Monday, November 5, 2018

Why We Need Mail -In Ballots In Every State


If mail balloting was available in FLA - like here in Colorado - voters would not have had to wait in line for hours only to find not enough ballots available at the polling station in North Miami.

"Save your hundreds of millions of dollars Don't replace your aging machines. Throw them on the scrap pile.. Go back to paper ballots. Then think hard about abolishing the polling place and moving to a system that puts the voter first and ensures in every election far more people are casting ballots." -  Phil Keisling, former Oregan secretary of state, in interview with Cynthia McFadden on NBC Evening News Saturday.

 Colorado Mail Ballots arrived at our home more than two weeks ago and we each filled our ballots  out : a total of three pages of voter choices, including for positions such as Governor, and state Attorney General as well as minor (county) positions and at least a dozen propositions and amendments. The latter included a proposition (112) to prohibit frack wells within 2500' of homes, an amendment (A) to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, and another amendment (73) to provide increased funding for public schools by raising state taxes.

Both of us, let me note, have also done the traditional thing of going out to the polling station - both here in the Springs and earlier in Columbia, Maryland - and believe me there is no comparison.  It is far easier to not have to take time off from a job to vote, or to battle illness, physical handicap or whatever. Nor is it necessary to stand in long lines to wait to cast a ballot- only to learn on arriving at the polling station there are no more ballots (See top graphic, in what transpired over the weekend in North Miami). 

In the N. Miami case the powers-that-be in Dade County had underestimated the number of ballots needed. Such fiascoes are avoided with mail ballots because ab initio the voter records are checked before ballots are mailed out.

Why don't more states offer the convenience of mail ballots and early voting? Who knows? But my suspicion is basically they want  to make it difficult to vote for certain demographic groups they don't trust - such as African-Americans, Native Americans and others.

Now it appears libertarian knucklehead Jon Caldara wants to take the state back to the olden days of traipsing to the polls to cast votes. Never mind if you're deathly ill, an invalid, or can't get time from work.  He believes it's the "American" way, like he believes other balderdash (such that health care is not a positive right.)

On Caldara's Independence Institute bio page it proclaims he "hates bullies".  Well, for a guy who hates bullies he sure as hell does a good job emulating them.  His latest target - after going after those who defended health care as a right- is Colorado's mail in ballots.He insists these "skew results to the left" - but when one reads between the lines of his recent tract (Denver Post, Sunday, Oct. 28, p. 2K) it is clear he considers them unAmerican, or at least not patriotic.  He blabs, for example:

"The  ballot isn't just the symbol of democracy - it is democracy. It is the very instrument of self-governance.  The ballot is the fundamental building block of our Republic....So isn't it a little odd that in Colorado we fling these sacred ballots through the mail like King Sooper's coupons...."

Well hey, Jon, would you rather show up at a "proper" polling station after wasting hours of your time waiting in line only to find out they are all out of ballots?  Or, would you prefer a station inundated with electronic voting machines, for which there isn't an iota of QA?  No ability to check that the "sacred" ballot you cast has any paper trail?  Hell, we already know some of  the most notorious hacking stories have recently been exposed e.g.

An 11-Year-Old Hacked Into a U.S. Voting System Replica in 10... - Time

Wherein we learned:

"Emmett Brewer , the 11-year-old who successfully hacked the replicated Florida voting site, wasn’t the only child who got into the election systems at the conference. In total, about 50 kids ranging in age from 8 to 16 attended the conference, DEFCON said in a tweet, and around 30 of them were able to hack into the imitation election websites."

For any who gullibly believe Diebold machines - for example- are as good as paper ballots, I invite you to take a gander at the machine below showing vote switching (from 2012) in action, e.g. at: http://wonkette.com/488754/watch-this-pennsylvania-voting-machine-hilariously-refuse-to-accept-a-vote-for-barack-obama

Things better now, you say? Problems solved? Not so, as one early voting Texan observed, who voted whole ballot D, and found his vote being switched to Ted Cruz before his eyes (instead of Beto O'Rourke)

Zeynip Tufekci in her recent NY Times piece ('The Election Has Already Been Hacked') puts a further light on the underlying issue with elections in this country:

"This election has already been hacked even if not a single voting machine has been compromised. It has already been hacked even if not another ruble has been spent on spreading disinformation. It has already been hacked even if voter registration information has been undisturbed and no vote tallies are altered.

