This is a good read. Solid research, honest work.
It's titled "On the Relevance of Freedom and Entitlement in Development, New Empirical Evidence (1975-2007)", by Jean-Pierre Chauffour.
If you are at all interested in why some countries succeed and others don't: read it.
Key quote:
These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibility—including the protection of liberty itself—the expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer.
That's right: expanding functions of the state beyond core functions tends to make people poorer, rather than richer.
The reason is simple:
...the extent to which political institutions and human interactions in society are formed around the concept of freedom constitutes one key determinant of growth, perhaps the ultimate cause of why economic agents actually create and accumulate.
The emphasis is in the original. The fundamental is this: that people actually create and accumulate, generate economic growth, because left to their own devices, free to do what they want to, they can.
Finally, we do not find any robust relationship between entitlement rights and economic growth. The initial level of the entitlement right is negative and statistically significant in regression where only this variable has been included ... and not statically significant in other specifications. The change in entitlement rights seems to influence the average economic growth positively, but this relationship is not robust to the inclusion of economic freedom.
Duh. Not so much what Mr Chauffour writes, but much more: of course. There can't be any robust relationship between entitlement rights and economic growth because the former inhibits the latter: the relationship is inverse. Entitlement rights are the opposite of economic freedoms!
From the conclusion:
Freedom and entitlement are largely two different paradigms to think about the fundamentals of economic development. Depending on the balance between free choices and more coerced decisions, individual opportunities to learn, own, work, save, invest, trade, protect, and so forth could vary greatly across countries and over time. The empirical findings in this paper suggest that fundamental freedoms are paramount to explain long term economic growth. For a given set of exogenous conditions, countries that favor free choice—economic freedom and civil and political liberties—over entitlement rights are likely to growth faster and achieve many of the distinctive proximate characteristics of success identified by the Growth Commission (2008): leadership and governance; engagement with the global economy; high rates of investment and savings; mobile resources, especially labor; and inclusiveness to share the benefits of globalization, provide access to the underserved, and deal with issues of gender inclusiveness. In contrast, pursuing entitlement rights through greater state coercion may be deceptive and even self-defeating in the long run.
I've highlighted the key point: entitlements are nothing less than coerced decisions. Take free choice awaz and coerce decisions, and you run counter to the natural state of man, that of freedom. Fundamental freedoms are not some sort of old white man political constructs: they are the very foundation of long-term economic growth.
Don't take it from me: take it from the World Bank.
Dienstag, Mai 31, 2011
Who Lost The Middle East?
There is a writer whose last name became a verb, after so many decided to deconstruct and make fun of his reporting, which was so obviously biased and subjective that it belonged on the OpEd pages, rather than "factual".
His name?
Robert Fisk. Of "fisking" fame. I've done it here.
Read this now. For the record, this is classified as a commentary by the Independent, so they are capable of learning.
So it starts:
His name?
Robert Fisk. Of "fisking" fame. I've done it here.
Read this now. For the record, this is classified as a commentary by the Independent, so they are capable of learning.
So it starts:
This month, in the Middle East, has seen the unmaking of the President of the United States. More than that, it has witnessed the lowest prestige of America in the region since Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945.
While Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu played out their farce in Washington – Obama grovelling as usual – the Arabs got on with the serious business of changing their world, demonstrating and fighting and dying for freedoms they have never possessed. Obama waffled on about change in the Middle East – and about America's new role in the region. It was pathetic. "What is this 'role' thing?" an Egyptian friend asked me at the weekend. "Do they still believe we care about what they think?"
President Obama isn't interested in the Middle East for two reasons: they aren't doing anything for him, and he has seen how previous Democratic presidents failed, with perhaps the exception of Carter and getting the Egyptians at least to talk. Of course, that got Sadat killed.
Now, the rest of the Fisk article descends into the usual US and Israel-bashing that he is infamous for, but this is the key quote:
Indeed, Obama's policy towards the Middle East – whatever it is – sometimes appears so muddled that it is scarcely worthy of study.
On that he is right. The rest is a quagmire of conspiracy and speculation, But once in a year of blue moons, the old Fisk, the reporter getting his facts right, glimpses through the rest of the madness and gets something right.
That President Obama and his administration is getting it wrong.
Montag, Mai 30, 2011
American Indulgences...
Read this to understand the choices facing us.
It really is pretty much that simple: America can choose to be a superpower or it can choose to be a welfare state, but not both. We're past the point where a President like Lyndon Baines Johnson could persuade Congress to finance both guns and butter: this is the starting point of the slow, dreary and inevitable breakdown of the US government's finances.
You can't have both. Or, more exactly, you can't have both forever without coming up empty. We're at this turning point, reached when US government debt reached 70% of GDP (a while ago) and put off by dealing with symptoms, rather than causes, over the last 30 years or so.
This will be the key debating point of the next presidential election: whether we pay for 30-year old to indulge in their sad sexual fantasies or whether we pay the price in weapons and blood to ensure that the US continues to be the beacon of reason and law in a world that only occasionally behaves.
It really is that simple. That we have come to this point is appalling enough in and of itself. Entitlements creep forward, slowly, insidiously, with the original good intentions - and this road to fiscal hell is paved very well indeed, thank you - perverted as they always will be by the very human desire to have something for nothing and your chicks for free. It's easy and convenient to be indulgent, especially when you have a political party dedicated to making sure that whatever turns you on will be tolerated, supported and no stern words said, all in exchange for supporting that party and casting your vote their way.
If the choice is between paying for the lifestyle of a diapered, infantile (by choice) 30-year old who cannot fathom why the government won't be paying for his choice of sexual perversion and lifestyle, or paying for the soldiers who stand in the line and keep us safe, there is no argument.
You can't have both. Not any longer.
It really is pretty much that simple: America can choose to be a superpower or it can choose to be a welfare state, but not both. We're past the point where a President like Lyndon Baines Johnson could persuade Congress to finance both guns and butter: this is the starting point of the slow, dreary and inevitable breakdown of the US government's finances.
You can't have both. Or, more exactly, you can't have both forever without coming up empty. We're at this turning point, reached when US government debt reached 70% of GDP (a while ago) and put off by dealing with symptoms, rather than causes, over the last 30 years or so.
This will be the key debating point of the next presidential election: whether we pay for 30-year old to indulge in their sad sexual fantasies or whether we pay the price in weapons and blood to ensure that the US continues to be the beacon of reason and law in a world that only occasionally behaves.
It really is that simple. That we have come to this point is appalling enough in and of itself. Entitlements creep forward, slowly, insidiously, with the original good intentions - and this road to fiscal hell is paved very well indeed, thank you - perverted as they always will be by the very human desire to have something for nothing and your chicks for free. It's easy and convenient to be indulgent, especially when you have a political party dedicated to making sure that whatever turns you on will be tolerated, supported and no stern words said, all in exchange for supporting that party and casting your vote their way.
If the choice is between paying for the lifestyle of a diapered, infantile (by choice) 30-year old who cannot fathom why the government won't be paying for his choice of sexual perversion and lifestyle, or paying for the soldiers who stand in the line and keep us safe, there is no argument.
You can't have both. Not any longer.
Donnerstag, Mai 26, 2011
Well, of course he wouldn't think it corrupt: he's a Democrat...
While I really shouldn't be surprised, things like this still astound me. Not so much the clear corruption as much more the rejection that it is anything out of the ordinary.
Because apparently Democratic politicians don't have to obey the law. It's the only explanation of why he thinks that this being a conflict of interest is "nonsense".
God help the people of Boston "represented" by Barney Frank. The only thing he represents is the need to clean out the stables.
Because apparently Democratic politicians don't have to obey the law. It's the only explanation of why he thinks that this being a conflict of interest is "nonsense".
God help the people of Boston "represented" by Barney Frank. The only thing he represents is the need to clean out the stables.
Mittwoch, Mai 25, 2011
And this is surprising?
When three of the most famous astronauts that ever lived write an op-ed about US space policy, it's worth a read.
Here.
As far as the Obama Administration is concerned, America does not need to waste money on a space program. That's the clear message being set.
And this is surprising?
President Obama comes from that portion of the Democratic Party that views space flight as a waste of money, with the money being spent better "at home" (ignoring the fact that the money was spent at home: what they really mean is that they want to use the money to create additional dependencies for the aggrandizement of their own power).
The real reason why NASA is being gutted and space programs being deleted? Because there is no constituency for the Democrats here, none that is beholden to them. I've told you here many times, President Obama is a Chicago Democrat: unless there is an in for him, a deal that helps and supports him, helps him directly, then forget about it.
What we have isn't so much a lack of vision, but rather a venal and self-serving vision that doesn't care about space travel. Why should he? It never did anything for him.
The election of President Obama was a disservice to the notion of nation that made Kennedy decide that we would go to the moon in 10 years. Given that challenge, the US government (NASA) and the aerospace industry surpassed that goal and did what no other country could do.
