where we've failed, and where we are presently. Right now we are at a truly incredible moment in history where there are two main schools of thought with completely opposite conclusions vying for credibility. I will attempt to outline the two here.
The Austrian school of economics preaches against unsustainable debt, and against government intervention. They argue that debt begets more debt, and government intervention will only lead us down the path of ever increasing debt which will eventually lead to a collapse of our system. Looking at our history of government intervention, it is hard to argue that this observation is incorrect. We see increased debt, masked by inflation and the break from the gold standard, and increasingly lax fiscal and monetary policy since the Great Depression. To prove its modern applicability, this most recent bust could be attributed to Greenspan's federal reserve keeping interest rates too low for too long in reaction to the 2001 tech bust, leading to money being too easily available, an excessive lending boom and a speculative bubble in real estate, then before we've recovered from that recession we catapult into stimulus for the next recession. It's never ending!
So, if these Austrians are so on the ball, why don't we do what they recommend: cut spending, raise taxes, and bring down the debt?
At the core of the Austrian school of economics is the concept of "creative destruction." This term is used to describe the need for economies to be torn down and brought up from the ground, having filtered the weak links out. In other words, the Great Depression was the correct reaction to our over speculation prior to that bust. The difference being that rather than using government money to stimulate the economy, we should be left to slowly crawl out on our own. This to me, is the truly logical solution. The weak perish, the strong survive, and we come out of the flames with a smaller, leaner, more efficient economy... oh and by the way there is NO limit to the number of allowed casualties. The economy comes back when it is deserving. Logical, but totally lacking in regard for society, and lord knows where that would leave us politically. We have enough turmoil without the depression.
The Libertarian school of thought is the same, but is in denial of the inevitable destruction caused by the deflationary spiral. For an excellent illustration of just how much deflation spirals on itself, take a look at Ireland, the first of the European countries to enact the austerity measures similar to those recently agreed upon by the rest of Europe at the G20 meeting in Toronto. Here's what's going on RIGHT NOW: Ireland enacted austerity measures 2 years ago (around the same time we started stimulus), and now their unemployment is up to 13.7%, they're still in a recession, their credit rating crashed, wages were cut, and what's worse is their debt as percentage of GDP has more than doubled from roughly 25% to 80%. As a basis for comparison, our debt has risen from roughly 65% to 90% since the beginning of stimulus in 2008, only the last 10% coming during Obama's term, but that number continues to grow. We're both at similar debt/GDP ratios and both are still rising, but we're no longer in a recession, have falling unemployment, and have a good credit rating... oh and we started at a much higher debt level. Ireland vs the US may be apples to oranges, but this is something to consider.
So if the Austrians are right, but have a far too painful remedy, and the Libertarians are just Austrians who are fooling themselves, what's the other option? The other main school of thought on the table is Keynesian economics. Keynesian theory is that in the presence of a crisis, the government should swiftly step in with stimulus targeted at restoring aggregate demand and supplementing liquidity to halt the recession. This stimulus needs to stay in place until confidence has been restored to the system, the recession has been transformed into stable growth, and business as usual is restored. As the recession turns to steady growth, the stimulus should be pulled back gradually to manage inflationary forces. The debt accrued during the stimulus period is slowly repaid during a period of steady inflation, during which time the value of the debt has been gradually decreasing, and more importantly the GDP has been growing.
The problem with this school of thought is judging the duration and severity of the stimulus required. It's like planning a hike across the desert and trying to decide how much water to bring. Too much and you get weighed down, too little and you die of dehydration, and the main problem is that you have no idea how large the desert is. That is the situation we're staring at right now (a good analogy which shows my skepticism of common sense simplicity). Also, Keynesian economists are lousy at judging how to pull back because they're afraid of freaking out the market which has grown dependent on their government safety net. Then when the next recession hits, we're still reeling in debt from the previous one! This is where the infinite inflation scenario comes from.
What Roubini says is that both schools are correct, and it's a darn shame that they fight rather than talk with each other. There is a time and a place for both. During recovery it is critical to stop the fall of the market and encourage growth the way the Keynesians know how to do. Then there should be a firm, but not premature transition to Austrian austerity as the economy flourishes. This cooperation of the two schools is the best possible solution... but improperly timed may be the worst. The WORST possible solution is an attempt at Keynesian recovery, only to be stifled by Austrian austerity at the first sign of the recovery. Then you get Keynesian debt and Austrian "creative destruction." ... Yes, OH SHIT indeed! The worst of both worlds. That is why the treasury and Fed remained firm just prior to the great depression, that is what happened in Japan during the lost decade (except they still held onto some of the stimulus, resulting in stagflation rather than all out depression... almost as bad), and that is what it looks like we're about to do.