Why, because in much of the United States, we are no longer able to assure people that none of those things has happened. A recent poll shows that 46 percent of the American electorate do not think their  votes will be counted fairly, and about a third think it is likely that a foreign country will tamper with the results."

My bet is if all these Americans could use mail in ballot like those of us in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, that would not be such a huge concern. Why? Because we (all 3 states) use PAPER ballots that are not vulnerable to outside hacks given they're counted by hand. Also our internal checks disclose integrity, i.e. as Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett put it, quoted in The Boulder Daily Camera :

Local governments and county clerks do a really good job regulating the integrity of elections, and I’ll stand by that record any day of the week. "

The same holds in Oregon and Washington, the only two states where voting is done completely by mail (CO still allows voters to go to polling places if they prefer. Kind of antiquated, but maybe it gives mainly older folks something to do or perhaps feel more red, white & blue.) .  Indeed, in an NBC News segment on Friday ('Securing the Vote')  reporter Cynthia McFadden traveled to Oregon where she interviewed  Phil Keisling former Dem secretary of state and  current officer holder, Republican  Dennis Richardson.

As Keisling explained: "I think the polling place has become the single biggest voter suppression device in American politics."

Both agree their state's system (the first to adopt an entirely vote-by-mail method):  "gets more people voting and is cheaper and more secure."

The reason? They use only paper ballots.  Each of 2 1/2 million registered voters receives a ballot via the U.S mail, no form has to be filled out, it doesn't have to be asked for.  As Keisling put it: "You just give everyone their ballot and let them decide how they want to mark it, if they want to mark it at all."    There's no need to be impeded because of child care demands, or inclement weather, or the artificial barrier of having a specific kind of ID card which 32 states now require. Kind of ridiculous, just as Caldara's insipid complaints, in a nation that features one of the lowest voter participation rates on the planet.

As for security, like here in Colorado each signature is verified by comparison to that on the voter registration card.  What about voters who've died, moved or changed their names? Is there a danger someone might use their ballot? According to Phil Keisling:

"They'd be committing a felony, vote by vote. This is about one of the stupidest ways to try to steal an election."

When McFadden asked the duo about the plans of many other states to invest in new electronic voting machines, the advice was instant:


McFadden concluded that "though much of the country is divided along party lines, these two are in total agreement when it comes to the state's vote by mail system".

The point is, contrary to Caldara's vapid presumptions about single day polling at specially assigned places, there is nothing "sacred" or "sacrosanct" about ballots if they can be hacked or votes switched.  Or if the process in general raises suspicions concerning fairness!  The sacredness of the voting process then inheres in its being faithfully executed according to the will of the voter. This also means the mechanics of how voting is done are immaterial, again so long as the process bears integrity and is faithful to the  voter's will. Mail balloting, contrary to Caldara's bitching, is one of the best ways to ensure the franchise is protected, as both Keisling and Richardson agreed.


But Caldara's bitching goes further,  fulminating  that "But wait there's more! Colorado is currently the only state that has same day voter registration!"

So what? The idea is to make voter registration, and hence voting, easier not more difficult,  you dumb cluck.  But he goes on to tie that ease of mail balloting and same day registration into a conspiracy ideation involving "big data" and using "social media, email, snail mail, phone calls etc." to vacuum up votes.  Nope you can't make this up.

Caldara still in a feverish mental state adds:

"all mail ballots fundamentally changed electioneering, giving an advantage to the team that is more tech savvy and with the most foot soldiers to chase voters."

In other words, the fool is whining about the side having the better ground game, which I thought any one into :"electioneering" would grasp is top priority. I mean, if you don't get your voters out - especially tomorrow for one of the biggest elections in our history, it's all for naught.  So truly all Caldara has presented us with is a big straw man complaint.

Probably figuring he needed another alternate gripe he then bitches - get this - about mail ballots allowing too much time to vote. Can you believe this?  He writes:

"We used to have an election day, a 12 hour period for civic minded folk to get to their polling place. Voting was for those with the tiniest bit of motivation. Political 'machines' had only 12 hours to get their people to the polls.  We no longer have election day, we have election month.."