Today? What vision does President Obama bring to the nation? One of decay and a long, slow decline from the world's only superpower to a nation dismayed and divided. That way it's easier to exploit for personal and political gain.
Oh how have the mighty fallen...
Here.
As far as the Obama Administration is concerned, America does not need to waste money on a space program. That's the clear message being set.
And this is surprising?
President Obama comes from that portion of the Democratic Party that views space flight as a waste of money, with the money being spent better "at home" (ignoring the fact that the money was spent at home: what they really mean is that they want to use the money to create additional dependencies for the aggrandizement of their own power).
The real reason why NASA is being gutted and space programs being deleted? Because there is no constituency for the Democrats here, none that is beholden to them. I've told you here many times, President Obama is a Chicago Democrat: unless there is an in for him, a deal that helps and supports him, helps him directly, then forget about it.
What we have isn't so much a lack of vision, but rather a venal and self-serving vision that doesn't care about space travel. Why should he? It never did anything for him.
The election of President Obama was a disservice to the notion of nation that made Kennedy decide that we would go to the moon in 10 years. Given that challenge, the US government (NASA) and the aerospace industry surpassed that goal and did what no other country could do.
Today? What vision does President Obama bring to the nation? One of decay and a long, slow decline from the world's only superpower to a nation dismayed and divided. That way it's easier to exploit for personal and political gain.
Oh how have the mighty fallen...
Montag, Mai 23, 2011
95 Days...and Irony...
It's not so much that there isn't anything to say and for that reason I haven't written, but rather it's much more that there is so much to say that I don't know where to begin.
Start with this.
The problem with big government is that it is BIG. Seriously big, as in too big to fail big, too big to be ignored big, and above all: taking too much, spending it inefficiently, and then pretending that everything is fine.
If we're in a situation where cutting government spending permanently means entering a recession, that is the definition of government spending out of control.
The road to ruin is paved with the very best of intentions, with the gaps filled by platitudes and all covered with a nice, comfy surface so that those driving along feel no pain, feel no disturbances, but instead blithely continue on their journey.
Key quote:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that if the debt limit isn't increased by August 2, the government will no longer be able to spend more than it collects in revenue. That means it will have to cut spending by about 35%, probably choosing among such items as payments to contractors, soldiers' salaries, social security and Medicare.
On average, the cuts would amount to about $3.8 billion a day, according to our own estimates based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. At that rate, over a period of only 95 days, the cuts would add up to 2.9% of gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation*. That's just enough to negate all the economic growth forecasters expect in 2011.
The first and most fundamental problem here? If government spending is so large that 95 days' worth of cuts - not no spending, but rather cuts in the growth of spending - would wipe out GDP growth for 2011, it means that the economy is seriously lopsided, with government spending accounting for far too much growth.
You see, government spending, unlike any other part of the supply side of the US economy, doesn't add value per se, but is distributive: it takes taxes and fees spent by the companies adding value to the economy and spends it as politicians see fit. It also borrows to spend that money: we are at a crossroads where all paths are thorny and disturbingly difficult, but some lead to long-term recovery and the resurrection of the American dream, while others - most - lead to paths of greater debt, insolvency, and other options better left unsaid.
The ironic part has nothing to do, yet, with the US. It's just this: as the Spanish realize that socialism doesn't work (deliberate pun there: Spanish youth unemployment is over 30%) and give the Socialists there a resounding message at the polls for a change, the city-state of Bremen, in Germany, elects a red-green majority in a city that is broke. In other words, the Spanish are behaving like rational, thoughtful members of society and the Germans are behaving like voters who are collectively burying their heads in the sand and saying "Nanananan" in order to not to be confronted with the catastrophe rolling upon them, of insolvency and massive fiscal problems. Normally these roles are reversed, which is why it's so .... ironic.
Start with this.
The problem with big government is that it is BIG. Seriously big, as in too big to fail big, too big to be ignored big, and above all: taking too much, spending it inefficiently, and then pretending that everything is fine.
If we're in a situation where cutting government spending permanently means entering a recession, that is the definition of government spending out of control.
The road to ruin is paved with the very best of intentions, with the gaps filled by platitudes and all covered with a nice, comfy surface so that those driving along feel no pain, feel no disturbances, but instead blithely continue on their journey.
Key quote:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that if the debt limit isn't increased by August 2, the government will no longer be able to spend more than it collects in revenue. That means it will have to cut spending by about 35%, probably choosing among such items as payments to contractors, soldiers' salaries, social security and Medicare.
On average, the cuts would amount to about $3.8 billion a day, according to our own estimates based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. At that rate, over a period of only 95 days, the cuts would add up to 2.9% of gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation*. That's just enough to negate all the economic growth forecasters expect in 2011.
The first and most fundamental problem here? If government spending is so large that 95 days' worth of cuts - not no spending, but rather cuts in the growth of spending - would wipe out GDP growth for 2011, it means that the economy is seriously lopsided, with government spending accounting for far too much growth.
You see, government spending, unlike any other part of the supply side of the US economy, doesn't add value per se, but is distributive: it takes taxes and fees spent by the companies adding value to the economy and spends it as politicians see fit. It also borrows to spend that money: we are at a crossroads where all paths are thorny and disturbingly difficult, but some lead to long-term recovery and the resurrection of the American dream, while others - most - lead to paths of greater debt, insolvency, and other options better left unsaid.
The ironic part has nothing to do, yet, with the US. It's just this: as the Spanish realize that socialism doesn't work (deliberate pun there: Spanish youth unemployment is over 30%) and give the Socialists there a resounding message at the polls for a change, the city-state of Bremen, in Germany, elects a red-green majority in a city that is broke. In other words, the Spanish are behaving like rational, thoughtful members of society and the Germans are behaving like voters who are collectively burying their heads in the sand and saying "Nanananan" in order to not to be confronted with the catastrophe rolling upon them, of insolvency and massive fiscal problems. Normally these roles are reversed, which is why it's so .... ironic.
Mittwoch, Mai 11, 2011
This is what the scientific community has come to...
I have, sitting in front of me, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, from 5-8 May 2011, 25 pages of text, released on 9 May 2011. It's easily available on the web.
I've actually read it. To be honest, I had to read it three times, because I wasn't sure I was reading it right.
This is not science. One critic put it this way:
This is policy-based evidence-making. The IPCC's report on renewable energy was written by the renewable energy sector.
One point cannot be denied: the work of the IPCC has become irrefutably captured by lobbyists and special interest groups, which have permanently compromised the working of the IPCC and corrupted the process and purpose of the IPCC to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. Or anyone quoting it as gospel can be taken seriously.
The policy director of Greenpeace is one of the Lead Authors of the report.
That should tell you everything you need to know. If you are a true believer, unswayed by true scientific methodology (as opposed to pseudo-scientific self-referencing "climate science" that is anything but that) and critical questioning, then this is everything you've ever wanted.
This is not a Summary for Policymakers: it is a political pamphlet on how those who consider themselves our masters intend to spend our monies over the next three decades, lining the pockets of those who are courtiers and sycophants whilst ignoring the needs of the world's poor. Put bluntly, if this comes to pass, the world's poor will be worse off, with capital taken away from them to be spent on fanciful energy schemes that benefit only a few in the West. It will kill people because scarce resources will be squandered chasing after a chimera, rather than being spent on economic development. There is nothing in the document that suggests otherwise.
This is what the scientific community has come to. A disgrace.
I've actually read it. To be honest, I had to read it three times, because I wasn't sure I was reading it right.
This is not science. One critic put it this way:
This is policy-based evidence-making. The IPCC's report on renewable energy was written by the renewable energy sector.
One point cannot be denied: the work of the IPCC has become irrefutably captured by lobbyists and special interest groups, which have permanently compromised the working of the IPCC and corrupted the process and purpose of the IPCC to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. Or anyone quoting it as gospel can be taken seriously.
The policy director of Greenpeace is one of the Lead Authors of the report.
That should tell you everything you need to know. If you are a true believer, unswayed by true scientific methodology (as opposed to pseudo-scientific self-referencing "climate science" that is anything but that) and critical questioning, then this is everything you've ever wanted.
This is not a Summary for Policymakers: it is a political pamphlet on how those who consider themselves our masters intend to spend our monies over the next three decades, lining the pockets of those who are courtiers and sycophants whilst ignoring the needs of the world's poor. Put bluntly, if this comes to pass, the world's poor will be worse off, with capital taken away from them to be spent on fanciful energy schemes that benefit only a few in the West. It will kill people because scarce resources will be squandered chasing after a chimera, rather than being spent on economic development. There is nothing in the document that suggests otherwise.
This is what the scientific community has come to. A disgrace.
The Catch With Catch-Share...
Ah, the joys of the internet. :-)
This I found on Drudge, as a small side-line. But it piqued my curiosity: what could be going on here?
As usual, do-gooders destroying people's livelihoods in the name of an abstract hope.
Read this first. It's what the NOAA says catch-share should be.
The key quote:
Read this for one take. And then there's this, and this.
It's killing the industry.
