Disqus - Latest Comments for mikkel

Re: Capitalism Works

mikkel — Tue, 11 May 2010 14:17:42 -0000

This isn't entirely true: I continue to be (and perhaps always will be) amazed at the inability for leaders of all stripes to admit the gravity of the situation, have the imagination (or at least humility to ask those that do) to construct different paths and then the courage to go down them.

I've long thought (since at least 2007) that our biggest problem was that the issues were too large for the status quo to be sustained and that trying to do so would lead to hardship and absurdity on such a massive scale that people would lose faith in all institutions. It seems to me that this worry is coming to fruition rapidly, where everyone in charge is a sociopath or coward and is gaining even more power.

Meanwhile the pie is shrinking and everyone is doing the exact wrong thing and trying to grab an even larger share (while it's still there) no matter what. I think the feeling is growing that every group is screwing over every other group -- which is pretty true -- and trust is destroyed entirely. So of course everyone is going to lose far more than voluntarily giving up some now.

Re: Capitalism Works

mikkel — Fri, 07 May 2010 13:20:15 -0000

The thing is that I completely agree with your opinion, the private sector needs to be the driver of a new economy. I'm sorry if I was a bit abrupt, but this is a sore point for me because trade dynamics were all very well described from the experience of the Great Depression and those lessons have been forgotten or twisted for ideological reasons by both sides. Tragically we are on the cusp of repeating the exact same mistakes as back then or taking the wrong lesson and making it even worse and few people understand what is happening.

I have been amazed by the magnitude and efficacy of government intervention thus far, and fear I'm starting to sound a bit like a crazed hermit with continued naysaying, however the whole European thing and beginning of a currency unwind is something that I've long been afraid of. I thought it was going to start months ago, in fact I wrote a few posts about it (http://themoderatevoice.com..., http://themoderatevoice.com... in which I believe GeorgeSorwell engaged me a lot.

Notice the point:
"The third wave is when governments start falling — and some countries go bankrupt — because a collapse in global trade destroys the fundamentals of economies to an extent that governments can no longer manage them. The fourth wave will be when countries start fighting amongst themselves over economic resources, and cooperation starts falling apart completely. At that point there will be trade barriers and trade/investment will be used as a foreign policy tool."

Trade has recovered since then, but the key issue is that the trade balance has not corrected. All countries are expecting exports to increase (an impossibility) and have no plan B. Without that it will be impossible to cut deficits without causing another recession and market collapse. However without cutting deficits future generations will be hurt and eventually governments will be too constrained to function effectively.

Another theme is central banks starting to bail out entities that governments cannot.

Re: Capitalism Works

mikkel — Fri, 07 May 2010 12:29:51 -0000

I'm sorry, but I think that this post is way over simplified. The problem that caused the recession has not been resolved at all: excessive debt and leverage. Central banks and governments have been trying to keep the system propped up instead of allowing deleveraging. This is allowing the private sector to transfer their debts onto the public dole, but governments are being forced to cut back on that due to various burdens. This is what has caused the massive currency movements the past few weeks.

In essence governments HAVE to run massive deficits to allow the private sector to deleverage: if they don't then defaults will skyrocket. The only way to avoid this is to boost exports, but not everyone can boost exports simultaneously. This issue is being exacerbated because the exporters don't want to stop increasing their exports, along with other structural concerns.

Please watch these two videos that mention this dynamic:
http://watch.bnn.ca/squeeze...
http://watch.bnn.ca/squeeze...

Re: In Case You Missed the News …

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:05:39 -0000

The magician only shows the audience the "trick" when needing a diversion to do the real magic.

Re: In Case You Missed the News …

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:06:06 -0000

Yeah I'd appreciate if you could give me a link to your comment page so I can be lazy.

Re: Alaska More Indebted Than Any Other State

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:48:18 -0000

Yeah Illinois/NJ/california gaps are about right NOW...there is no way to argue that they aren't in the worst shape. Also another piece of information missing is projections about contributions. Some states are projecting that they will cover pension gaps by doubling or tripling taxes over the next 10 years, so they would look like it's met even though that's an insane assumption.

Re: Why We Need a Torture Commission, And Why We Won’t Get One

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:30:25 -0000

Nations can persevere and rebuild from economic recessions but few can do so from moral ones.

