Worrying signs

Maybe this was understood by others before now, but until this morning I didn't understand why some seemed concerned about on going low oil prices for the global economy.

Someone on Radio National, who sounded as if he knew what he was talking about, said that it may be a short term good, but the problem is that banks have lent a huge amount of money to companies with  projects (mining, gas) which are not viable if oil prices stay so low.  Big defaults are possible, seemed to be the message.

I see now that Paul Krugman is sounding nervous about the bond market, too.  Not that I understand the bond market, but Krugman is generally sensible, and if he's thinks its a bad sign, I'll take his word for it.

Not that there is anything that I can do about it.

Libertarian identity crisis

Poor old Lionel Shriver, the American (female) author who is usually pretty well reviewed, has written an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled "I Am Not a Kook" about her annoyance that people consider her self proclaimed status as a libertarian as a sign of kookiness:

When I announced to my mother in the 1980s that I considered myself libertarian, she recoiled. How did people like me come to seem like kooks?

She seems a smart woman, but perhaps she needs a few pointers, such as these:

*  Ayn Rand is associated with American libertarianism, and she was an eccentric trashy writer who fetishised powerful men getting their own way, economically and sexually, and suggested that people who didn't get on board (a train pun for you there) with her views probably deserved to die because of their own laziness and stupidity.  

*  A libertarian philosophy of minimal government leads to policies that Shriver admits she doesn't like.   She thinks gun control is a good idea;  she had a positive experience with the UK "single payer" health system;  she acknowledges that markets alone are not likely to deal adequately with climate change, which she believes in.   Shriver tries to defend her positions by arguing that no one is politically pure, and all of us can be a tad inconsistent with what policy positions we favour despite our claimed political philosophy.

But seriously, Ms Shriver - look at what the political and economic leaders who adopt libertarianism as their mantle actually believe in, both here and in Australia. 

They believe in the loosest gun control laws possible, and (as with David Leyonhjelm) celebrate instances of citizens shooting (and killing) robbers as if the wild West is something to be emulated.   There answer to every mass gun shooting is that there should be more guns.  

They not only really, seriously, believe in doing nothing about climate change;  they (see Koch brothers, of course) actively fund climate change denial to make political action on it as difficult as possible.   They are treating the single greatest environmental issue the planet has ever seen, with the possible consequence (amongst other things) of flooding scores of the worlds great cities within a century or two, because of short-sighted selfishness and an imagined socialist conspiracy against capitalism.

In the American case, they ridicule "socialised medicine" against all the evidence that the American system is incredibly expensive with (in many cases) worse outcomes overall.   But this counts little for rich libertarians with the money to get the best treatment.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it:  libertarianism downplays "the common good" in theory and, for most self proclaimed libertarians who have achieved leadership positions in the US and Australia, in practice. 

The real problem here is that I reckon Shriver should not even claim the title of libertarian, given her preferred policies are sufficient in number, and so wildly different from what other libertarians think on the same issues, that she step away from the official title due to it indeed justifying policies that are just too kooky.  

And, of course, I would say the same to Jason Soon, who I assume could write a very similar column to Shriver's.

Another bit of American Right nonsense

Everyone knows that the Republicans make stupid statements about "socialised health care", and Ted Cruz repeated the old memes only last week, to much criticism.

And here is a chart I found from 2014, which is interesting:

Why are the Republicans (and those in Australia who admire them) so full of nonsense?

Liberal Democrat eccentrics

I see that the Senator Blofeld Party recently had its national conference, with speakers including former Laborite (now conservative friendly) fellow baldy Michael Costa saying this, apparently:

'People want EVERYONE ELSE to use public transport so they can use their CAR"

I don't know when exactly it happened, but along with their climate change denialism, much of the Right wing has gone a bit nuttily against public transport, against the evidence (such as good usage figures for the Gold Coast light rail, and  Sydney's light rail having high demand.)   One would also have thought that travel to cities with great public transport systems would help convince them too.  But no.  Apparently, Houston is gold standard for cities, because land is cheap and you can spend your day commuting on a really, really wide freeway. Beautiful.