So what?  Caldara seems to also forget the U.S. is one of the few nations that has voting on a workday. Well, newsflash, for  many citizens that is a difficult bar to voting.  It often presents a choice of  going to a polling station or lost time (and money) on the job, and other inconvenience, especially if one must wait in a long line. Mail voting totally eliminates all of that, as well as possible intimidation tactics used by a suspicious opposition at polling stations- sporadically questioning or confronting people.

Rather than have to face such barriers, as well as possible vote suppression or other tricks - like being told one's name doesn't perfectly match the voter record (as in Georgia, used by bullyboy Kemp) why not mail ballots? Caldara's incredible answer:  It's too easy!

Why is voting, especially requiring special IDs and polling places, rendered so damned hard in the U.S. of A.?  Michael Moore on 'The Last Word' Friday night, offered perhaps the best explanation:

"The reason it's made hard is that those in power, who are beholden to the rich, the wealthy who buy our politicians and elections, don't want more citizens voting.. The last thing those in power, the one percent, want is for you to show up, because there's so many more of working people and poor people than rich people. The more that they can make it hard for people to have their voice heard, the longer they can continue the status quo. So to upset that status quo, you have to get out there and vote."

Moore then advises for each person who may be dithering, to think of 5 friends or family members who don't tend to vote and consider "making it your mission to get them to vote".  Also, maybe having a  voting party to go together to the polling place and cast votes then celebrate after.  As for possibly losing a day's pay, Moore says: "There is no more important day to sacrifice for your country- even giving up a day's pay -  than Tuesday."

But really, it shouldn't be that damned difficult, no matter what Caldara says.

Folks, it's time - after this election - to push activism in the direction of getting your state reps to implement mail and paper ballot systems. Systems that put you the voter at the center of your right and franchise, not an artificial place that is a venue for suppression-  or a vast and inefficient waste of time and energy as the North Miami voters discovered.

See also:

Stop Blaming Millennials for Not Voting. Blame America’s Screwed-up System—and Fix It!

And:

Here's Why Democrats' Chances for a Big Midterms Win Are Looking Even Better — And What Still Stands in Their Way

Sunday, November 4, 2018

Selected Questions- Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (The Zeeman Effect And Sunspot Magnetic Fields)

Question: I've just been reading a book on the Sun ('Our Sun' by Donald Menzel )  and found references to sunspots having magnetic fields of up to 4000 gauss. How can astronomers or solar physicists obtain such values? How do they know this? 

Answer:

The Zeeman effect is  a broadening, i.e. of a spectral line from the Sun,  due to strong magnetic fields such as in sunspots. An example is depicted below:

      

The left image shows the photo of the line-centered sunspot, i.e. the sunspot for which a spectral line has been obtained at line center, and in classic "triplet" form.  That is there exists a normal (unaffected)  line of wavelength  l on either side of which are lesser and greater wavelength lines, hence "splits".  Thus the triplet is presented in terms of the normal wavelength as follows:

lo   +   D  l H 

lo

l-   D  l H  

George Ellery Hale was the first to apply the Zeeman splitting of a solar spectral line to the problem of quantifying the strength of the magnetic field associated with a sunspot.  He thereby arrived at the following cgs version of the equation:

D  l H  =     (lo)e H / 4 π  me c2   

Here:  H is the intensity of the sunspot magnetic field to be found,  e is the electron charge in electrostatic  units (e.s.u.),  me    is the electron mass in grams and c is the speed of light in cm/sec.  To obtain the intensity in Gauss then, we first need to use basic algebra to solve for H:

H =   4 π  me c 2   D  l H  /    (lo)2  e


We then must pay attention to the units, so that we have:

e =    4.8 x  10  -10  esu 

  me     =   9.1   x 10-28    gram

c  =  3   x 10  10 m/s 


To  illustrate the application we will let the  undisturbed solar line  ( lo ) be the H-alpha line which  has wavelength:  6.62  x 10 - 5  cm.   We then let the line displacement (shift owing to H) on either side be:  D  l H    = 0.05 A = 5.0 x 10 -10 cm
  The equation with units substituted in for computation, then becomes:

H  = 

4 π (9.1   x 10-28  g) (x 10  10 cm/s )2  (5.0 x 10 -10 cm) / (6.62  x 10 - 5  cm)2 (4.8 x  10  -10  esu) 

The calculated sunspot magnetic field intensity is:  H = 2440 G  approximately.