Key quote that got me started here:
Local fishermen said they were told by the federal team not to discuss the new regulations, just their effects.
Ye gods. In other words, they're not interested in having fisherman criticize the regulations. They just want to know what the effects are.
And if you don't think it's killing the industry - 400 years of fishing in New England - then read this.
Even Barney Frank thinks it's a bad idea. Which, in the normal scheme of things, would mean that it would have some merit.
But not in this case.
Unintended consequences? Reducing the fishing fleet in just five months by over 50%? That's not an unintended consequence: that's a deliberate plan. The result, the intended result?
Of the 247 ground-fishing vessels left in New England, 55 boats accounted for 61% of revenue. In other words, the industry is being concentrated in a few well-connected companies. The wealthy ones. not the small fisheries and independent fishermen.
So, who is in charge of doing this?
Jane Lubchenco.
Among other things, she is an environmental activist (former vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund: you don't get that job without being an activist).
Key quote:
In fishing for a problem to support the regulatory agendas of the EDF and the Obama administration, Lubchenco netted a policy that has wreaked havoc on the fishing industry, and which will continue to put fishermen out of business until its repeal.
For all those who voted for hope and change, this is what you get. Until this is changed, there is no hope.
This I found on Drudge, as a small side-line. But it piqued my curiosity: what could be going on here?
As usual, do-gooders destroying people's livelihoods in the name of an abstract hope.
Read this first. It's what the NOAA says catch-share should be.
The key quote:
A catch share program differs from traditional fishery management by dividing up the total allowable catch in a fishery into shares. These shares are typically allocated based on historical participation in the fishery. They may be assigned to individuals, cooperatives, communities or other entities, who would be allowed to fish up to their assigned limit. Catch share participants also agree to stop fishing when they have caught as much as they are allowed.
Under traditional management programs, fishermen compete for a total allowable catch. This has lead to fishermen racing each other to catch as many fish as they can before the total catch limit is reached. This results in more boats and gear than necessary, quotas being exceeded, increasingly shorter fishing seasons, unsafe fishing and high levels of bycatch. It also may result in too many fish brought to market at once, reducing their market value to fishermen and coastal communities.
So how is it working in the real world?Read this for one take. And then there's this, and this.
It's killing the industry.
Key quote that got me started here:
Local fishermen said they were told by the federal team not to discuss the new regulations, just their effects.
Ye gods. In other words, they're not interested in having fisherman criticize the regulations. They just want to know what the effects are.
And if you don't think it's killing the industry - 400 years of fishing in New England - then read this.
Even Barney Frank thinks it's a bad idea. Which, in the normal scheme of things, would mean that it would have some merit.
But not in this case.
Unintended consequences? Reducing the fishing fleet in just five months by over 50%? That's not an unintended consequence: that's a deliberate plan. The result, the intended result?
Of the 247 ground-fishing vessels left in New England, 55 boats accounted for 61% of revenue. In other words, the industry is being concentrated in a few well-connected companies. The wealthy ones. not the small fisheries and independent fishermen.
So, who is in charge of doing this?
Jane Lubchenco.
Among other things, she is an environmental activist (former vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund: you don't get that job without being an activist).
Key quote:
In fishing for a problem to support the regulatory agendas of the EDF and the Obama administration, Lubchenco netted a policy that has wreaked havoc on the fishing industry, and which will continue to put fishermen out of business until its repeal.
For all those who voted for hope and change, this is what you get. Until this is changed, there is no hope.
Mittwoch, Mai 04, 2011
Another Inane Idea From DC...
As if there weren't enough inane ideas from that den.
Barney Frank, always good for making sure that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, wants to not allow the regional Feds to set their own interest rates, permitting only a single one to be set from Washington.
Good lord.
The reason that the Europeans have a crisis is the simple fact that they cannot set regional interest rates. It is a real problem for the EMU, as it means that the ECB has to balance, say, the needs of Portugal against the needs of, say, Germany, resulting in policies that muddle through, rather than being decisive.
This is what Barney Frank wants: he wants to give up flexibility of interest rates to address regional needs in order to have greater control over what interest rates are.
He's a control freak who doesn't care what damage is done as long as he can ensure that Congress controls what is going on.
Is the man completely incapable of thinking?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, Of course not. He's a Democrat.
Nov 2012 can't come along soon enough. These fools need to be removed from office. Perhaps the new ones won't be that much better, but at this point, it's hard to see how it can get worse.
Barney Frank, always good for making sure that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, wants to not allow the regional Feds to set their own interest rates, permitting only a single one to be set from Washington.
Good lord.
The reason that the Europeans have a crisis is the simple fact that they cannot set regional interest rates. It is a real problem for the EMU, as it means that the ECB has to balance, say, the needs of Portugal against the needs of, say, Germany, resulting in policies that muddle through, rather than being decisive.
This is what Barney Frank wants: he wants to give up flexibility of interest rates to address regional needs in order to have greater control over what interest rates are.
He's a control freak who doesn't care what damage is done as long as he can ensure that Congress controls what is going on.
Is the man completely incapable of thinking?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, Of course not. He's a Democrat.
Nov 2012 can't come along soon enough. These fools need to be removed from office. Perhaps the new ones won't be that much better, but at this point, it's hard to see how it can get worse.
Montag, Mai 02, 2011
The Death of Osama bin Laden...
Anima eius et animae omnium fidelium defunctorum per Dei misericordiam requiescant in pace.
The above is from the Roman Catholic burial service. It is based in Isiah 57, 1-2:
The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death.
Obama bin Laden did not walk uprightly. He did not belong to the righteous, he was not devout in any civilized sense, and he embraced evil wholeheartedly.
Hence let us understand that there is evil in the world, that evil always fails because at the end of the day, good will prevail. It is of utmost importance that we never forget that in order for evil to prevail, all it requires is that good men allow it. We do not do enough in our policies, in our education, in our culture, in our daily lives, in ourselves to stop evil in its tracks: we are merely human, frail and corruptible, weak and easily distracted. But there are times when we rally and do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons.
My deepest and heart-felt thanks for those whose service to the ideals of the civilized world made it possible to fight this evil and help to end it. These are the true heroes, the righteous and devout, those who walk upright for they are fighting the right fight. Evil is still out there, evil will disappear only when the hearts of men are not clouded by their baser interests and that enlightenment, in one form or another, brings peace to us all, allow us to transcend temptation and not be led to evil.
Until then, lock and load. Keep your ammunition dry, your batteries charged, water clean and the rations healthy. Keep you spirits on the goal, your mind on the situation and above all, love those you do love with all your heart and body.
Keep the faith. It was a good day when Osama bin Laden died. It aggrieves me to say that, I deeply wish that he hadn't done what he did, that his twisted path had been a righteous one. It was not, and his personal evil, at least, has ceased.
That is all.
The above is from the Roman Catholic burial service. It is based in Isiah 57, 1-2:
The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death.
Obama bin Laden did not walk uprightly. He did not belong to the righteous, he was not devout in any civilized sense, and he embraced evil wholeheartedly.
Hence let us understand that there is evil in the world, that evil always fails because at the end of the day, good will prevail. It is of utmost importance that we never forget that in order for evil to prevail, all it requires is that good men allow it. We do not do enough in our policies, in our education, in our culture, in our daily lives, in ourselves to stop evil in its tracks: we are merely human, frail and corruptible, weak and easily distracted. But there are times when we rally and do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons.
My deepest and heart-felt thanks for those whose service to the ideals of the civilized world made it possible to fight this evil and help to end it. These are the true heroes, the righteous and devout, those who walk upright for they are fighting the right fight. Evil is still out there, evil will disappear only when the hearts of men are not clouded by their baser interests and that enlightenment, in one form or another, brings peace to us all, allow us to transcend temptation and not be led to evil.
Until then, lock and load. Keep your ammunition dry, your batteries charged, water clean and the rations healthy. Keep you spirits on the goal, your mind on the situation and above all, love those you do love with all your heart and body.
Keep the faith. It was a good day when Osama bin Laden died. It aggrieves me to say that, I deeply wish that he hadn't done what he did, that his twisted path had been a righteous one. It was not, and his personal evil, at least, has ceased.
That is all.
Donnerstag, April 28, 2011
How To Destroy An Economy...
Here's a case study.
Consider a country that has a divided school system. All children go to elementary school through the 4th grade. Based on grades, a teacher's assessment of the child's natural abilities, as well as discussions with the parents, children are the sent to three different types of schools: the clever ones are sent to a school designed to turn them into well-educated, widely read young people who, basically, reflect the top 25% of the country's potential; the bright ones, but with little ambition or from blue-collar families, go to what amounts to a trade school, learning the proper tools to run a business or become an electrician (math, physics, but not much in the way of literature analysis); the third group goes to a school that is designed to churn out low-level employees such as retail sales people, gas station attendants, that sort of group, this time the lower 25% or so of the country's potential. That middle group is, of course, the larger of the three, with around 50%.