Their other speaker of note was Jennifer Marohasy - IPA aligned "independent scientist" who thinks the weather bureau is conspiring to fake our climate record, and that no understands the Murray-Darling like she does.

Way to go with the eccentrics and cranks, Leyonhjelm.  I guess you fit right in, though...

Perhaps a bigger development than what's happened in the West

In China, gays say life has changed much for the better - CSMonitor.com

If there is significant cultural change in China on the matter of acceptance of homosexual relationships, about the only major country really holding out against it aggressively would be (by my reckoning) Russia.   (Well, if you don't count the Muslim dominated countries, I suppose.  Not sure how they are ever going to cope with the idea.  Oh, and then there is a large conservative contingent in India, too.   In both cases, though, it seems that single men having opportunistic sex with males is increased by the strong conservative attitude keeping  heterosexual sex strictly within marriage.  All sort of ironic, in its way...) 

Late flood attribution

Remember in 2013 I posted about the floods in northern India?    OK, well I did.  Go have a look.

Anyway, receiving no attention whatsoever is a new paper looking at climate change attribution in relation to that flood.

Here's the abstract:

During 13–17 June 2013, heavy rainfall occurred in the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand and led to one of the worst floods in history and massive landslides, resulting in more than 5000 casualties and a huge loss of property. In this study, meteorological and climatic conditions leading up to this rainfall event in 2013 and similar cases were analyzed for the period of 1979–2012. Attribution analysis was performed to identify the natural and anthropogenic influences on the climate anomalies using the historical single-forcing experiments in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5. In addition, regional modeling experiments were carried out to quantify the role of the long-term climate trends in affecting the rainfall magnitude of the June 2013 event. It was found that (a) northern India has experienced increasingly large rainfall in June since the late 1980s, (b) the increase in rainfall appears to be associated with a tendency in the upper troposphere towards amplified short waves, and (c) the phasing of such amplified short waves is tied to increased loading of green-house gases and aerosols. In addition, a regional modeling diagnosis attributed 60–90 % of rainfall amounts in the June 2013 event to post-1980 climate trends.

It's an unfortunate thing that such attribution studies take some time to complete, and come out long after the event has faded from the public's memory.

But basically:  yes, it seems there is already good reason for seeing climate change as causing (or significantly worsening?) some disastrous and deadly floods.

In praise of this season's stone fruit

Has anyone else noticed how cheap and delicious this summer's stone fruit seem to be?  My wife bought an enormous cheap tray of yellow nectarines last week (the shop said they were cheap because they really were for cooking because they were a bit dry).  But in fact, after being left out at room temperature for a couple of days, they turned delicious.  Not dry at all.   Sweet, not too soft, not too firm.   Fantastic.  (And cheap!)

Some odd Ergas lines

Henry Ergas gets decidedly carried away in his column in The Australian contemplating a GST increase today.  First, there's this:

Little wonder then that increasing the GST is as about as appealing to the electorate as a dose of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.

As I noted yesterday, I would have thought that a Newspoll showing a 37% approval of a GST increase to 15%, before the government has even attempted to sell it as a policy, is actually pretty damned good.   Dear Henry seems not to think so.

The writing gets even more flowery, and rather oddball, further down:

But imposing such a change would require “a strong hand and an outstretched arm” worthy of the divine intervention that ­allowed the biblical escape from Egypt; and even a moment’s reflec­tion on the politics forces us to come tumbling down from the thunderbolts of Sinai to the ­insensate debauchery of the Cities of the Plain.

Nor is there much doubt what form that debauchery would take: as the battle over the proposed tax change heated up, giveaways to low income earners would proliferate at higher income earners’ expense. As a result, far from being compressed, effective rates would, in the immortal phrase of British comedians Max and Ivan, end up as stretched as a dwarf in an orgy, aggravating the damage our tax system causes.

I had not even heard of said comedians, or their dwarf joke, until now.  Obviously, I am not as hip a dude as Henry, but the net effect of the line is not exactly amusing, or enlightening.  Just - peculiar.

You're not exactly full of solutions, though, Nick

To help real refugees, be firm with economic migrants | Nick Cohen | Opinion | The Guardian

I get the feeling that this column is (as often in immigration matters) fine in theory, yet useless about how the theory is to be applied in practice.   Especially as far as Europe is concerned.

