Suchergebnisse

Yesterday was May Day, celebrated as the Labour Day public holiday here in Queensland. And this week, appropriately enough I'm giving two presentations on the case for a four-day working week, one to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, a business-oriented thinktank, and one to a parliamentary inquiry. I started writing a post about […]

The Daily Telegraph tells us that white hydrogen (geologic H2, that may be archaic or other theories suggest constantly generated) may or may not be the solution to some or all of our climate change woes. Estimates of the flow of hydrogen from these process are imprecise, varying from very little to all of the current global annual consumption of hydrogen. In addition there might be potentially vast quantities of primordial hydrogen. And the great thing about all this white hydrogen is that we do not need to use large quantities of electricity or fossil fuel to produce it: this is not an energy store like all the other colours of hydrogen, it is a dispatchable primary energy source like nuclear or fossil fuels.They're right too - too much is unknown to be able to decide on whether this is some mildly interesting but marginal issue or of some great import. The bit that amuses us is the sheer serendipity of this other announcement made on the same day: Significant concentrations of hydrogen and helium have been encountered in sections of the Ramsay 1 well, confirming historic measurement and demonstrating an active hydrogen system in the Ramsay Project area. Testing and laboratory results measured air-corrected hydrogen at 73.3% at 240m below ground level, consistent with the 76% air-corrected concentration of hydrogen reported in the Ramsay Oil Bore 1 in 1931.This is not investment advice about Gold Hydrogen and it's most certainly not a recommendation. We just do think that it's fun. From that fun we also derive two little lessons. The first is something about mineral resources in general. There never has been a proper survey of the planet and what it holds. The only statistics we've got (all those mineral reserves, resources) are listings of what currently active companies claim to have marked out as economic to recover deposits. Anyone claiming that mineral reserves (or that wider definition, resources) is "what we've got" is wholly and entirely wrong. Systematically wrong in that they don't know what they're talking about, have failed to grasp the basic definition. For example, this find of H2 in Oz - we know it's there, from that announcement. But it's not a mineral resource even yet, let alone a reserve. This is also true of all the other places we've not gone looking as yet. The second is that we need some way of working out which of all these possibilities is going to be important and which aren't. The answer is not to use planning. For obviously planners didn't know about this white hydrogen find. Nor, really, does anyone's current plans include any white hydrogen at all. So, what we need is a system that continuously alters course given the new information that flows into it. You know, markets? Not government plans written into the Climate Change Act 2008 and "legally enforceable" as a result. But prices, markets, the efficient manner of incorporating new knowledge into the body politic. That's the one way we've got of trying everything and so seeing what works.Sure, perfectly happy to help markets along by incorporating externalities into prices - we've been arguing for that for two decades now. We've also no complaint at all about the idea of dealing with climate change. It's the process we use to do this - markets adjusted for externalities rather than the plans of whichever babykisser last got elected - which we insist upon.Yesterday we didn't know that white hydrogen existed in Australia. Today we do - great, so, how do we incorporate that into our plans? By not having societal plans other than using prices to inform activity…..

Dear POLLEN Members and Friends,  We are pleased to share with you the latest publications, vacancies, CfPs and more from our lively community. We aim to send the newsletter on the 25th of every month.    Has your POLLEN node NOT been introduced by us? If your node is keen to share your work in upcoming … Read more May 2023 Update

Excerpts from Reason's vaults

News of politicians, police, and bureaucrats behaving badly from around the world.

This month’s open thread on climate topics. Please be succinct, courteous and on point.
The post Unforced variations: May 2023 first appeared on RealClimate.

This month’s open thread on climate topics. Many eyes will be focused on whether April temperatures will be the 11th month in row of records… Note that we have updated the data and figures from the Nenana Ice Classic and Dawson City river ice break up pools (the nominal 13th and 5th earliest break-ups (or […]
The post Unforced Variations: May 2024 first appeared on RealClimate.