Re: In Case You Missed the News …

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:27:53 -0000

If you tell me how to do the discus thread thing I'll probably not cross post because I realized that disqus has features I need

Re: In Case You Missed the News …

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:26:52 -0000

I think you're objecting because you know you are more like a tsunami than an iceberg.

Re: Internet Comments As Tragedy Of the Commons, Franklin Paradox, Society Writ Large

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:07:15 -0000

Yes the tone changed drastically as the thread progressed, after I put this up. [can I be self centered and pretend that it was because people read this and then went back to the other thread?] There were lots of good ideas and offers of help that I found touching and honestly am unsure why the head honchos haven't taken up the discussion.

In any case I saw this coming in some form. Three weeks ago I wrote:

Like all things in life this is cyclical too. I've been around in some capacity long enough to see TMV develop a core base of commenters that frequent nearly daily, only to have it derailed, then they leave and all comments collapse and the offenders stop posting as well. Then there is a period of little commenter activity and slowly it builds back up and eventually matures only to suffer the same fate.

Unfortunately there are some real pains that eventually turned into good commenters or pains that stayed pains but occasionally had good points. Drawing and enforcing the line seems easy in theory but tough in practice until the positive feedbacks are already triggered and there is a runaway. I'm conflicted because on one hand it all seems a waste because nothing lasts, on the other hand excitement is always in the building, not in the maintaining. In the end it's just about the ephemeral nature of life I guess, making way for the next generation.

Not because I had any inside knowledge but because I could sense the air starting to sour. I made a conscious effort in what I've posted and how I've entered comments since then hoping to do my part, but yeah I was caught off guard that it came from the top...I was more worried about the bottom falling out.

Re: Internet Comments As Tragedy Of the Commons, Franklin Paradox, Society Writ Large

mikkel — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:53:41 -0000

Several people gave mea culpas saying that they were sorry for saying things that kept the moderators' hands full and expressing the belief that if they had to be a moderator too they probably would have refrained. I am not privy to really any of the behind the scenes but from several self confessions it sounds like it wasn't just a bad few (although I do believe the majority is from them). Upon reflection they seemed to notice that.

Also I wrote this after about 40 comments, and the tone changed considerably by the end to be more giving, so I would have left out the franklin part otherwise. And yes I was referring obliquely to Ostrom knowing you would recognize that.

Re: Two Amazing Graphs About Consumer Spending

mikkel — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:27:50 -0000

" I read many posts here about how well the multiplier effect of transfer payments would work"

It did work...GDP with it stripped out it is insanely low. The problems are just far too big for them to resolve anything. At the time I had posts saying why I didn't think the stimulus would work for pretty much this reason.

Re: Two Amazing Graphs About Consumer Spending

mikkel — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:10:13 -0000

" Many of your 'nots' such as energy/healthcare innovation/education are areas in which some intelligent public investment could pay large dividends. "

No no, I wasn't clear enough for you to read it clearly. " transportation/energy/healthcare innovation/education" are all GREATLY needed. "(smart infrastructure not repavement)" was modifying transportation, i.e. simple repaving and such like many of the stimulus projects is not good return.

I agree with your viewpoint completely.

Government needs to take a proactive role in defining a new economic vision moving forward and changing regulations/spending to facilitate creation of new industries, instead of just trying to plug end level demand and hope that private stuff will fix things, since "private R&D is normally targeted to the smaller, incremental changes that promise returns in the short term" and right now it's all just sitting there seeing no area to find that in.

Re: Two Amazing Graphs About Consumer Spending

mikkel — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:32:59 -0000

"The question is not whether we have deficit spending but how."

I think we need much higher deficits but that instead of focusing on short term demand primarily it should focus on long term foundations that enable sustained economic growth (i.e. recalibrating the rhythm of the economy). Stiglitz argues for investments that get at least 6% return, which can be done in transportation (smart infrastructure not repavement)/energy/healthcare innovation/education.

Re: Internet Comments As Tragedy Of the Commons, Franklin Paradox, Society Writ Large

mikkel — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:23:14 -0000

? Various social groups have different strategies for maintaining order and participation depending on their aims and scope.

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

mikkel — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:14:25 -0000

can I piggyback on this too?

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:10:10 -0000

Off the shelf efficiency technology plus geothermal reduces energy needs by 30%. Running stuff off peak (like washing machines, dryers, whatnot) reduces peak load needs 15% or so.