Those going to the clever schools overwhelmingly go on to proper universities, or enter management apprentice programs. Those going the bright schools go into all sorts of apprentice programs, and have a university path in fields such as engineering and other applied sciences. The others go out and get jobs, either directly or after a training period.
That, in a nutshell, is how the German schooling system works. First and foremost, it does recognize that there are differences in intelligence and that there are differences in social origin that can make or break individuals, and for all its flaws - and believe me, after putting my children through that system, there are many - it works well for Germany. You learn at an early age that choices made, right or wrong, have real-world implications down the road. You learn, as well, that you can surmount those decisions, but it takes hard work - transferring from the lower 25% to the upper 25% is not unheard of, but you have to prove to the system that you belong elsewhere - and is something that people respect and can be proud of. Muddling through lands you down at the lower cohort, but even someone not terribly gifted can, by dint of hard work and perseverance, can succeed. Children, of course, from wealthy families can afford to have tutoring to get them through the rough patches, and families with little money will struggle, but it's for a good cause: getting your Abitur - it is roughly the equivalent of an Associate Bachelor's degree in the US, i.e. high school + 2 years of college - means that you have, effectively, been approved by society as being someone who has passed the first test of becoming a productive member of society.
Now, there is one area in Germany that has been spectacularly successful over the last 50 years: Baden-Württemberg, the south-western corner of Germany. It's where Porsche and Mercedes call home; it's where the largest and most successful engineering firms are located; incomes are high, culture is good, life is well organized (there are rules about when you must sweep your sidewalks) and the virtues of the "Schwäbische Hausfrau", or Swabian Wife, are well known. It's a very self-satisfied area, rightfully so.
Now that there is a green-red coalition (German political parties go by a color in the normal vernacular: the Greens are the ecological party, the Reds are socialists, the Blacks are christian conservatives and the Yellows are a kind of liberal) running things in Baden-Württemberg, they have started the discussion about abandoning the three-tier system for a single school system.
In other words, they want to deconstruct exactly that system that has been a major contributor to the success of the German economy.
This is how you destroy an economy in the long run: dismantle the school system in the name of an illusionary system that "is more equal", forcing the bright and clever ones to be bored while pretending those left over are overwhelmed and frustrated. The Green-Red coalition was voted in - the coalition came after the election, not before it - after the Fukushima accident in Japan made the pre-nuclear policies of the blacks unacceptable for many swing voters: a protest vote, fundamentally, that now gives the more radical amongst the greens their opportunity to change how the country is run.
They are going after the school system first, as it is one area where they can simply make it so.
What is it with modern educators? They are sacrificing methods and systems that work in the search for something that is, purportedly, better: however, empirical evidence shows that these sorts of changes makes things worse, rather than better, but too many careers, I suppose, and too much professional status is involved for anyone to admit that the kids are worse off, rather than better.
This is how you destroy an economy: make sure the kids don't get an education that means anything. Make sure they know about gay history and how capitalism is bad, but not how to write something that people actually can understand or do their sums correctly. It takes a while, but it does explain how so many in the pedagogic business are on the political left.
Consider a country that has a divided school system. All children go to elementary school through the 4th grade. Based on grades, a teacher's assessment of the child's natural abilities, as well as discussions with the parents, children are the sent to three different types of schools: the clever ones are sent to a school designed to turn them into well-educated, widely read young people who, basically, reflect the top 25% of the country's potential; the bright ones, but with little ambition or from blue-collar families, go to what amounts to a trade school, learning the proper tools to run a business or become an electrician (math, physics, but not much in the way of literature analysis); the third group goes to a school that is designed to churn out low-level employees such as retail sales people, gas station attendants, that sort of group, this time the lower 25% or so of the country's potential. That middle group is, of course, the larger of the three, with around 50%.
Those going to the clever schools overwhelmingly go on to proper universities, or enter management apprentice programs. Those going the bright schools go into all sorts of apprentice programs, and have a university path in fields such as engineering and other applied sciences. The others go out and get jobs, either directly or after a training period.
That, in a nutshell, is how the German schooling system works. First and foremost, it does recognize that there are differences in intelligence and that there are differences in social origin that can make or break individuals, and for all its flaws - and believe me, after putting my children through that system, there are many - it works well for Germany. You learn at an early age that choices made, right or wrong, have real-world implications down the road. You learn, as well, that you can surmount those decisions, but it takes hard work - transferring from the lower 25% to the upper 25% is not unheard of, but you have to prove to the system that you belong elsewhere - and is something that people respect and can be proud of. Muddling through lands you down at the lower cohort, but even someone not terribly gifted can, by dint of hard work and perseverance, can succeed. Children, of course, from wealthy families can afford to have tutoring to get them through the rough patches, and families with little money will struggle, but it's for a good cause: getting your Abitur - it is roughly the equivalent of an Associate Bachelor's degree in the US, i.e. high school + 2 years of college - means that you have, effectively, been approved by society as being someone who has passed the first test of becoming a productive member of society.
Now, there is one area in Germany that has been spectacularly successful over the last 50 years: Baden-Württemberg, the south-western corner of Germany. It's where Porsche and Mercedes call home; it's where the largest and most successful engineering firms are located; incomes are high, culture is good, life is well organized (there are rules about when you must sweep your sidewalks) and the virtues of the "Schwäbische Hausfrau", or Swabian Wife, are well known. It's a very self-satisfied area, rightfully so.
Now that there is a green-red coalition (German political parties go by a color in the normal vernacular: the Greens are the ecological party, the Reds are socialists, the Blacks are christian conservatives and the Yellows are a kind of liberal) running things in Baden-Württemberg, they have started the discussion about abandoning the three-tier system for a single school system.
In other words, they want to deconstruct exactly that system that has been a major contributor to the success of the German economy.
This is how you destroy an economy in the long run: dismantle the school system in the name of an illusionary system that "is more equal", forcing the bright and clever ones to be bored while pretending those left over are overwhelmed and frustrated. The Green-Red coalition was voted in - the coalition came after the election, not before it - after the Fukushima accident in Japan made the pre-nuclear policies of the blacks unacceptable for many swing voters: a protest vote, fundamentally, that now gives the more radical amongst the greens their opportunity to change how the country is run.
They are going after the school system first, as it is one area where they can simply make it so.
What is it with modern educators? They are sacrificing methods and systems that work in the search for something that is, purportedly, better: however, empirical evidence shows that these sorts of changes makes things worse, rather than better, but too many careers, I suppose, and too much professional status is involved for anyone to admit that the kids are worse off, rather than better.
This is how you destroy an economy: make sure the kids don't get an education that means anything. Make sure they know about gay history and how capitalism is bad, but not how to write something that people actually can understand or do their sums correctly. It takes a while, but it does explain how so many in the pedagogic business are on the political left.
Mittwoch, April 27, 2011
Still missing the point...
Oy.
I guess I'm blessed by not having to watch shows like this, as the righteous ignorance would drive me up a wall.
The price of oil is a function of market prices: supply and demand.
Nothing more, nothing less. Oil is, for the purposes under consideration here, fungible: there are several key places where the oil prices are recorded, from oil from the North Sea to Saudi Arabia to Siberia. Oil prices have futures because companies want to lock in supplies and prices for business purposes.
The price of oil, as a function of supply and demand, is dependent on both supply and demand: if supplies are tight, prices go up. Right now, supplies are not tight.
It's a function of demand. The world is, economically speaking, no longer a duopoly - the US and the EU - but has added a major player in terms of oil demand: Emerging Asian countries, largely India and China, but also including a slew of countries that are starting to transcend poverty.
Hence, Whoopie: you're pissed that a bunch of Chinese and Indians are using the oil that you want to use. To adopt her vernacular: Get used to it, Girl.
She asks the question "Why are they doing this to us?"
The answer: they aren't doing that to you. They're just doing it.
And Jim Avila: "There is really no rational reason for the prices to be so high"? Really? That's your answer? Take a look at world demand patterns and don't tell me there's no rational reason for the prices to be high.
Guess what: they're not going to go down. Too much international demand. The days of cheap oil - and I remember filling up a 20 gallon tank of gas for what it now costs per gallon ($5), back around 1974 - are long, long, long over. Get used to it.
Oy.
Supply and demand: it's not just a good idea. It's how the world works.
I guess I'm blessed by not having to watch shows like this, as the righteous ignorance would drive me up a wall.
The price of oil is a function of market prices: supply and demand.
Nothing more, nothing less. Oil is, for the purposes under consideration here, fungible: there are several key places where the oil prices are recorded, from oil from the North Sea to Saudi Arabia to Siberia. Oil prices have futures because companies want to lock in supplies and prices for business purposes.
The price of oil, as a function of supply and demand, is dependent on both supply and demand: if supplies are tight, prices go up. Right now, supplies are not tight.
It's a function of demand. The world is, economically speaking, no longer a duopoly - the US and the EU - but has added a major player in terms of oil demand: Emerging Asian countries, largely India and China, but also including a slew of countries that are starting to transcend poverty.