If countries with land bridges to economic basket cases had a simple way to stop unwanted entry, or returning those who have arrived, they would have worked it out long ago.  Take the United States and Mexico, for example.

More about taxes

On Insiders this morning, PM Turnbull seemed to be following the line taken by John Quiggin that a GST increase, once you take into account the compensation to low income earners that would be needed for political palatability, probably doesn't raise money enough to make it worthwhile.  Chris Uhlmann reckons that an increased GST is already "dead, buried and yet to be cremated."

I suppose it does all depend on the amount of compensation.  But a few things:

a. that's why you go for the modest increase of 2.5%, not 5%.  You can get away more readily with inadequate compensation that way;

b. everyone's forgotten, but should be reminded, that pensioner compensation for the carbon tax was actually designed as over-compensation.  Tony Abbott (illogically, given the budget repair emergency he was also arguing) sold it as a "positive" that he was removing the carbon tax, but keeping the compensation.   In light of this history, a responsible government could argue for more modest compensation for pensioners for a GST increase;

c. if you keep the GST off fresh food, a government can also argue that, more than ever, there's an incentive for welfare recipients to move off processed food to more fresh food in their diet.  Hey - add a sugar tax on soft drinks, and you have an even better set of nudges towards welfare dependent families changing their diet! 

But, yes, it does appear that no politician is following my opinion, after all, despite the polling indicating that a GST increase to 15% has a 37% approval rating, and (obviously) that's before our charming PM has even tried to sell it.

Those figures indicate that a well argued case would easily see the Coalition being returned at the next election as the "responsible" side in repairing a the budget, with Labor as stuck in the past.

But no, let's avoid a relatively simple and obvious way to raise more revenue for another 3 years or so.

Taxes, etc

Paul Keating's endorsement of spending cuts may have given small government lovers a thrill, but how seriously one should take someone who was for a consumption tax before he was against it, and who had a budget cutting job in very different social and economic circumstances from the present, I don't know.  (See Peter Brent making the same point, in better detail.)

And even he thinks a modest GST increase tied to health funding is arguable.

I find all this debate back and forth a bit tedious, because I decided what is politically safe enough and reasonable back in September, and I'm just waiting for the politicians to catch on:

1.  a modest increase in the GST rate to 12.5%.   This is low enough to not really be noticed, but I'm pretty sure it still raises quite a lot.  As for its expansion - I would be inclined to leave it off fresh food, but wonder whether a reduced rate could be added to education services - say 5%?  OK, that would be a hard sell to Liberal constituents, but it might be something Labor could live with;

2.  superannuation tax concessions at the high end wound back harder;

3.  a staged reduction in negative gearing.  Not too staged.  And didn't I suggest once that it be time limited, to like for the first 5 years?   Increased turnaround in investment property sales would be good for stamp duty revenue too, as well as placing properties back on the market for potential owner/occupiers.   Someone needs to point out to me the downside, as there almost certainly would be one.  

 As for spending cuts:   it's a continual irony that Liberals and Republicans always claim there is a government spending emergency, while at the same time ramping up defence spending and using defence in some of the most expensive ways possible.

In the Australian context:   how tied are we really to the  F 35 purchase?  Why does it take a (Left) liberal (see Canada) to point out that you can get by with other, cheaper, fighters?   Is there scope to at least cut back the number we intend buying?

I would still build submarines here, though.   Forget about economic purism - supporting manufacturing abilities is a good thing, and shipbuilding seems a decent enough way to do that.

What about the cost of the paramilitary (and creepy fascistic Abbott idea) Border Force?   It would do a lot for the country's self image to dismantle it as soon as possible, especially if doing so has increased costs.

As for welfare spending:  I'm not sure if it is really worth it or not, and it would be mainly Sydney and Melbourne affected, but pensioners sitting in an expensive enough home - let's say $1,000,000 plus? - should face some formula for putting at least part of the value of their home into the assets test.