An interesting further exercise is to compute the field strength in Tesla (T) instead of Gauss. Tesla is the S.I. unit of measurement for the magnetic field intensity.  To do this basically requires changing all the units used above to consistent S.I. units.   Thus, cm now becomes meters (m), and the e.s.u. becomes coulombs (C). The electron mass is now in kg instead of grams and so on.



Friday, November 2, 2018

New IPCC Finding Shows More Rapid Ocean Warming - And Accelerated Path To Calamity

Image result for images of Puerto Rico damageDevastation in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, which climate scientists agree was spawned by warmer ocean temperatures from global warming.

Even as we've learned of the world now projected in an ominous United Nations report — prepared by The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, a new subsidiary report warns of warmer than ever oceans.  According to the last major assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's oceans have taken up over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases.
This new study says that every year, for the past 25 years, we have put about 150 times the amount of energy used to generate electricity globally into the seas - 60% more than previous estimates.   This poses serious problems going forward, not the least of which is the threat to ocean life (such as corals) from warmer temperatures, e.g.
Image may contain: ocean, sky, plant, outdoor, nature and waterImage may contain: plant, sky, outdoor, nature and waterDying coral reef from warmer ocean temperatures (left and a healthy reef.
As well as rising sea levels, and more frequent Category 5 hurricanes (such as Maria, see top graphic) which feed off higher ocean temperatures.
 The IPCC team bases its predictions about how much the Earth is warming by adding up all the excess heat that is produced by the known amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted by human activities. This new calculation shows that far more heat than we thought has been going into oceans. But it also means that far more heat than we thought has been generated by the warming gases we have emitted. 
All the extra heat being absorbed by the oceans means not only a much greater difficulty of containing increased warming - even to 2 C- but also many deleterious effects for ocean life itself.  According to  Laure Resplandy , a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature:
"If you look at the IPCC 1.5C, there are big challenges ahead to keep those targets, and our study suggests it's even harder because we close the window for those lower pathways.A warmer ocean will hold less oxygen, and that has implications for marine ecosystems.  There is also sea level, if you warm the ocean more you will have more thermal expansion and therefore more sea level rise."
The critical element is the fact that as waters get warmer they release more carbon dioxide and oxygen into the air.  As Dr. Resplandy made clear:
"When the ocean warms, the amount of these gases that the ocean is able to hold goes down,"  

Adding:
"So what we measured was the amount lost by the oceans, and then we can calculate how much warming we need to explain that change in gases."
The additional IPCC findings help resolve a long-running puzzle about the rate of ocean warming before 2007. when more reliable measurements from devices called “Argo floats” were put to use worldwide. Before that, differing types of temperature records — and an overall lack of them — contributed to uncertainty  about how quickly the oceans were heating up.
The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within Earth’s climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming is more advanced than scientists thought.
As Dr. Resplandy put it:
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted.  But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already".
 Of course, this again puts the lie to climate change denier Holman Jenkins' recent bloviations, e.g. 'How Greens Humiliate Themselves', WSJ 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-greens-humiliate-themselves-1540939433
That there is oh so much uncertainty and climate scientists are just squandering time and money trying to nail down any real increase in global temperatures.   Of course, this is utter codswallop which merely says more about the deficiencies of the Journal's op -ed writers than anything else. 
Given ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that  leaves nations even less time to dramatically cut the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide. That is, assuming there is any hope in limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.  Many newer results show this is overly optimistic and neglecting other factors in play, e.g.

Climate report understates threat

Excerpt:

"So far, average temperatures have risen by one degree Celsius. Adding 50 percent more warming to reach 1.5 degrees won’t simply increase impacts by the same percentage—bad as that would be. Instead, it risks setting up feedbacks that could fall like dangerous dominos, fundamentally destabilizing the planet. This is analyzed in a recent study showing that the window to prevent runaway climate change and a “hot house” super-heated planet is closing much faster than previously understood."

Even as we've now been informed of the new ocean warming factor, we also have found out - more than than a year after the fact-  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took down information on climate change from its website for an “update”, it now seems uncertain whether it will ever reappear.