Which brings me to the title of this post. In November there is very likely going to be a shift of power, largely due to paranoia and the "common sense" rebellion against the "socialist" Obama administration. The primary purpose of this post is not to convince the conservatives that Obama is doing the right thing. 1) That's a futile effort, and 2) I don't know if he is or isn't, because Keynesian theory isn't money magic, it largely depends on how you spend the money and how you exit the recovery strategy. My point here is to present the two realistic schools of thought, their respective advantages and drawbacks, and to at least introduce the possibility that a) Obama is at least aware of both sides of the argument and went with the more commonly believed school, b) we could possibly be doing the right thing already, and c) that the premature switch from one school to the other could potentially be catastrophic. You may not BELIEVE all of that, but it should at least be plausible.
The Austrian school of economics preaches against unsustainable debt, and against government intervention. They argue that debt begets more debt, and government intervention will only lead us down the path of ever increasing debt which will eventually lead to a collapse of our system. Looking at our history of government intervention, it is hard to argue that this observation is incorrect. We see increased debt, masked by inflation and the break from the gold standard, and increasingly lax fiscal and monetary policy since the Great Depression. To prove its modern applicability, this most recent bust could be attributed to Greenspan's federal reserve keeping interest rates too low for too long in reaction to the 2001 tech bust, leading to money being too easily available, an excessive lending boom and a speculative bubble in real estate, then before we've recovered from that recession we catapult into stimulus for the next recession. It's never ending!
So, if these Austrians are so on the ball, why don't we do what they recommend: cut spending, raise taxes, and bring down the debt?
At the core of the Austrian school of economics is the concept of "creative destruction." This term is used to describe the need for economies to be torn down and brought up from the ground, having filtered the weak links out. In other words, the Great Depression was the correct reaction to our over speculation prior to that bust. The difference being that rather than using government money to stimulate the economy, we should be left to slowly crawl out on our own. This to me, is the truly logical solution. The weak perish, the strong survive, and we come out of the flames with a smaller, leaner, more efficient economy... oh and by the way there is NO limit to the number of allowed casualties. The economy comes back when it is deserving. Logical, but totally lacking in regard for society, and lord knows where that would leave us politically. We have enough turmoil without the depression.
The Libertarian school of thought is the same, but is in denial of the inevitable destruction caused by the deflationary spiral. For an excellent illustration of just how much deflation spirals on itself, take a look at Ireland, the first of the European countries to enact the austerity measures similar to those recently agreed upon by the rest of Europe at the G20 meeting in Toronto. Here's what's going on RIGHT NOW: Ireland enacted austerity measures 2 years ago (around the same time we started stimulus), and now their unemployment is up to 13.7%, they're still in a recession, their credit rating crashed, wages were cut, and what's worse is their debt as percentage of GDP has more than doubled from roughly 25% to 80%. As a basis for comparison, our debt has risen from roughly 65% to 90% since the beginning of stimulus in 2008, only the last 10% coming during Obama's term, but that number continues to grow. We're both at similar debt/GDP ratios and both are still rising, but we're no longer in a recession, have falling unemployment, and have a good credit rating... oh and we started at a much higher debt level. Ireland vs the US may be apples to oranges, but this is something to consider.
So if the Austrians are right, but have a far too painful remedy, and the Libertarians are just Austrians who are fooling themselves, what's the other option? The other main school of thought on the table is Keynesian economics. Keynesian theory is that in the presence of a crisis, the government should swiftly step in with stimulus targeted at restoring aggregate demand and supplementing liquidity to halt the recession. This stimulus needs to stay in place until confidence has been restored to the system, the recession has been transformed into stable growth, and business as usual is restored. As the recession turns to steady growth, the stimulus should be pulled back gradually to manage inflationary forces. The debt accrued during the stimulus period is slowly repaid during a period of steady inflation, during which time the value of the debt has been gradually decreasing, and more importantly the GDP has been growing.