Hence, Whoopie: you're pissed that a bunch of Chinese and Indians are using the oil that you want to use. To adopt her vernacular: Get used to it, Girl.
She asks the question "Why are they doing this to us?"
The answer: they aren't doing that to you. They're just doing it.
And Jim Avila: "There is really no rational reason for the prices to be so high"? Really? That's your answer? Take a look at world demand patterns and don't tell me there's no rational reason for the prices to be high.
Guess what: they're not going to go down. Too much international demand. The days of cheap oil - and I remember filling up a 20 gallon tank of gas for what it now costs per gallon ($5), back around 1974 - are long, long, long over. Get used to it.
Oy.
Supply and demand: it's not just a good idea. It's how the world works.
Dienstag, April 26, 2011
Why does this not surprise me?
One of the basic tenets of law is that there is no such thing as guilt by association. In other words, if your sibling goes on a murderous rampage, you won't get the electric chair (unless, of course, you were helping them load). In much the same manner, if your boss is embezzling money, you won't go to jail as a result.
Or if someone in the company broke the law on their own initiative, the man running the company isn't blamed for breaking the law. He gets blamed for having bad judgement, perhaps, or for not having adequate and feasible checks and balances to prevent criminal behavior.
Unless, of course, you are the CEO of a drug company. Then you have to resign if your company wants to keep on doing business with the government.
Read this.
Key quote:
The Health and Human Services department startled drug makers last year when the agency said it would start invoking a little-used administrative policy under the Social Security Act against pharmaceutical executives. This policy allows officials to bar corporate leaders from health-industry companies doing business with the government, if a drug company is guilty of criminal misconduct. The agency said a chief executive or other leader can be banned even if he or she had no knowledge of a company's criminal actions. Retaining a banned executive can trigger a company's exclusion from government business.
Hmmm. Let's parse that one: someone in the company broke the law, the company accepts responsibility and is convicted of criminal actions. Even if the CEO knew nothing about this, they can be banned.
Just like that.
Why does this not surprise me?
Well, apparently this policy existed but, as the article said, wasn't used much. But apparently now the Obama Administration is now making, basically, the hiring decision of who gets to run drug companies.
Key further quote:
The new use of exclusion is meant to "alter the cost-benefit calculus of the corporate executives," said Lew Morris, chief counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services's inspector general, in congressional testimony last month.
In other words, HHS makes the assumption that corporate executives of drug companies base their operative decisions not on things like market needs and profitability, but rather based on what they can get away with.
Why does this not surprise me?
Again, this is not refusing to do business with someone convicted of doing something, but rather a refusal to do business with a company unless they fire their CEO because someone else at that company broke the law and was convicted for it, and the implementation is left up to the government to decide.
Why does this not surprise me?
Respect for the law and due process don't really seem to mean much to the Obama Administration these days (if ever).
Or if someone in the company broke the law on their own initiative, the man running the company isn't blamed for breaking the law. He gets blamed for having bad judgement, perhaps, or for not having adequate and feasible checks and balances to prevent criminal behavior.
Unless, of course, you are the CEO of a drug company. Then you have to resign if your company wants to keep on doing business with the government.
Read this.
Key quote:
The Health and Human Services department startled drug makers last year when the agency said it would start invoking a little-used administrative policy under the Social Security Act against pharmaceutical executives. This policy allows officials to bar corporate leaders from health-industry companies doing business with the government, if a drug company is guilty of criminal misconduct. The agency said a chief executive or other leader can be banned even if he or she had no knowledge of a company's criminal actions. Retaining a banned executive can trigger a company's exclusion from government business.
Hmmm. Let's parse that one: someone in the company broke the law, the company accepts responsibility and is convicted of criminal actions. Even if the CEO knew nothing about this, they can be banned.
Just like that.
Why does this not surprise me?
Well, apparently this policy existed but, as the article said, wasn't used much. But apparently now the Obama Administration is now making, basically, the hiring decision of who gets to run drug companies.
Key further quote:
The new use of exclusion is meant to "alter the cost-benefit calculus of the corporate executives," said Lew Morris, chief counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services's inspector general, in congressional testimony last month.
In other words, HHS makes the assumption that corporate executives of drug companies base their operative decisions not on things like market needs and profitability, but rather based on what they can get away with.
Why does this not surprise me?
Again, this is not refusing to do business with someone convicted of doing something, but rather a refusal to do business with a company unless they fire their CEO because someone else at that company broke the law and was convicted for it, and the implementation is left up to the government to decide.
Why does this not surprise me?
Respect for the law and due process don't really seem to mean much to the Obama Administration these days (if ever).
Belated but not forgotten...
Well, it turns out that WikiLeaks is having some ... unexpected results.
Read this.
There is a mythology on the anti-war left that the Bush Administration made up a connection to Al-Qaeda in order to sell the war to the American public. The only problem is that the Bush Administration never said that: there was an active connection: Vice President Cheney came closest when he said that the two had cooperated.
As always, the reality is a tad stranger than one imagines. Sure, there was no inked treaty of cooperation between the two. But neither did the Bush Administration make something up. The idea that politicians in the Arab world may do one thing in public and another in private may be difficult to accept, but it is reality; further, there is nothing contradictory in the fact that Al Qaeda was sponsoring anti-Saddam forces in areas that Saddam no longer really controlled (Kurdish folk didn't like either) while at the same time discussing operative cooperation with Saddam.
Welcome to the world of Arab politics. Nothing is as it appears, your worst enemy becomes your long-time best friend, and everyone is fully able to hold multiple, contradictory viewpoints all at the same time because that is how the world works there: it's tactical thinking from those whose only interest is survival and advancement.
The anti-war left was and is extraordinarily naive when it comes to such politics and how they, the anti-war left, were deliberately misled, manipulated and in some cases killed when it served the purposes of their erstwhile friends in governments, local NGOs (got news for you: any NGO in Arab countries cannot exist without being a pawn of the government, sometimes more obviously so than others, but no NGO can exist in these countries without being compromised).
The American public believed, back then, that there was a connection. The Bush Administration did not dissuade them of this notion, for it was, as far as anything can be true in that corner of the planet, the case. It never existed as the prima causae belli in anyone's mind except for the rabid anti-Bush left.
Read this.
There is a mythology on the anti-war left that the Bush Administration made up a connection to Al-Qaeda in order to sell the war to the American public. The only problem is that the Bush Administration never said that: there was an active connection: Vice President Cheney came closest when he said that the two had cooperated.
As always, the reality is a tad stranger than one imagines. Sure, there was no inked treaty of cooperation between the two. But neither did the Bush Administration make something up. The idea that politicians in the Arab world may do one thing in public and another in private may be difficult to accept, but it is reality; further, there is nothing contradictory in the fact that Al Qaeda was sponsoring anti-Saddam forces in areas that Saddam no longer really controlled (Kurdish folk didn't like either) while at the same time discussing operative cooperation with Saddam.
Welcome to the world of Arab politics. Nothing is as it appears, your worst enemy becomes your long-time best friend, and everyone is fully able to hold multiple, contradictory viewpoints all at the same time because that is how the world works there: it's tactical thinking from those whose only interest is survival and advancement.
The anti-war left was and is extraordinarily naive when it comes to such politics and how they, the anti-war left, were deliberately misled, manipulated and in some cases killed when it served the purposes of their erstwhile friends in governments, local NGOs (got news for you: any NGO in Arab countries cannot exist without being a pawn of the government, sometimes more obviously so than others, but no NGO can exist in these countries without being compromised).
The American public believed, back then, that there was a connection. The Bush Administration did not dissuade them of this notion, for it was, as far as anything can be true in that corner of the planet, the case. It never existed as the prima causae belli in anyone's mind except for the rabid anti-Bush left.
Donnerstag, April 14, 2011
An Informed Electorate...
While the vote in the US doesn't happen for another, oh, 572 days, there is no time like the present for prospective voters to start informing themselves on the issues.
These two links (Part I here and Part II here) are from a fairly unlikely source: an Australian journal called Quadrant, which bills itself as a "journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate".
Normally you'd expect modern orthodoxy from such a source, but the links take you to a sensible argument that AGW is, bluntly, a crock and really bad science masquerading as scientific orthodoxy and mainstream thought.
What is disappointing is that you have to go to Australia to get this sort of writing. The US press, the mainstream media (MSM), is failing in one of its self-anointed tasks: of helping people make an informed choice when they vote. The dogmatic orthodoxy that you see in the MSM does exactly the opposite: those who vociferously complain about the ignorance and stupidity of the average American voter are the same people who created the problem.
An informed electorate is the last thing the Left want, as maintaining the Left's myths and fairy tales require a significant lack of intellectual curiosity - a closed mind - and adherence to an orthodoxy that has never had anything to do with the empirical world.
Which is probably exactly why you have to go to Australia to get this sort of writing.
These two links (Part I here and Part II here) are from a fairly unlikely source: an Australian journal called Quadrant, which bills itself as a "journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate".