Concentrated solar power can deliver industrial power in southwest. Small scale power generation (micro-hydro, wind, solar) can account for 50% of energy needs throughout the country. Geothermal power can supply 20% of total current needs.

I think that we can cut electricity usage 30% in relation to GDP and reduce utility needs by 50%.

Increased public transportation and car sharing services would reduce transportation needs drastically. Electric cars/trucks can be dominant within 10-20 years. Transportation corridors like you've said you support would help a ton too.

I think all of this investment would allow us to peak at 450 which is manageable and would be very good for the economy.

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:21:32 -0000

"any rush to "decarbonize" is not only unrealistic but perversely destructive and counter-progressive."

I don't believe this to be the case. I think that writing off bad debt and then large investments in transportation, developments and energy of the type you have expressed support for in the past would suffice. It will require shared hardship on the scale of say WWII rationing, but it is feasible based on our technology. I look at it more about will and broken government/social/business structures holding us back.

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:40:03 -0000

Hansen's original models were way ahead of their time and considered extreme, but the details have shown them to be largely accurate. He claims that the current models have none of the positive feedback loops that are expected and that the situation is far worse than the current models show. I trust him on this and put a lot of faith in his view until such time it is addressed by the larger scientific community.

Re: Save Money, Lose Money

mikkel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:44:21 -0000

Now that the Fed has stopped buying treasuries/mbs it will be interesting to see where interest rates go. If the 10 year goes to 5%+ it's game over.

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:19:50 -0000

This reminds me of a book I came across: Energy and Man.

'In this important volume five distinuished authorities on the production, use, and importance of energy in civilization have collaborated to produce a symposium of immense significance.' Contributions are by Allan Nevins, Robert G. Dunlop, Edward Teller, Edward S. Mason and Herbert Hoover, Jr.

The oil man (I don't remember who at the moment) had a long thing congratulating the industry on helping mankind and saying that it would provide indefinitely, and the only threats were regulations. Then Teller came up and said that while the accomplishments were notable and that we had fossil fuels for the next half century, that we must start transitioning off of them because:

a) the release of CO2 would cause global warming (although he was far too extreme about how much change is needed to melt greenland, he said only a degree)

b) peak oil would hit in about 50 years (i.e. now) with peak coal in the middle of this century

and then he said:

(the then hypothetical) PV cells were amazing and a great personal technology that should be widely adopted.

nuclear energy was the future for industrial production, but ONLY thorium based breeder reactors would ever be economical and all traditional uranium plants would never work from an economic/resource standpoint.

that once our industrial power was safe on breeder reactors then that would give us a couple centuries to develop fusion based plants.

It's too late now...

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:40:29 -0000

Read the oil drum site extensively and see what you think.

Re: Save Money, Lose Money

mikkel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:37:46 -0000

If this plays out it will kill the market because there goes all that play money. Of course it is insane that the market is up major on a day when it's announced.

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:07:08 -0000

He said nothing counterfactual, let alone "alarmist." It is well agreed that hurricane frequency has little to do with surface temperature and more to do with long term oscillations (of which we are entering the upswing period) but that major hurricane intensity is directly related to surface temperature and the record percentage of Cat 4+5 hurricanes can be attributed to warming.

The latter isn't alarmist either.

You just use "alarmist" to mean that you don't agree with his opinion on the action that should be taken to address issues, it has nothing to do with the validity of his claims about science.

Re: Thread On Peak Oil And Its Implications

mikkel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:04:58 -0000

They are starting to fall out of the woodwork

The world's oil reserves have been exaggerated by up to a third, according to Sir David King, the Government's former chief scientist, who has warned of shortages and price spikes within years.

The scientist and researchers from Oxford University argue that official figures are inflated because member countries of the oil cartel, OPEC, over-reported reserves in the 1980s when competing for global market share.
Their new research argues that estimates of conventional reserves should be downgraded from 1,150bn to 1,350bn barrels to between 850bn and 900bn barrels and claims that demand may outstrip supply as early as 2014. The researchers claim it is an open secret that OPEC is likely to have inflated its reserves, but that the International Energy Agency (IEA), BP, the Energy Information Administration and World Oil do not take this into account in their statistics.

...

"The IEA functions through fees that are paid into it by member companies and has to keep its clients happy," he said. "We're not operating under that basis. This is objective analysis. We're not sitting on any oil fields. It's critically important that reserves have been overstated, and if you take this into account, we're talking supply not meeting demand in 2014-2015."