The problem with this school of thought is judging the duration and severity of the stimulus required. It's like planning a hike across the desert and trying to decide how much water to bring. Too much and you get weighed down, too little and you die of dehydration, and the main problem is that you have no idea how large the desert is. That is the situation we're staring at right now (a good analogy which shows my skepticism of common sense simplicity). Also, Keynesian economists are lousy at judging how to pull back because they're afraid of freaking out the market which has grown dependent on their government safety net. Then when the next recession hits, we're still reeling in debt from the previous one! This is where the infinite inflation scenario comes from.
What Roubini says is that both schools are correct, and it's a darn shame that they fight rather than talk with each other. There is a time and a place for both. During recovery it is critical to stop the fall of the market and encourage growth the way the Keynesians know how to do. Then there should be a firm, but not premature transition to Austrian austerity as the economy flourishes. This cooperation of the two schools is the best possible solution... but improperly timed may be the worst. The WORST possible solution is an attempt at Keynesian recovery, only to be stifled by Austrian austerity at the first sign of the recovery. Then you get Keynesian debt and Austrian "creative destruction." ... Yes, OH SHIT indeed! The worst of both worlds. That is why the treasury and Fed remained firm just prior to the great depression, that is what happened in Japan during the lost decade (except they still held onto some of the stimulus, resulting in stagflation rather than all out depression... almost as bad), and that is what it looks like we're about to do.
Which brings me to the title of this post. In November there is very likely going to be a shift of power, largely due to paranoia and the "common sense" rebellion against the "socialist" Obama administration. The primary purpose of this post is not to convince the conservatives that Obama is doing the right thing. 1) That's a futile effort, and 2) I don't know if he is or isn't, because Keynesian theory isn't money magic, it largely depends on how you spend the money and how you exit the recovery strategy. My point here is to present the two realistic schools of thought, their respective advantages and drawbacks, and to at least introduce the possibility that a) Obama is at least aware of both sides of the argument and went with the more commonly believed school, b) we could possibly be doing the right thing already, and c) that the premature switch from one school to the other could potentially be catastrophic. You may not BELIEVE all of that, but it should at least be plausible.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
You've Got to be Kidding Me: Part 2
Part 2 of the "You've Got to be Kidding Me" series is brought to you by the phrase, "It's common sense!"
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, common sense, don't count your chickens before they've hatched, common sense, bring both a jacket and sunscreen when visiting San Francisco, common sense. For a whole heaping pile of great common sense, I recommend the book of Proverbs, but in matters of politics and economics, common sense is frequently misleading. For some examples, let's play a game. I'll list some applications of common sense, and you tell me which ended disastrously.
1) If you're the president you should be able to get a blow job without causing a scandal.
2) To boost production at home and get us out of the Great Depression the US encouraged "buying American" by increasing taxes on imports and subsidizing American production.
3) In order to protect our oil interests we defended Saudi Arabia, once the threat was over we came home.
4) Sadam Hussein is killing innocent people, may be harboring terrorists and Bush says they have nuclear weapons, so we should go to war with Iraq.
5) The free market caused this financial crisis, the state-capitalists were unharmed except by their dependence on free market countries, so logically state-capitalism is the wave of the future.
6) Reagan believed in small government, cut taxes, brought down unemployment and got us out of a recession, so we should do what he did.
7) Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and is keeping an eye on them, so we should all sleep well at night.
We can discuss answers to the quiz in the comments section, but the short answer is they're all bullshit. Matters of economics and politics are RARELY simple enough to just apply common sense. Furthermore, common sense should only be accepted from experts. For example, my area of expertise is integrated circuit design, so ideas like cascoding for better supply rejection may sound like jibberish to most, but is common sense to me. Why on earth would we rely on common sense solutions from people who have NO background in topics that are equally complicated!?! That's retarded.
Sarah Palin has no background in international politics, has no background in economics, has no experience in politics at the national level, and has limited local and state level experience. Granted, her experiences in the past 3 years have given her a crash course in all of those topics from her Republican mentors, but that provides at best a shallow one sided perspective on all of those topics. WHY does anybody think her common sense has any application to squat beyond being a mom, being a businesswoman, and having big hair? It's not just her I have a beef with, I'm talking about her whole following of "common sense conservatives," who share the same vain perception that their unqualified opinions somehow carry some weight in matters that affect the nation. Meanwhile, they are free to hide behind the fact that they'll never be in a position of real influence and can happily speculate and say, "see, I told you so!" all they want. The truly sad thing is they are so uninformed that they don't even know if they SHOULD be saying "I told you so!"