Normally you'd expect modern orthodoxy from such a source, but the links take you to a sensible argument that AGW is, bluntly, a crock and really bad science masquerading as scientific orthodoxy and mainstream thought.
What is disappointing is that you have to go to Australia to get this sort of writing. The US press, the mainstream media (MSM), is failing in one of its self-anointed tasks: of helping people make an informed choice when they vote. The dogmatic orthodoxy that you see in the MSM does exactly the opposite: those who vociferously complain about the ignorance and stupidity of the average American voter are the same people who created the problem.
An informed electorate is the last thing the Left want, as maintaining the Left's myths and fairy tales require a significant lack of intellectual curiosity - a closed mind - and adherence to an orthodoxy that has never had anything to do with the empirical world.
Which is probably exactly why you have to go to Australia to get this sort of writing.
Donnerstag, April 07, 2011
A Shrug: Return of the Railroad...
Odd title at first, but bear with me.
Starting in 2013, new energy laws come into effect in Germany, requiring companies within an industry to meet "best-of-class" energy targets or be required to buy emission permits to offset the fact that they do not meet best-of-class energy usage.
The problem?
It will drive key industries, those making energy-intensive products, into a corner where they can either close down, move production outside of the Euro-Zone, become uncompetitive or go out of business because profits won't finance the cash flow needed to invest.
The problem? Defining best-of-class energy usage for the industry as a whole.
Simply put, the EU is set to introduce benchmarks that certain key industries cannot meet. Not "can't afford to" or "is unwilling to" or "doesn't want to", but rather can't. The currently planned benchmark means that no open-furnace steel maker anywhere will be able to meet the benchmark as it is not technically possible to do so.
Either the companies can close their operations down and leave the business, or they can move production outside of the Euro-Zone and ignore the energy targets entirely, or they can pass the emissions permit costs on to their customers (driving their prices up and becoming, given the fact that competitors don't have to do this) and become uncompetitive (and hence leaving the business at some point via bankruptcy), or they can eat the costs, which will, however, be so high that they will no longer be able to finance investments out of their cash flow. The amount of money involved is not trivial (and comes out of profits): it will be hundreds of millions of Euro for Germany alone.
This isn't just the case for steel: it is also the case where electricity is one of the raw materials used in manufacturing, not merely used to light things and run computers. The largest PVC production plant, for instance, uses 800 GW-Hours in a year, about as much as fair-sized city: it is not technically possible to make it any other way.
We're not talking old, inefficient plants, either: these are the most modern around. The increases in prices due to the emission permits means an additional tax, as it is that, of around €15k per worker in 2013.
And possibly more.
The problem here is that politicians are making decisions that industry has to live with, but without understanding that at least some of the decisions are simply not technically possible. Not that they aren't feasible, or cost too much, or take too long to implement, but rather that there is simply no way to bend the laws of physics and chemistry to meet those goals.
So why the title?
Consider this: the industries involved (concrete, chemicals,, glass, metals and paper) are core primary industries. They feed into all other industries. Without their production, nothing else can be made.
What we have here is tragedy masquerading as policy. In the name of the greater good, functioning, efficient and profitable industries will be destroyed based upon the whim of politicians who should know better.
It is what happened in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. If you have read that, you know how it ends. Substitute primary industries for the railroads, and you end up with the same story line.
If you haven't read it: worth the read. It's not the best economics, nor is much the story entirely plausible (railroads aren't that critical given the highway system and air transport), but it does contain a message worth understanding: beware the takers, beware those who are willing to destroy for the greater good.
Starting in 2013, new energy laws come into effect in Germany, requiring companies within an industry to meet "best-of-class" energy targets or be required to buy emission permits to offset the fact that they do not meet best-of-class energy usage.
The problem?
It will drive key industries, those making energy-intensive products, into a corner where they can either close down, move production outside of the Euro-Zone, become uncompetitive or go out of business because profits won't finance the cash flow needed to invest.
The problem? Defining best-of-class energy usage for the industry as a whole.
Simply put, the EU is set to introduce benchmarks that certain key industries cannot meet. Not "can't afford to" or "is unwilling to" or "doesn't want to", but rather can't. The currently planned benchmark means that no open-furnace steel maker anywhere will be able to meet the benchmark as it is not technically possible to do so.
Either the companies can close their operations down and leave the business, or they can move production outside of the Euro-Zone and ignore the energy targets entirely, or they can pass the emissions permit costs on to their customers (driving their prices up and becoming, given the fact that competitors don't have to do this) and become uncompetitive (and hence leaving the business at some point via bankruptcy), or they can eat the costs, which will, however, be so high that they will no longer be able to finance investments out of their cash flow. The amount of money involved is not trivial (and comes out of profits): it will be hundreds of millions of Euro for Germany alone.
This isn't just the case for steel: it is also the case where electricity is one of the raw materials used in manufacturing, not merely used to light things and run computers. The largest PVC production plant, for instance, uses 800 GW-Hours in a year, about as much as fair-sized city: it is not technically possible to make it any other way.
We're not talking old, inefficient plants, either: these are the most modern around. The increases in prices due to the emission permits means an additional tax, as it is that, of around €15k per worker in 2013.
And possibly more.
The problem here is that politicians are making decisions that industry has to live with, but without understanding that at least some of the decisions are simply not technically possible. Not that they aren't feasible, or cost too much, or take too long to implement, but rather that there is simply no way to bend the laws of physics and chemistry to meet those goals.
So why the title?
Consider this: the industries involved (concrete, chemicals,, glass, metals and paper) are core primary industries. They feed into all other industries. Without their production, nothing else can be made.
What we have here is tragedy masquerading as policy. In the name of the greater good, functioning, efficient and profitable industries will be destroyed based upon the whim of politicians who should know better.
It is what happened in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. If you have read that, you know how it ends. Substitute primary industries for the railroads, and you end up with the same story line.
If you haven't read it: worth the read. It's not the best economics, nor is much the story entirely plausible (railroads aren't that critical given the highway system and air transport), but it does contain a message worth understanding: beware the takers, beware those who are willing to destroy for the greater good.
Dienstag, März 29, 2011
A Day of Infamy...
Today is the day that the US fighting troops withdrew from Vietnam. The war had become so unpopular that President Johnson decided not to run for re-election, leaving the winding down of the war to his successor, President Nixon.
It was a day of infamy. Not like Pearl Harbor, which was a surprise attack held during diplomatic talks, but a day of infamy in the original sense of the word, from the Latin infamia, the inversion of fame, the flipping of fame to infamy. It is a state of extreme dishonor, a black spot on US history.
But not for the reasons that the Left would have you believe.
The popular conception is that the Vietcong was fighting for independence against a corrupt government and that the North Vietnamese were helping their oppressed brothers (and sisters) fight against tyranny. The Tet offensive was a popular uprising that the US had to put down to save the regime. The US was involved because we were knee-jerk reactionaries, trying to prevent the spread of communism and willing to kill innocent civilians for the sake of geopolitics. My Lai and "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" proved that the war was horrible and we shouldn't be involved. It was nothing but a colonial war and the US was on the wrong side. We fought a war of genocide and were outfought by peasants.
As usual, the popular conception is wrong.
The Vietcong were financed and run by the North in order to destabilize the South, which, for all its failings, was a functioning government with popular support. The North was financed in turn by both China and Russia, with the latter dominating, who sent billions in weapons and supplies in the hope that the Vietnamese, if successful, would turn over Cam Rahn Bay, a lovely natural harbor, over to the Soviets for their geopolitical games with the US. The North Vietnamese were ruthless Leninists (and remain so today, largely) that were more than happy to massacre the Catholics in the North; they violated each and every agreement signed with the French that split Vietnam without regard to anything but their revolutionary ideals. They beat the French at Dien Bien Phu in a set-piece battle that reflected less on their abilities as much more the incompetence of the French military command which allowed the battle to happen at all. They fought to unify Vietnam under the banner of the Vietnamese Communist Party, hard-core Leninists who learned their trade at Moscow's knee at the start of the Cold War.
The US was involved because the South asked us for help at a time when Wilsonist idealists were running US foreign policy, more than happy to give a helping hand to anyone trying to emulate western political philosophies. The massive amounts of foreign aid corrupted the capital thoroughly and created a political system rife with corruption and incompetence. Tet was a deliberate suicide mission aimed at US public opinion, complete with wide-spread political assassination of Southern politicians by the North, resulting in the destruction of local guerrilla fighters (the Vietcong); thereafter, the war was fought by North Vietnamese regulars, using tactics that were illegal under the Geneva Laws of Warfare (disguising soldiers as civilians and use of cultural sites for military operations). The US was indeed involved to prevent a Communist takeover: there are good reasons to do so, and the fate of those fleeing Vietnam as Boat People should be an object lesson as to how far people will go to flee Communist rule.