When I was young, Paul Krugman was one of my favorite economists, and I would try to read everything he wrote (which was a lot!). At some point, however, roughly coinciding with his becoming a regular New York Times columnist, he switched from writing as an economist to writing more as a political pundit. I then lost interest. His political commentary struck me as repetitive and slightly unhinged: "Conservatives are stupid, conservatives are evil, yada, yada, yada."Yet his column in yesterday's paper caught my eye. It's titled "Is the Fed braking too hard?" I have been pondering this question myself, and my instincts tell me the answer may be yes. Paul makes the case well.Anyway, I am here to recommend the Krugman column, which is something I did not expect myself to be saying.Update: David Papell and Ruxandra Prodan reach a similar conclusion about current monetary policy.

Over the past year, the situation for the transgender community in Russia has significantly deteriorated. in May 2023 the Ministry of Justice actively discussed either making more difficult or completely banning transgender transition.

Perhaps more than illuminating his mean-spiritedness, Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards' swipe at the Bossier Four demonstrates again the sanctimony that has undergirded his time in elective office — although they yet may prevail.The Bossier Four — Republican state Reps. Raymond Crews, Dodie Horton, Danny McCormick, and Alan Seabaugh — along with 15 others in the Louisiana Legislature's lower chamber voted against busting the state's spending cap. They reasoned that excess dollars should go towards unfunded accrued liabilities and topping off state savings accounts, which not only would free up state and local dollars towards education that could be used for pay raises but also would trigger individual income tax reductions, all the while avoiding new commitments that would threaten fiscal stability when the 2016/2018 sales tax increases expire at the end of fiscal year 2025 and the tapering of Washington Democrats' debt-fueled spending binge that boosted state coffers, changes which are pegged to bring in $1.5 billion fewer annually after three years. Instead, egged on by Edwards, legislators opted to blow a significant portion of the excess collected from the people on new ongoing commitments of questionable affordability and much of the rest on capital items. These four saw their districts hardly share in that, first because Edwards-backed GOP Speaker Clay Schexnayder and his leadership team headed by Republican state Rep. Tanner Magee made sure several items initially placed in the capital outlay bill concerning the Four's districts were removed after they voted against the breach. Then Edwards joined the gore fest by slicing out the surviving projects with his line item veto from the supplemental outlay bill HB 560. In all, no parish was hit harder than Bossier Parish, although the single most spiteful act was intended to count coup on Seabaugh, the only of the quartet not representing at least part of Bossier but who wants to with his bid for the Senate District 31 seat this year. Edwards struck $100,000 from the American Rose Center — actually in a Caddo Parish Democrat's district, but so vindictive is Edwards that he crossed that off merely because at one time Seabaugh's wife had been its executive director. All in all, Edwards attempted to erase just over a million bucks — four projects lost for McCormick (two in Caddo and two in Bossier) and three for Crews and Horton. These were much fewer dollars than Schexnayder excised, but it's the venomous thought that counts.  Edwards' stated rationale was that if they didn't want to bust the cap, they shouldn't share in the booty. But, as has typified Edwards' rhetoric and actions while in office, this disingenuously ignores that the Four (Horton and Seabaugh publicly) supported a plan that would have added $285 million extra in capital outlay on top of already-planned project funding. It just wasn't the extra billion-plus that Edwards and Schexnayder wanted to spend that the state now won't have to keep up with new commitments in a few years. And, of course, it's not really the legislators suffering from his mean-spiritedness, but the people in the affected districts. However, the Four might rebuff this rebuke. If Edwards dares veto popular bills such as those that protect children from permanent physiological damage, parents and teachers from political fashion, and families from unsupervised consumption by minors of sexualized adult topics in libraries — as he has hinted he will — with bipartisan supermajorities backing these and some others he threatens it's a certainty that legislators will call themselves into a veto session to attempt overrides. Once there, legislators may not want to stray from their herd instinct, where they know if they hang out together they won't get hung separately — meaning they'll vote to override each other's project vetoes. Even Democrats will want to join in with support because if they don't once Republicans have control of all parts of majoritarian government — as seems very likely after this fall's elections — it will be open season on their future line items.And, regardless of how that turns out, they might convert these slings and arrows into campaign weaponry. While at present neither Crews nor McCormick have announced opponents, Horton and Seabaugh have drawn some backed by big government advocates not at all uncomfortable with the free spending Edwards helped to force. That the Four have suffered this treatment makes easy their establishing credentials as martyrs at the hands of outsized government that has held the state back, forcing their opponents either to admit allying with (in their districts) a deeply unpopular Edwards and endorsing reckless spending if they try to criticize the Four as unable to bring home the bacon or they must grant them that the Four stood up to that. This episode demonstrates again one of the most ugly aspects of Edwards' terms: his hypocritical prattling about how Baton Rouge shouldn't become another hyper-partisan Washington rent with ideology while he has governed in the most divisive and partisan way possible against the best interests of Louisianans as a whole. It will be so refreshing in a few months to be rid of this pest that spent eight years trying to promote an unpopular and harmful agenda to all but select special interests over the best interests of the people.And the Bossier Four may well be waving him goodbye from enhanced perches of power in the House of Representatives and a new gig in the Senate, their projects funded and/or soon on their way backed by a much friendlier GOP governor.