In April last year, the EPA replaced its online climate change section with a holding page that said the content was being updated to “reflect the agency’s new direction under President Donald Trump”.
Information previously found at epa.gov/climatechange made it clear that human activity was warming the planet, resulting in harm to Americans’ health as well as crucial ecosystems on which humans depend.
The “update” page has now given way to a page that simply states: “We want to help you find what you are looking for.” Below, one finds links to search other areas of the EPA website, as well as to an archived “snapshot” of the site from the day before Trump became president in January 2017. The switch was observed by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, which tracks changes in government websites

In the words of Juidth Enick, former EPA special administrator:.
It’s an embarrassment. It is a ghost page.  It’s a bit like Amazon not allowing the public to order books via its website – it’s that fundamental. There’s no other issue at the EPA more important than climate change; it affects air, water, health and whether large parts of the world will survive.
The likely culprit responsible? Scott Pruitt, the climate pseudo - skeptic who was Trump’s pick as EPA administrator until he resigned in July amid a long-running ethics scandal, repeatedly questioned basic scientific understanding of climate change while he headed the agency, such as whether carbon dioxide is a primary driver of planetary warming.

Tuesday provides a small chance to get it right. But if voters fail to follow through, or too many are bamboozled by the "threat" of a caravan of poor Honduran migrants, well they will have a real existential threat to fret over in a dozen years.

See also:

We Have 12 Years to Save—or Lose—Our Only Home

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Solutions To Special Relativity Problems (4)

1)      Let t = 106 yrs be the quasar's lifetime in its own rest frame. Then the total Earth-based time that its radiation will be received is:

t' = t [1 - v2/c2] ½

where v = 0.8c

so:

t' = (106 yrs.) [1 - (0.8c)2/c2]½

t' = (106 yrs) [1 - 0.64]½ = 106 yrs (0.36) ½

t' = 0.6 (106 yrs) = 6 x 105 yrs. 


(2) Let D t' = (t2' - t1')  = 9  s

t2' = (t2 - 3c/4)(1 - 9/16))


t1' = (t1 - 3c/4)(1 - 9/16)

or:

t2' = (t2 - 3c/4) (7/16)

t1' = (t1 - 3c/4) (7/16)

whence:

(t2' - t1') = [(t2 - 3c/4) - (t1 - 3c/4)]/0.661

or: 9 sec = (t2 - t1)/0.661 and

D t = 5.95 sec 


(3) The speed of the astronaut is given by:

v = (2 gr)½

and r = 7 x 106 m, g = 10 ms-2

v = 11, 832 m/s = 3.94 x 10-5 (c)

In the astronaut's frame, 1 week - 86,400 s x (7) = 604, 800 s

For the twin on Earth:

t = t'/ [1 - t2/c2] ½

t = 604, 800.0002 s

and so the time difference = 0.0002s, or the twin in orbit will be (t' - t) or 0.0002 s younger on his return. 



(4) The speed of A observed in B = 0.7c, exactly equal to the speed of B observed in A, by principle of relative velocities.

To find the speed of C observed in B, we use relativistic addition of velocities or:

u = (u' + v)/ 1 + u'v/c2

u = (0.7c + 0.7c)/ [1 + (0.7c)(0.7c)/c2]

u = (1.4c)/ 1 + 0.49 = 1.4c/1.49 = 0.94c

Skewering Alan Greenspan's Myth Of Endless Economic Growth



Former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan believes he knows what's best for the U.S. and that is endless growth, as measured by ever rising GDP.  ('The Great American Growh Engine And How To Fix It', WSJ,   Oct. 13-14, , p. C1).    One of his main recommendations for improved growth is:

"Get entitlement spending under control. Putting the system on a more sustainable footing could be done by raising the retirement age by a couple of years, indexing it to life expectancy so that the problem doesn't keep coming up."

Note  this is despite the fact  that a third of seniors have Social Security as their only income. Also, more than 50 percent of Americans claim their Social Security by age 62.  Why are so many doing this? It isn't always a case of not wanting to work but rather, for too many,  not being able to last at demanding physical jobs, i.e. landscaping, roof repair, nursing home aide,  etc.  It is fairly easy to work past 70 when it's all consulting, paper pushing or brain work.   But not so much when one is involved in heavy day -to -day labor like a nursing home caretaker moving an elderly patient from bed to chair and back many time a day - not to mention other tasks, such as bathing, toilet use etc. Work that takes its toll on the back, as well as many other parts of the anatomy.

Never mind, Greenspan fantasizes this ongoing rampant growth because well, it's the "American way", i.e.  "Today the United States has the most powerful economy in the world. It still accounts for almost a quarter of global GDP."