Civilian lives were lost, but largely because of the way the North fought. They lost every single set-piece action they tried to fight, every single one. They lost tactically, they lost strategically, the only victory they achieved was political, sapping the will of the US to continue to fight. They fielded an army of peasants that was thoroughly trounced by drafted US soldiers and South Vietnamese soldiers. The story of the ARVN 18th Infantry Division defending Xuan Loc gives absolute lie to the claim that the South Vietnamese were incapable of fighting and worthless: that division outfought the North Vietnamese 4th Army Corps to a standstill until, outnumbered and running out of ammunition (that the US Congress denied them), they withdrew, with one unit staying behind to be completely wiped out to cover the withdrawal.
That is why this is a day of infamy. It is a day of infamy for the US congress, which made foreign policy by cutting aid, making it impossible for South Vietnam to defend itself. They prevented the US military from intervening via what we now call a no-fly zone, giving air support to the South at a time when it was being attacked by the North. The North Vietnamese had tried something similar before and was stopped by US air power
Put bluntly: the US failed in its commitment, failed in its duty, failed to stand by a country - South Vietnam - which by 1973 was fighting the war without US troops and holding its own, indeed winning back the countryside. It finally fell to a combined arms attack using more tanks and artillery than the Germans had when they started WW2.
The North broke every treaty it ever signed, broke every promise it ever made, and after the war was over, killed millions of Vietnamese through "re-education" camps and political oppression that led to desperate attempts to escape. They fought a war of lies and deceit, a typical Communist "war of liberation" that did anything but liberate the country. The Vietnam we see today is still run by that party, mellowed by age (and the dying-out of the Leninists) and itself thoroughly corrupted.
It is also a day of infamy because it led to an entire generation of Democratic politicians whose careers were made by opposing US actions, bordering on treason and sedition, typified by John Kerry, who used his service as a tool to gain and hold political office by making the US look as bad as possible in order to appeal to those who were disgusted by the war. This is nothing but brazen opportunism and is indeed infamous.
Lessons were learned. The US no longer has a drafted military, moving to a purely professional army instead because of many of the problems faced. Allies also knew that the US could only be relied on if led by the right politician, and indeed this gave solace to our enemies because they also knew that the US could not be relied on if led by corrupt and incompetent politicians. The US showed that it is vulnerable to the manipulation of public opinion and that there are more than enough willing and useful idiots more than happy to further their own careers by advancing viewpoints that damage US interests.
Now some reading this might roll their eyes and say "another revisionist..." but I dare anyone to state the case that the facts are different. You're entitled to your own opinions, but the facts speak another language. One of infamy.
It was a day of infamy. Not like Pearl Harbor, which was a surprise attack held during diplomatic talks, but a day of infamy in the original sense of the word, from the Latin infamia, the inversion of fame, the flipping of fame to infamy. It is a state of extreme dishonor, a black spot on US history.
But not for the reasons that the Left would have you believe.
The popular conception is that the Vietcong was fighting for independence against a corrupt government and that the North Vietnamese were helping their oppressed brothers (and sisters) fight against tyranny. The Tet offensive was a popular uprising that the US had to put down to save the regime. The US was involved because we were knee-jerk reactionaries, trying to prevent the spread of communism and willing to kill innocent civilians for the sake of geopolitics. My Lai and "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" proved that the war was horrible and we shouldn't be involved. It was nothing but a colonial war and the US was on the wrong side. We fought a war of genocide and were outfought by peasants.
As usual, the popular conception is wrong.
The Vietcong were financed and run by the North in order to destabilize the South, which, for all its failings, was a functioning government with popular support. The North was financed in turn by both China and Russia, with the latter dominating, who sent billions in weapons and supplies in the hope that the Vietnamese, if successful, would turn over Cam Rahn Bay, a lovely natural harbor, over to the Soviets for their geopolitical games with the US. The North Vietnamese were ruthless Leninists (and remain so today, largely) that were more than happy to massacre the Catholics in the North; they violated each and every agreement signed with the French that split Vietnam without regard to anything but their revolutionary ideals. They beat the French at Dien Bien Phu in a set-piece battle that reflected less on their abilities as much more the incompetence of the French military command which allowed the battle to happen at all. They fought to unify Vietnam under the banner of the Vietnamese Communist Party, hard-core Leninists who learned their trade at Moscow's knee at the start of the Cold War.
The US was involved because the South asked us for help at a time when Wilsonist idealists were running US foreign policy, more than happy to give a helping hand to anyone trying to emulate western political philosophies. The massive amounts of foreign aid corrupted the capital thoroughly and created a political system rife with corruption and incompetence. Tet was a deliberate suicide mission aimed at US public opinion, complete with wide-spread political assassination of Southern politicians by the North, resulting in the destruction of local guerrilla fighters (the Vietcong); thereafter, the war was fought by North Vietnamese regulars, using tactics that were illegal under the Geneva Laws of Warfare (disguising soldiers as civilians and use of cultural sites for military operations). The US was indeed involved to prevent a Communist takeover: there are good reasons to do so, and the fate of those fleeing Vietnam as Boat People should be an object lesson as to how far people will go to flee Communist rule.
Civilian lives were lost, but largely because of the way the North fought. They lost every single set-piece action they tried to fight, every single one. They lost tactically, they lost strategically, the only victory they achieved was political, sapping the will of the US to continue to fight. They fielded an army of peasants that was thoroughly trounced by drafted US soldiers and South Vietnamese soldiers. The story of the ARVN 18th Infantry Division defending Xuan Loc gives absolute lie to the claim that the South Vietnamese were incapable of fighting and worthless: that division outfought the North Vietnamese 4th Army Corps to a standstill until, outnumbered and running out of ammunition (that the US Congress denied them), they withdrew, with one unit staying behind to be completely wiped out to cover the withdrawal.
That is why this is a day of infamy. It is a day of infamy for the US congress, which made foreign policy by cutting aid, making it impossible for South Vietnam to defend itself. They prevented the US military from intervening via what we now call a no-fly zone, giving air support to the South at a time when it was being attacked by the North. The North Vietnamese had tried something similar before and was stopped by US air power
Put bluntly: the US failed in its commitment, failed in its duty, failed to stand by a country - South Vietnam - which by 1973 was fighting the war without US troops and holding its own, indeed winning back the countryside. It finally fell to a combined arms attack using more tanks and artillery than the Germans had when they started WW2.
The North broke every treaty it ever signed, broke every promise it ever made, and after the war was over, killed millions of Vietnamese through "re-education" camps and political oppression that led to desperate attempts to escape. They fought a war of lies and deceit, a typical Communist "war of liberation" that did anything but liberate the country. The Vietnam we see today is still run by that party, mellowed by age (and the dying-out of the Leninists) and itself thoroughly corrupted.
It is also a day of infamy because it led to an entire generation of Democratic politicians whose careers were made by opposing US actions, bordering on treason and sedition, typified by John Kerry, who used his service as a tool to gain and hold political office by making the US look as bad as possible in order to appeal to those who were disgusted by the war. This is nothing but brazen opportunism and is indeed infamous.
Lessons were learned. The US no longer has a drafted military, moving to a purely professional army instead because of many of the problems faced. Allies also knew that the US could only be relied on if led by the right politician, and indeed this gave solace to our enemies because they also knew that the US could not be relied on if led by corrupt and incompetent politicians. The US showed that it is vulnerable to the manipulation of public opinion and that there are more than enough willing and useful idiots more than happy to further their own careers by advancing viewpoints that damage US interests.
Now some reading this might roll their eyes and say "another revisionist..." but I dare anyone to state the case that the facts are different. You're entitled to your own opinions, but the facts speak another language. One of infamy.
Samstag, März 19, 2011
An Interesting Point...
Donald Sensing raises a very, very good point, one that has, as usual, slipped by the MSM and, most tellingly, is not even on the horizon of the left, especially the anti-war left, bringing home the point that these groups are nothing less than purely partisan.
Read it here.
First and foremost, President Obama should be going to Congress for authorization of the use of force under UN Resolution 1973. If he does not, it borders on abuse of presidential powers. President Bush I and II both went to Congress for such authorizations, which is the modern-day equivalent of the declaration of war that apparently has gone completely out of style.
If he fails to do this, he is setting precedence for future Presidents. No President has been happy with the War Powers Act that expressed the Congress' full intent of fulfilling its role under the Constitution of the United States, that it alone may declare war unless there is simply no time for it to meet.
Never has the press been so silent about this: this speaks volumes for the sycophants that appear to be in charge here. If the current President was a Republican, you'd be hearing about this in banner headlines.
Sometimes the absence of something is the proof that it exists.
President Obama has been quoted on this:
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," the memo quotes then-Senator Obama saying on Dec. 20, 2007.
In other words, President Obama is on record for stating that he does not have the power to do what he is now doing.
Ye gods. The sooner the 2012 defeat of President Obama at the polls, the better.
Read it here.
First and foremost, President Obama should be going to Congress for authorization of the use of force under UN Resolution 1973. If he does not, it borders on abuse of presidential powers. President Bush I and II both went to Congress for such authorizations, which is the modern-day equivalent of the declaration of war that apparently has gone completely out of style.