"In addition to the likelihood of an additional one or more rate hikes before the end of this year, our March 2023 prediction of a US economic recession within the next twelve to eighteen months–by end-of-summer 2024–remains intact." ~ Peter C. Earle

A clumsy maneuver by a veteran member of the
Shreveport City Council with the support of two others may have altered the dynamics
of city politics, in favor of Republican Mayor Tom Arceneaux.

In his first two-thirds of a year on the job,
Arceneaux hasn't been very visible. That's not a bad thing necessarily, as
previous Democrat Mayor Adrian Perkins put himself much more in the public eye
on a routine basis, but for the wrong reasons: either in floating dreamy, unrealistic,
if not irrelevant, policies and priorities, or by committing some political, if
not legal, folly.

Drummed out of office for those tendencies,
nevertheless Perkins council supporters Democrats James Green, Tabatha Taylor,
and Alan Jackson returned to office. They hoped to form a working majority including
the two other Democrats elected, Ursula Bowman who succeeded her husband Jerry,
and newcomer Gary Brooks, to continue an agenda that didn't focus on spending
reductions in the light of public
safety shortages contributing to dismal crime numbers and looming huge
capital expenditures on water and sewerage, if not unwise
new commitments such as across-the-board salary increase for city employees.

This meant Arceneaux wouldn't have much leeway to
throttle back spending as he prepared his first budget. But then came the
misstep, triggered by Green.

Without
Council authority, Green authorized ten percent pay raises for the body's staff
of five – on top of a 13 percent hike last year. Raises typically are given
every few years, but always by Council resolution.

His action became public knowledge, whereupon he
claimed ignorance about the illegality of his move – even though he first began
service on the Council in 1994 and is now into his fifth term. Chastened, the
raises were rescinded but Republican Councilors Grayson Boucher and Jim
Taliaferro called
for an investigation. Originally defeated in a special meeting that none of
Green, Jackson, or Taylor attended, the measure passed at the next regular
meeting when the two Democrats who did attend the special meeting changed their
votes in favor.

The incident the Republicans argued needed
investigation because of conflicting stories of the impetus for the raises and
the decision-making involved in the process, including Green's claim of
ignorance. And, according to public statements given by Bowman, coming
about at some apparent personal cost to her.

She said that the other three Council black Democrats
– Brooks is white – lobbied her hard not to authorize the investigation, through
Jackson even threatening noncooperation with her legislative goals if she voted
for the probe, which she also thought necessary because of conflicting
information released about the incident from other councilors. Brooks has made no
public mention of councilor pressure not to reverse his vote, but said
constituents asked him to change his vote.