Well, yeah, given that it also has barely 5 percent of the global population but consumes 25 percent of its resources annually.  Greenspan also goes on to blab:

"The key to America's success lies in its unique toleration for creative destruction, the destabilizng force described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Creative destruction reallocates society's resources from less productive pursuits to more productive ones, or from horse and buggies to motorcars."

 Creative destruction, irrespective of who conceived it, is one of the most tragic and wasteful aspects of American cowboy capitalism.  It entails perpetual waste of energy and investment that ravages precious resources. In Barbados, with few resources, each must be maximized. There isn't the quantity  available (on a 166 sq. mile island) to allow duplication or other squandering in wasteful competition. In the U.S., the exact opposite holds. Huge amounts of resources are yearly squandered in competitive games- that have only one or a few 'winners'.  There is Alan Greenspan's "reallocation" of resources for you.

By contrast, the endemic socialist, communitarian structure of Denmark- for example - promotes a healthy growth of the social commonweal and the belief that what is done for the benefit of one, or a few, redounds to the benefit of all. E.g.

Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman on their social welfare state  

Hence, the imperatives for government subsidized low cost housing, national health insurance for all, free education through college.  Enough to make Greenspan and his ilk apoplectic.

Matt Miller in his The Tyranny of Bad Ideas has pointed out that all the so-called European "welfare state" economies (e.g. Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc.) fared much better than the neo-liberal, market dominated U.S. during the financial crisis and Great Recession. They provided the resources for their citizens to be more resilient, and also their higher formal tax structures prevented the sort of macro-scale deficiencies we still see in the U.S. where infrastructure is crumbling, public pensions are under-funded.  Does Greenspan factor in the cost of repairing our infrastructure (est. $2 trillion) into his growth delusions? I doubt it.

It's also somewhat ironic the former Fed chief praises "creative destruction" as a major contributor to the growth engine, while invoking the transition from horse and buggy to motorcar. This is given what all those existing 1 billion motorcars around the planet have wrought - putting us on the cusp of runaway warming  e.g.

Climate report understates threat

Of course, it's also choice and ironic that it was none other than Alan Greenspan  who was actually complicit in creating the financial crisis, though he disingenuously blames a "combination of fear and herd  behavior".    Adding  that this combination "led people to overreact to bad news and to plunge economies into self-reinforcing cycles of decline."

 That takes a lot of chutzpah given Greenspan relentlessly pumped ARMs  (adjustable rate mortgages) to people who didn't know enough about them and how an initial 3% rate could balloon into an 8 %- 10% rate  and ultimately lead to foreclosures. Then there were Greenspan's and other bankers' moves to bundle the credit default swaps into mortgage loans (collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs) and peddling them to folks with little or no credit. That set up the immediate collapse of the credit-loan system, especially as the debased loans were awarded AAA or other high ratings by the likes of the credit agencies, such as AIG and Moody's.

 Fear on the part of the hoi polloi?   How about crass manipulation of an exploitative mortgage market and inadequate oversight of destructive financial devices? See e.g.

Brane Space: The Financial Black Hole


Another factor 'Greenie' overlooks is that the onset of the productivity growth slowdown nearly matches the point U.S. employers gained access to workers from low wage countries to whom they could pay much lower wages than to American front line workers. Especially as the former often had similar skills to the latter.

Even given the current 3 percent growth of 12 months through September, Greg Ip in his WSJ piece today (On the paradox of 3% growth, p. A2) argues it isn't sustainable. As Mr. Ip writes:

"To keep this up the unemployment rate would have to go negative in eight years, a mathematical impossibility."

Better clue Greenspan in on his fantasies there, Mr Ip.

A further hidden factor damping growth which I've discussed before is the decreasing energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of fuel sources. In other words, our energy-dependent civilization is becoming ever more impoverished as the efficiency of the energy to run it diminishes over time. So no, with conditions like this, and a projected EROEI of 7.7 to 1 by 2030 do not look for more growth.

With such a forecast, energy costs will absorb as much as 15% of GDP by then. So we will be lucky to sustain the growth rate of 0.7% per annum Greenspan bitches about as characterizing the economy the last few decades.  Nor is the oil shale -fracking option the way out. As  Robert Heinberg observes ('Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future'), while it may cost less to extract a cubic foot of natural gas or a gallon of oil shale today, it will cost much more in just five years and even more in ten - such that one would have to spend as much or more to get the energy as the benefit it delivers.