Sounds like a lot of harmless speculation, and should be treated as such, but the result in this case is civil unrest. Everybody thinks they know better than the president, and the conservatives cater to their skepticism. It's important for voices to be heard, and if something really is afoot, blow some whistles and find some hard evidence, but the conservatives have crossed the line by portraying Obama as a socialist terrorist threatening our way of life, and with accusations of conspiracy behind EVERY action. Paranoia has been spread to the point where there are local militias sprouting up, politicians threatening "second amendment remedies" (aka armed rebellion), and even a facebook group praying for Obama's death which has over a million members!
I already thought our first black president would likely be assassinated, but with the conservatives portraying him as a terrorist, the man IS going to die, particularly if he wins a second term. Conservative reporting has gotten downright irresponsible and dangerous. Domestic civil unrest is already on the rise and the atmosphere is such that the Department of Homeland Security has issued this warning to all local law enforcement agents to beware of Rightwing Extremists. The new rightwing recruitment strategy is basically to say, "yes, whatever you're skeptical about, you're right! You're too smart to be fooled by this terrorist president, fight with us like minded patriots to defend our way of life!" This partially explains why within the rightwing there are so many denunciations lately. "Oh, most of us do believe in intelligent government regulation, do not support armed rebellion, are not racists, aren't extremists, blah blah blah." There are so many denunciations because there is no definite rightwing agenda, it's basically just whatever the individuals comprising the group pulled off the top of their common sense heads. Yet their conviction is so strong that it's just a matter of time before someone thusly convicted goes all second amendment on the president.
Common sense conservatism is baseless, ridiculous, and dangerous. REAL common sense ought to tell them don't take common sense solutions from amateurs, too vain to realize their baseless opinions are meaningless... EVEN IF THAT AMATEUR IS YOU!
In other news, I highly recommend reading the Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. The full text is far more valuable than any reports or analysis I have read on the topic. Great article.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, common sense, don't count your chickens before they've hatched, common sense, bring both a jacket and sunscreen when visiting San Francisco, common sense. For a whole heaping pile of great common sense, I recommend the book of Proverbs, but in matters of politics and economics, common sense is frequently misleading. For some examples, let's play a game. I'll list some applications of common sense, and you tell me which ended disastrously.
1) If you're the president you should be able to get a blow job without causing a scandal.
2) To boost production at home and get us out of the Great Depression the US encouraged "buying American" by increasing taxes on imports and subsidizing American production.
3) In order to protect our oil interests we defended Saudi Arabia, once the threat was over we came home.
4) Sadam Hussein is killing innocent people, may be harboring terrorists and Bush says they have nuclear weapons, so we should go to war with Iraq.
5) The free market caused this financial crisis, the state-capitalists were unharmed except by their dependence on free market countries, so logically state-capitalism is the wave of the future.
6) Reagan believed in small government, cut taxes, brought down unemployment and got us out of a recession, so we should do what he did.
7) Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and is keeping an eye on them, so we should all sleep well at night.
We can discuss answers to the quiz in the comments section, but the short answer is they're all bullshit. Matters of economics and politics are RARELY simple enough to just apply common sense. Furthermore, common sense should only be accepted from experts. For example, my area of expertise is integrated circuit design, so ideas like cascoding for better supply rejection may sound like jibberish to most, but is common sense to me. Why on earth would we rely on common sense solutions from people who have NO background in topics that are equally complicated!?! That's retarded.
Sarah Palin has no background in international politics, has no background in economics, has no experience in politics at the national level, and has limited local and state level experience. Granted, her experiences in the past 3 years have given her a crash course in all of those topics from her Republican mentors, but that provides at best a shallow one sided perspective on all of those topics. WHY does anybody think her common sense has any application to squat beyond being a mom, being a businesswoman, and having big hair? It's not just her I have a beef with, I'm talking about her whole following of "common sense conservatives," who share the same vain perception that their unqualified opinions somehow carry some weight in matters that affect the nation. Meanwhile, they are free to hide behind the fact that they'll never be in a position of real influence and can happily speculate and say, "see, I told you so!" all they want. The truly sad thing is they are so uninformed that they don't even know if they SHOULD be saying "I told you so!"