If he fails to do this, he is setting precedence for future Presidents. No President has been happy with the War Powers Act that expressed the Congress' full intent of fulfilling its role under the Constitution of the United States, that it alone may declare war unless there is simply no time for it to meet.
Never has the press been so silent about this: this speaks volumes for the sycophants that appear to be in charge here. If the current President was a Republican, you'd be hearing about this in banner headlines.
Sometimes the absence of something is the proof that it exists.
President Obama has been quoted on this:
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," the memo quotes then-Senator Obama saying on Dec. 20, 2007.
In other words, President Obama is on record for stating that he does not have the power to do what he is now doing.
Ye gods. The sooner the 2012 defeat of President Obama at the polls, the better.
Donnerstag, März 10, 2011
Worth watching...
Finally someone telling it as it really is...and it is not good...
The American people have been lied to since at least the Great Society programs of LBJ.
The mantras of "We can afford to..."; "The richest nation on the planet and we don't have..."; "We need to address the injustices of ..." are what is driving the deficits and the debt to unsustainable levels. Entitlements are the problem: pretending that they may not, can not and shall not be touched is a enduring political myth.
The reason that entitlement programs are called "The Third Rail" of American politics - touch and you die - is that when you look closely at them, the fabric unravels. Social security only works as a pay-as-you-go program when demographics and wage increases support permanent increases; Medicare and Medicaid only work when health care costs do not handily exceed the cost of living increases and only cover those who really cannot pay (as opposed to those who simply don't want to pay); the vast number of subsidies for successful interest groups and their lobbyists are like leeches, living off the life blood and ensuring their own success at the cost of their host.
If entitlements are not addressed now, when there is still a chance to do this with deliberation and with careful review, they will have to be addressed when the full fiscal crisis hits, after interest rates go up and the government has to pay significantly higher interest rates to roll over its debt.
The fiscal irresponsibilities are manifold and cross party lines. The sins of at least three generations of politicians - vote for me and there'll be pork in your district, money for nothing and your kicks for free (deliberate misquote, there) - are coming home to roost: pretending that they are not, that there is no 400lb gorilla in the room, simply pushes the final day of reckoning out to where that gorilla becomes a 25 tons gorilla that fills the room and leaves no other options than dealing with it.
The willful ignorance, the deliberate put-my-fingers-in-my-ears-and-say-la-la-la-la of the Democrat Party reflects the party's virtual total dependence on entitlements. Republicans are better in this aspect - middle-class subsidies such as tax breaks for mortgages have merged into the general landscape, rather than being something that the Republicans depend on to get their votes - but have their own home-made problems and sins of the past.
Unless the problem is dealt with - and as I have said before, only spending cuts will truly address the problem, as raising taxes to actually pay for everything would be onerous and ruinous - then the future of the country is at stake.
To take a slogan, so badly abused by the Democrats: "Do it for the children".
The American people have been lied to since at least the Great Society programs of LBJ.
The mantras of "We can afford to..."; "The richest nation on the planet and we don't have..."; "We need to address the injustices of ..." are what is driving the deficits and the debt to unsustainable levels. Entitlements are the problem: pretending that they may not, can not and shall not be touched is a enduring political myth.
The reason that entitlement programs are called "The Third Rail" of American politics - touch and you die - is that when you look closely at them, the fabric unravels. Social security only works as a pay-as-you-go program when demographics and wage increases support permanent increases; Medicare and Medicaid only work when health care costs do not handily exceed the cost of living increases and only cover those who really cannot pay (as opposed to those who simply don't want to pay); the vast number of subsidies for successful interest groups and their lobbyists are like leeches, living off the life blood and ensuring their own success at the cost of their host.
If entitlements are not addressed now, when there is still a chance to do this with deliberation and with careful review, they will have to be addressed when the full fiscal crisis hits, after interest rates go up and the government has to pay significantly higher interest rates to roll over its debt.
The fiscal irresponsibilities are manifold and cross party lines. The sins of at least three generations of politicians - vote for me and there'll be pork in your district, money for nothing and your kicks for free (deliberate misquote, there) - are coming home to roost: pretending that they are not, that there is no 400lb gorilla in the room, simply pushes the final day of reckoning out to where that gorilla becomes a 25 tons gorilla that fills the room and leaves no other options than dealing with it.
The willful ignorance, the deliberate put-my-fingers-in-my-ears-and-say-la-la-la-la of the Democrat Party reflects the party's virtual total dependence on entitlements. Republicans are better in this aspect - middle-class subsidies such as tax breaks for mortgages have merged into the general landscape, rather than being something that the Republicans depend on to get their votes - but have their own home-made problems and sins of the past.
Unless the problem is dealt with - and as I have said before, only spending cuts will truly address the problem, as raising taxes to actually pay for everything would be onerous and ruinous - then the future of the country is at stake.
To take a slogan, so badly abused by the Democrats: "Do it for the children".
Party Over...
Two items in today's WSJ.
First of all, this.
The academics running the Obama foreign policy are doing active harm to the US: this will have repercussions. They can retire when Obama is defeated in 2012 and pretend that it wasn't them who screwed things up, but reality will tell another story and history can be so cruel.
To quote from the link:
The U.S. needs to issue a more public, unequivocal statement of support for authentic representative government. And find an active policy to go with it.
First of all, this.
The academics running the Obama foreign policy are doing active harm to the US: this will have repercussions. They can retire when Obama is defeated in 2012 and pretend that it wasn't them who screwed things up, but reality will tell another story and history can be so cruel.
To quote from the link:
The U.S. needs to issue a more public, unequivocal statement of support for authentic representative government. And find an active policy to go with it.
Only a U.S. president can lead this fight. But he has to (truly) believe in it. There is a school of thought, popular around the Obama foreign-policy team, that the world would be better off without the myth of American exceptionalism and burdens like these that come with it. If this government can't summon more than rhetoric or a U.N. resolution on behalf of 10 up-and-running democratic movements in the Middle East, that exceptionalism will wither. I'm guessing the world won't be better for it.
This is an moment where the only explanation - besides gross and widespread incompetence - is that such an epic failure is deliberately desired and planned. Such an abdication of US interests amounts to gross negligence and outright treachery, not merely to US interests, but to fundamental human rights and the case for democracy world-wide.
It is supremely ironic that it is the Democratic Party that is pursuing these goals. That party now appears actively moving to make its name as much a farce as "Democratic Republic" was for the Communist rulers of Eastern Germany. Orwell knew what he was writing about.
This also points to the end of the party. Fundamentally, the US government is broke: it is spending far more than it takes in (I originally wrote "earns", but that only makes sense of confiscation is the same as earning) and while it can leverage quite a bit of this spending by using the government's cash flow, at some point the numbers cease to add up and the party is over. This is as true of government as it is for private persons: the only difference is scale and time. Raising taxes, given the already heavy overall general tax burden, would be counterproductive: the only way out of the debt problem is for spending to be cut drastically.
Let me repeat that: the only way out of the debt problem is for spending to be cut drastically.
I've always referred to NPR since my Washington, DC days as "National Pinko Radio". The liberal bias was excruciatingly obvious, with liberal opinions masquerading as facts. The insular nature of their broadcasts, those whom they interviewed regarding issues (invariably heavily weighted towards whatever liberal/Democratic Party talking point story they brought), the issues chosen: All Things Considered is anything but inclusive, preferring to talk endlessly about health care and gay marriage.
In a time when the government is funding Poetry for Cowboys (and thank you, Harry Ried, for giving us all such a lovely pinata to bang away at!) whilst running up massive deficits and increasing national debt, it is time for someone to say that the party is over.
The party is over.
It is time for the government to stop trying to do good. It is time to stop the madness of financing Poetry for Cowboys, for financing the NPR, for financing luxuries in a time when it is hard to pay for the necessities. The party is over. The place needs to be cleaned up, the drunken guests who have shit in the pool need to be tossed out, the remnants of the orgy have to be disinfected and we need to get the stains out of the couch, carpet and drapes. It's time to stop wondering how someone smashed a banana on the ceiling and get out the ladder to clean it off. It's time to get rid of the slackers lying on the couch watching mindless TV - sorry, I repeat myself there - and get them to work cleaning up the mess they made. The house is trashed, the vases broken, no one knows what killed the goldfish (but the water is yellow) and someone thought it was really funny to make the cat drink a bottle of beer. Now morning has arrived and it is time to save what is left of the house.
It is going to hurt to cut the budget drastically: however, it is hurting right now to ask your average Mr. and Ms. America to pay for Democratic excesses and sheer incompetence when it comes to money. It is time to get our house back in order, to clean out the pigsty, repaint the walls after fixing the cracks and dents, get the washing machine and dryer running full time so that we can get back to normal. There's been a lot of damage done and we have to pay the bills, but this is not the time to head out golfing in the hope that someone else does the job.
Ye gods. It is time that the adults are back in charge.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