Heinberg summons a point that most of the snake oil salesman humping fracking won't tell you, that it costs energy to get energy. And if you are a nation that resorts to employing 15 to 1 EROEI energy to extract  5 to 1 EROEI  oil shale energy.....well, can we say 'stupid'?

As Heinberg puts it (p. 116):
"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Greenspan and his growth humpers need to process that lowered EROEI translates to increased debt - nationwide as well as for (most) individuals, since it will cost more and more in the future  to obtain the same services, products one currently depends upon.  Raise the per barrel oil prices by even 15%  - say from $100 to $115, and watch the impact on food prices, not to mention gas, or electricity. Eventually, as   Tullet Prebon Strategy Insight   notes, the economics becomes "non-viable" and that means the only way people can access the food or services is to go into debt, i.e. using credit cards or other means.

Here's another "stinger" or a reality bite - which is the subject of a forthcoming book by London School of Economics sociologist Mike Savage: It is very likely that, given the Earth's limited resources, there is also a very limited capacity to handle traditional growth. This is  easily discerned from the graphic below on how many "Earths" are currently being consumed by humans per year,

At root, the issue is sustainability - especially for water which is needed for crops. NO water, no crops to feed a growing population. Simply put, there simply aren't the resources to support a growing human population which is conditioned to consumption. (Especially in the developed, industrial world - which now includes China and India).  The projections now are for at least 10 billion people by 2050, and an 80 percent probability of 12.3 billion on Earth by 2100. 

 By June, 2030,  TWO full Earths - that is,  the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. Already we are at 1.7 Earths. Every year Global Footprint Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day campaign.   I believe even a guy like Alan Greenspan ought to be able to grasp these figures and the graphic, and that his growth ideal is a mirage, a myth or fantasy, if you will.

As sociologist Savage explains (The Nation, October, p. 16):

"If we want to live in a better society, it's not 'How do we grow more?' It's how do we become more sustainable and consider what level of inequality most people might find acceptable  and not extreme." 

A "rising tide" then - contrary to capitalist myths- might not raise all boats but flood us all out of existence.  Of course there will always be economic Pollyannas spreading bollocks, like Tom Gionvanetti , e.g.


Why Not 'Trump Retirement Accounts'? - WSJ



who writes, evidently with a straight face (p. A15):

"The back door solution to the entitlement crisis is to make workers wealthy"

Right, even as employers are unwilling to pay their employees a fair wage, or enhance their job benefits - even after being flush with corporate tax cuts. As 
managing director of Aspen Advisors, Andrew Gadomski (from a January WSJ piece) fessed up, when companies lament they can't find workers to fill key openings, that is code for: "I can find talent, I just don't want to pay them as much as they cost."

One wonders what brand of "wealth"  Giovanette conceives of with this sort of payout?  Also what sort of MJ candy he's gulping to write such unadulterated codswallop?

Is there an alternative route?  The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare which was first proposed by Eco-economist Herman Daly of the University of Maryland. is a prime alternative . Daly's point was that the GDP was too artificial and narrow an indicator of economic health. He argued that if one incorporates all the "externalities" usually dismissed or ignored by standard economic models, people would be more parsimonious in how they consume. This would then yield a more equitable economic landscape.

Ignoring these externalities leads us into a fool's paradise where we come to believe things are much better than the GDP numbers show. Similarly with energy, conveniently ignoring externalities of cost and demand leads too many to envisage a pie-eyed future of never-ending growth.    All this translates inexorably into lower growth and woe betide you if you dare intimate (as Prof. Daly has done) that a zero or negative growth index may be a lot better for humans, if they hope not to outstrip their resource support base

In the meantime, until we get to the Index of Sustainable Welfare, people may wish to consider redistribution of resources to bridge the gap. Why?  Well, because 0.1 percent of the world's population currently controls 50 percent of the planet's wealth and resources. 

Let those richies go on with their favorite playthings and pastimes  e.g.
































Then don't come crying if the great 'unwashed' mass of the hoi polloi comes for them with torches and pitchforks in hand.  Faced with a choice between starvation or grabbing what they can from the richest, it shouldn't take a Mensa level IQ to figure out what will unfold.

See also:
Robert Reich's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)