Sounds like a lot of harmless speculation, and should be treated as such, but the result in this case is civil unrest. Everybody thinks they know better than the president, and the conservatives cater to their skepticism. It's important for voices to be heard, and if something really is afoot, blow some whistles and find some hard evidence, but the conservatives have crossed the line by portraying Obama as a socialist terrorist threatening our way of life, and with accusations of conspiracy behind EVERY action. Paranoia has been spread to the point where there are local militias sprouting up, politicians threatening "second amendment remedies" (aka armed rebellion), and even a facebook group praying for Obama's death which has over a million members!
I already thought our first black president would likely be assassinated, but with the conservatives portraying him as a terrorist, the man IS going to die, particularly if he wins a second term. Conservative reporting has gotten downright irresponsible and dangerous. Domestic civil unrest is already on the rise and the atmosphere is such that the Department of Homeland Security has issued this warning to all local law enforcement agents to beware of Rightwing Extremists. The new rightwing recruitment strategy is basically to say, "yes, whatever you're skeptical about, you're right! You're too smart to be fooled by this terrorist president, fight with us like minded patriots to defend our way of life!" This partially explains why within the rightwing there are so many denunciations lately. "Oh, most of us do believe in intelligent government regulation, do not support armed rebellion, are not racists, aren't extremists, blah blah blah." There are so many denunciations because there is no definite rightwing agenda, it's basically just whatever the individuals comprising the group pulled off the top of their common sense heads. Yet their conviction is so strong that it's just a matter of time before someone thusly convicted goes all second amendment on the president.
Common sense conservatism is baseless, ridiculous, and dangerous. REAL common sense ought to tell them don't take common sense solutions from amateurs, too vain to realize their baseless opinions are meaningless... EVEN IF THAT AMATEUR IS YOU!
In other news, I highly recommend reading the Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. The full text is far more valuable than any reports or analysis I have read on the topic. Great article.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
full docs
For your speculative enjoyment, check out the actual documents regarding the 6 month deepwater drilling moratorium: Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's report on the safety of deepwater drilling, and Judge Martin Feldman's ruling. I'm still making my way through the docs myself, but it seems to me the argument is less about the new safety regulations and whether there needs to be an immediate hiatus to retrofit the rigs with new safety measures, and is more about the arbitrarily placed 6 month time frame. That I can buy, but will weigh in some more after reading.
UPDATE: Ok, so the verdict has a handful of very legitimate complaints with the DOI report.
1) The data reviewed by the panel of experts was different from what was presented in the report because the threshold of "deepwater" was changed from 1000ft to 500ft, which is somewhat justified because that's the threshold at which floating rigs must be used. However, just the use of floating rigs shouldn't be in question, but rather the effects of drilling in deep water that causes equipment failures and restricts access.
2) The report does not defend the need for a 6 month moratorium in particular, and as such was deemed to be arbitrary. Furthermore, the panel of experts never saw this recommendation and more than half do not agree with it. It would make more sense to halt drilling on rigs until new safety standards are met on a case by case basis. That argument would be highly defensible, would not be arbitrary, and would be supported by the panel of experts who do believe in the tightened regulations.
3) Legal precedent says that the moratorium is only appropriate if the threat of injury is certain rather than hypothetical, which it is not. However, if I read the verdict correctly, it is also defensible if the threat is irreparable and far outweighs the harm done to the affected party. It sounds to me the defense just made the wrong argument.
The less legit arguments in the verdict:
1) The possible damages in the absence of the moratorium are not properly described... has the judge not been watching the news? The risk is a repeat of what is happening now.
2) The report is case specific to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and there is no link to the rigs being affected by the moratorium... really? They use the same technology, the operators all have identical emergency protocols, and I don't see how the judge can argue they are unrelated and at the same time agree with the panel of experts that new industry wide safety standards must be implemented. That makes no sense. Need new safety standards for all... but totally unrelated...
3) Drawing the parallel to a car crash or an airplane crash is inappropriate. This is more akin to a recall like with the Prius brake pedal incident. Safety faults have been established, fixes have been mandated, operation should not resume until these requirements are met. The main point being that this is not just operator error or a unique defect, this is an industry wide safety failing with a developing technology.