Bowman further became alienated from the bullying
three when Taylor in particular accused the desire for an investigation stemmed
from "systemic racism." Besides the obvious that clearly the law was contravened
in the incident and governance would improve by trying to understand how it
happened. such a charge especially is laughable to lodge against city
government that has had black mayors from 2006-22 and black majorities on the
city council since 2018. Far more arguable, Taylor may want to avoid an
investigation that may blow back negatively on her and her Council allies.

This incident could cause a permanent rupture
between Bowman and the other black Democrat councilors. As the new mayor and
Council took their offices, as long as Council Democrats stuck together they
could call the policy-making tune as Arceneaux could not veto without being overridden
any of their measures. If the most moderate of the bunch, Brooks, did join
Council Republicans with vetoes, that could forestall measures from black Democrats,
but would not allow Arceneaux to promote a policy agenda.

But with Green, Jackson, and Taylor having
alienated Bowman, she may be wary of supporting their initiatives and perhaps
more open to alliances with the white councilors on select issues backed by Arceneaux,
as well as having support for at least some of her initiatives. It's leverage
that he should explore, and provides an enhanced opportunity to induce more
fiscal responsibility into governing a city that needs it badly.

Republican Rep. Steve Scalise's moment may
have arrived with the ouster of GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker of
the U.S. of Representatives.

Hours
ago, the House voted to remove McCarthy as speaker at the behest of
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz. He and
seven other Republicans joined all Democrats to succeed, which as Republicans
had only a five-member majority meant only the second vote ever to vacate
worked.

That parliamentary move existed only because McCarthy's
retained the post tenuously. At the beginning of the year, after 15 rounds of inconclusive
voting for its holder, as part of an agreement
to win enough votes McCarthy accepted being restored into the rules this privileged
maneuver that allowed any single member to ask this. Consistent House
conservatives, who held up his victory, felt this gave them leverage in case McCarthy
didn't adhere to other aspects of the agreement that would ensure conservative
input into governing the chamber.

One such grievance came as part of the budgeting
process, where the conservative bloc wanted separate votes on the dozen
different appropriations bills due Sep. 30, which would give them a chance to
argue for, if not induce, spending cuts. That process never took a serious turn
as instead McCarthy proffered a continuing resolution that would be standstill spending
for 45 days, which passed Oct. 2 with almost half of Republicans in opposition.

As provided by a rules change shortly after 9/11/2001,
a secret speaker pro tempore that McCarthy named upon his re-ascension
to the post, GOP Rep. Patrick
McHenry, as revealed now takes control until a new speaker is selected in
the indefinite future, which is the only order of business under usual
circumstances until then. It could be McCarthy, which the rules don't prohibit.

But almost certainly it will be somebody else, now
that at least several of the GOP caucus seem to think the trust damage is irreparable.
And that person could be Scalise, for several reasons.

Scalise, the Majority Leader, naturally is a
McCarthy loyalist in leadership for several years despite overtures
in the past that he should supplant McCarthy. He didn't take the bait that
odds are would have propelled him into the speakership, demonstrating fidelity
that would impress all in the caucus, including those jilted who would have backed
him against McCarthy. Loyal to the end, he defended McCarthy prior to the vote.

Scalise also is well-regarded among the
conservatives in the chamber who were the most suspicious of McCarthy, with an
impressive American Conservative
Union lifetime voting score of 91 (100 having a perfect conservative record),
or 67th among Republicans and well above the House GOP average of 80
while McCarthy's was only 84. (Gaetz, for his part, at 92 was just a few places
higher than Scalise.)

Finally, Scalise has a compelling personal story,
having survived an assassination attempt by a leftist terrorist that has left
him with physically disabling injuries. And already the number two guy makes him
a natural choice.

Perhaps his only reservation will be the cancer scare he recently
received, which he says he's well on the way to recovery, with early
detection giving him great odds for that. Yet the uncertainty and physical
taxation, compounded with his previous injuries, may dissuade him from taking
on additional duties and the moment will pass him by.