4) Studies showing statistically significant numbers of mechanical failures exclusive to deep water operations are irrelevant... Are you KIDDING ME!?! With the particular example he gave, there was a 7.5% chance of failure in deep water. That means if there are 100 deepwater rigs, there's a chance 7 of them will have pipe cutting errors, and it only takes 1 error to be potentially catastrophic. How is that not significant? Furthermore, is this REALLY the sort of thing you want to roll the dice on and assume was an isolated incident?
I agree that the moratorium as it was defended should not be upheld, particularly the arbitrary 6 month aspect, but I am calling shenanigans on all four of those last points. In order for an appeal to be accepted the 6mo standard should be changed to a case by case adherence to the new safety regulations, the risk of injury should be very strongly presented, and it needs to be made clear that this is akin to a recall and just as safety regulations should be applied to all rigs using this technology the moratorium should apply to all rigs using this technology.
As a side note, I have been trying to find data on how many commercial drilling platforms and exploratory platforms use the same technology and share the same risks, to see how statistically significant this leak is. I have found it is VERY hard to find data as this blogger suggests, and there really aren't answers available on the internet. The map seems to indicate there are only 5 rigs at the 5000ft+ depths, but hundreds at 500ft+. It would seem to me the definition for deep water should not depend on the use of floating rigs, but rather the impact of the increased pressure and inaccessibility at the greater depths. While increased safety standards may need to be implemented on all floating rigs, the moratorium may only be applicable to a small number of rigs that really are at risk, and I hope this change is considered for the appeal.
Monday, June 21, 2010
You've Got to be Kidding Me: Part 1
Wow, so many things in my Dad's last round of comments, a few of which drive me nuts and I want to talk about. I'll spread them out over a few posts so we can stay focused.
What is with the conservatives latching onto, and demonizing the most OBSCURE liberals!?!
#1 Saul Alinsky, a man who revolutionized the methods of community organization is now under attack by the conservatives because Obama is a student of his teachings. Why would you NOT want your president to be a strong community organizer? Oh yea, because he's organizing communities against what you like. But seriously, who had heard of this guy before the 2008 election? It seems the only people who are really studying his tactics right now are the TEA Party! The fact of the matter is that he is the creator of a tactic which can be used for either side, so why exactly is he the new conservative anti-christ?
Aside from his modern applications, what exactly do the conservatives hate about him so much? Is unifying poor communities to help them better their situation such a detestable cause? Other causes being attributed to him are the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. While some of those organizers may have used improper versions of his tactics, he was intentionally not involved with these young groups because he thought their tactics like flag burning and aimlessly rebelling against middle-class America were counter-effective and idiotic. And all things said and done, if his tactics had been followed, those movements would have been non-violent, effective movements for honorable causes and probably would be remembered in a more favorable light. Where exactly is the beef with Saul Alinsky, other than the fact that a guy on the other side is intelligent enough to be using his tactics successfully?
#2 George Soros, survivor of the Holocaust, investment genius, self-made billionaire, and major philanthropist, is another totally random and undeserving whipping boy of the conservatives. His life and career are nothing short of inspirational. Over the course of the last 30yrs he's donated over $6 billion to organizations promoting democracy in eastern Europe, desegregating South Africa, ending poverty in Africa, setting up internet infrastructures for Russian students, scientific research grants, etc. The list of worthy causes he has supported seriously goes around the block. So where's the beef? From 2002 to 2004 George Soros became the LOUDEST (that link is not just for reference, I highly recommend reading exactly why he was against Bush, because his points and predictions were unequivocally correct) voice in the battle to get Bush out of office. While not donating any money directly to the campaign, he did donate $18 million to groups supporting the Democrats.
Going back to his investment portfolio, while being well diversified, he is heavily invested in oil, and that has been the source of much recent criticism. But name a major industry and there's bound to be some rich dude heavily invested in it. The fact that he's well invested in Petrobras, the industry's fastest rising star, run by Brazil, one of the fastest growing nations in the world, should be NO SURPRISE. It's what you call smart investing, not a conspiracy. The theory is that he is Obama's puppet master because he wants the oil spill to cause a moratorium on off shore drilling so that the rigs will be sold and leased to Petrobras. Further evidence they site for this is that the government has already given Petrobras a $2 billion of tax payer money to purchase drilling equipment. The truth of the matter is... well, just hit the link, it's bogus on so many levels and already well debunked in that link. Not only was it the equivalent of a dealership lending you money to buy their product, it's COMPLETELY unrelated to either Obama or Soros.