And from making history as the first speaker from
Louisiana, as well as the first person with a disability to assume the post.
Other than that issue, he should be the clear leader for the post, which if it
happens will be in several days as McCarthy is given time to ascertain he
cannot get the job back and for Scalise to sort out whether he's up to the
task.

We are probably near the end of the most disruptive phase of the Digital Revolution. The economic and social changes accumulated during the last few decades are comparable, for their relative magnitude, to those of the Neolithic Agriculture Revolution and the modern Industrial Revolution. But they are slowing down. A possible new landscape with more widely distributed prosperity appears on the horizon.The biggest signal for the end of
a period with Big Tech's huge profits is the wave of layoffs in the last few weeks.
Tens of thousands have been fired from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter,
Facebook, and other companies. Last year's revenues were much smaller than before.
Distracting world-change projects, such as moonshots, delivery drones, the
metaverse, or self-driving cars are discreetly put aside. The golden years are
past.

Meanwhile, the labor market seems
to be self-restructuring and employment rates go up. Do these troubles announce
the end of an "Engels' pause" with stagnated standards of life? If so, it would
mean that improved labor conditions, and higher average and better-distributed
levels of economic well-being might emerge in a foreseeable future.

The Digital Revolution of computers,
the internet, and the World Wide Web have produced fantastic advantages, such
as making possible instant communication via email, smartphones and social networks,
easily available information via digitalized media and TV streams, or dynamic
economic activities by means of e-commerce and professional and business
services.

On the other hand, the new
technologies have fostered the concentration of capital in a few big firms and a
surge of new billionaires. Many jobs became obsolete and unemployment increased
temporarily. The purchasing power of most employees was frozen, or even
diminished. Indirectly, those technological and economic changes have also fostered
territorial cleavages and unparalleled migrations.

It is common knowledge that in
periods of technological innovation, the first who buys a new gadget whose
production has required a huge initial investment pays more. It has happened
for a few decades to eager early consumers of new versions of computers,
smartphones, and any chic novelty. As the industry develops, it can reduce the
costs of production, which permits lower consumer prices and increased sales
and profits. Yet, at some moment, only new technological inventions could
sustain further growth. We may be already in this phase.

These basic mechanisms and stages mimic
the ones of the Industrial Revolution two hundred years ago. For the firstcomers,
a "primitive accumulation" of capital was akin to the colonial system,
including pervasive and highly profitable slavery. Then, a technological
upheaval that was mostly labor-replacing generated huge corporate profits, the
emergence of wealthy tycoons, and a surge in economic inequality.

In Britain, in the first half of
the nineteenth century, productivity or output per worker expanded and the
profit rate doubled, while many people lived in abjection and poverty.
Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author, described how the British workers' real
wages stagnated and their living conditions worsened in his book The
Condition of the Working Class in England, initially published in German in
1845. However, when Engels' book was published in English, more than forty
years later, the conditions had already changed for the better. The
overexploitation period was over. Between 1840 and 1890, real wages multiplied
by nearly two and a half, in line with productivity. This led economic
historian Robert C. Allen to call the previous period "Engels' pause".

Some economic historians have
suggested parallels with the most recent period of technological innovation and
wage stagnation. The Great Recession initiated in 2008 can be seen as the
beginning of another "pause" in which the condition of workers has
lowered, there has been an extensive redistribution of wealth, and traditional
ways of economic and social development have failed. Yet, the Big Techs'
slowing down and their humble self-revision of unbridled projects may indicate
that the Digital Pause may be over soon.

Like the social benefits derived
from the diffusion of the steam engine, railroads, electricity, and
mechanization, also the dissemination of the digital revolution benefits takes
different times and rhythms in different parts of the world. But, globally, a
new, less unfair and asphyxiating stage seems to be in view.In Spanish in El Pais - click

Not for the first time, the central figure at this year's Munich Security Conference was someone not in attendance. This year was Donald Trump's turn. Like most participants at this annual 'Davos of Defence', I ...