I believe the disconnect between libs and cons in this is the differentiation between a puppet master and an unintended beneficiary. George Bush's puppet master was Karl Rove, the man who engineered his career, stood as his primary senior adviser, and had the power to say yes or no on critical issues. Bush's unintended beneficiaries were Osama Bin Laden and China. Through Bush's actions and policies concerning Iraq, more people rallied behind Al Qaeda's causes and our economy was left badly injured and vulnerable to the political pressures of the East. I don't think anybody would argue Bush was in bed with Osama and China, but they're the unintended beneficiaries. Big difference.
I find both of these cases to be absolutely absurd, but if you have more information than I do, please FACT CHECK IT FIRST, then let me know.
Major gripe #2 to come soon.
What is with the conservatives latching onto, and demonizing the most OBSCURE liberals!?!
#1 Saul Alinsky, a man who revolutionized the methods of community organization is now under attack by the conservatives because Obama is a student of his teachings. Why would you NOT want your president to be a strong community organizer? Oh yea, because he's organizing communities against what you like. But seriously, who had heard of this guy before the 2008 election? It seems the only people who are really studying his tactics right now are the TEA Party! The fact of the matter is that he is the creator of a tactic which can be used for either side, so why exactly is he the new conservative anti-christ?
Aside from his modern applications, what exactly do the conservatives hate about him so much? Is unifying poor communities to help them better their situation such a detestable cause? Other causes being attributed to him are the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. While some of those organizers may have used improper versions of his tactics, he was intentionally not involved with these young groups because he thought their tactics like flag burning and aimlessly rebelling against middle-class America were counter-effective and idiotic. And all things said and done, if his tactics had been followed, those movements would have been non-violent, effective movements for honorable causes and probably would be remembered in a more favorable light. Where exactly is the beef with Saul Alinsky, other than the fact that a guy on the other side is intelligent enough to be using his tactics successfully?
#2 George Soros, survivor of the Holocaust, investment genius, self-made billionaire, and major philanthropist, is another totally random and undeserving whipping boy of the conservatives. His life and career are nothing short of inspirational. Over the course of the last 30yrs he's donated over $6 billion to organizations promoting democracy in eastern Europe, desegregating South Africa, ending poverty in Africa, setting up internet infrastructures for Russian students, scientific research grants, etc. The list of worthy causes he has supported seriously goes around the block. So where's the beef? From 2002 to 2004 George Soros became the LOUDEST (that link is not just for reference, I highly recommend reading exactly why he was against Bush, because his points and predictions were unequivocally correct) voice in the battle to get Bush out of office. While not donating any money directly to the campaign, he did donate $18 million to groups supporting the Democrats.
Going back to his investment portfolio, while being well diversified, he is heavily invested in oil, and that has been the source of much recent criticism. But name a major industry and there's bound to be some rich dude heavily invested in it. The fact that he's well invested in Petrobras, the industry's fastest rising star, run by Brazil, one of the fastest growing nations in the world, should be NO SURPRISE. It's what you call smart investing, not a conspiracy. The theory is that he is Obama's puppet master because he wants the oil spill to cause a moratorium on off shore drilling so that the rigs will be sold and leased to Petrobras. Further evidence they site for this is that the government has already given Petrobras a $2 billion of tax payer money to purchase drilling equipment. The truth of the matter is... well, just hit the link, it's bogus on so many levels and already well debunked in that link. Not only was it the equivalent of a dealership lending you money to buy their product, it's COMPLETELY unrelated to either Obama or Soros.
I believe the disconnect between libs and cons in this is the differentiation between a puppet master and an unintended beneficiary. George Bush's puppet master was Karl Rove, the man who engineered his career, stood as his primary senior adviser, and had the power to say yes or no on critical issues. Bush's unintended beneficiaries were Osama Bin Laden and China. Through Bush's actions and policies concerning Iraq, more people rallied behind Al Qaeda's causes and our economy was left badly injured and vulnerable to the political pressures of the East. I don't think anybody would argue Bush was in bed with Osama and China, but they're the unintended beneficiaries. Big difference.
I find both of these cases to be absolutely absurd, but if you have more information than I do, please FACT CHECK IT FIRST, then let me know.
Major gripe #2 to come soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)