But as for taxes overall, let's not forget this point:

Update:   I've sort of grown tired of pointing out Senator Blofeld's "look at me" speeches to an empty Senate.   He isn't even proposing running again, so the publicity he craves is for just for his ego and his minuscule fan club.   Anyway, apparently progressive taxation is "immoral", despite what Popes and bishops  have maintained.

All in the mind

It's not about sex, it's about identity: why furries are unique among fan cultures | Fashion | The Guardian

Where else but the Guardian would you expect to find a sympathetic article about "furries" - people who really like to dress as animals - either realistic version animals, or cartoon version, apparently.

The article does say that it's not a sexual fetish for most (as was portrayed on a CSI episode which I happened to see), but it's still weird:

“People don’t realize it, but the whole anthropomorphism is very mainstream,” says Gerbasi, who spearheaded the multidisciplinary Anthropomorphic Research Project, which has studied about 7,000 furry fans from all continents, except Antarctica (which actually had a small furry gathering, too). While there are certain demographic trends – almost 80% are male, many work in science or tech, with a disproportionate share not identifying as heterosexual – the data, by and large, shows no indication that furries would be psychologically unhealthy.

“Cartoon animals have a universal appeal,” says Conway, who fursuits as ‘Uncle Kage’: a samurai cockroach. “A love of animals and a fascination with the idea of them acting as we do transcends most national, geographic and religious boundaries.”

While the fursuits are the most visible, they only make up only about 20% convention-goers, Conway adds: the rest are performers, writers, puppeteers, dancers, artists and “just plain old fans”.

For a minority, however, it is more than that: 46% of furry fans surveyed by Gerbasi reported identifying as less than 100% human – with 41% admitting that if they could be not human at all, they would. Twenty-nine percent of them reported experiencing being a “non-human species trapped in a human body”.

The parallels with gender identity disorder, upon which the hypothesis was modeled, were striking: much like some transgender individuals report being born the wrong sex, some furries feel a disconnect with their bodies, as if they were stuck in the wrong species. The condition, which Gerbasi et al labeled “species identity disorder”, had a physiological component too, with many reportingexperiencing phantom body parts, like tails or wings.

Gerbasi still has no answers to why these individuals feel they’re not human, but stresses the importance for health providers to take them seriously, and without the ridicule that sometimes afflicts even her own research.

What a world.  Sometimes it seems to me that no one is told these days that their self understanding is nutty and/or quite possibly transient and/or best not indulged.   Or at least not indulged in the way they want it indulged.

For those who like Richard Ayoade

I do wonder sometimes how much of Richard Ayoade's Moss-like comic persona as a socially uncomfortable uber-nerd, which he seems to carry into everything he does, is a bit of an act.   But I don't really care - I find him very funny regardless.   (I mean, who cared whether Jack Benny was really a tightwad, or not.)

I'm also not sure if his Travel Man series has been shown on SBS before.  But in any event, I've found that some kind English person seems to have recorded them and put the full length episodes on Youtube.  (I suspect they won't be allowed to stay there for long, however.)

I'm working my way through them, but so far, I think the one with fellow IT Crowd actor Chris O'Dowd is the best.  They really seem to enjoy each other's company, which is nice to see:

What? Why?

Microsoft testing underwater data centers ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

OK, it still doesn't quite convince me that the underwater hacking sequence in Mission Impossible 5 made any sense, but I am surprised nonetheless that this idea is even being trialled:

Microsoft on Monday revealed that as the world turns to computing
power in the cloud it is working to put data centers under water.

Researchers working on “Project Natick” tested a prototype vessel on
the ocean floor about a kilometer off the U.S. Pacific Coast for about
four months last year....

With about half of the world’s population living near large bodies of
water and a shift to accessing software hosted in the Internet cloud,
having data centers submerged nearby could save money and speed up
access to information, Microsoft reasoned.

Currents or tides can be tapped to generate electricity to power data centers, and the cold depths provide natural cooling.

“Deepwater deployment offers ready access to cooling, renewable power sources, and a controlled environment,” Whitaker said.

 Very odd, if you ask me...

Well, that's OK then...

Riyadh spares Palestinian ‘apostate’ from beheading | GulfNews.com: Riyadh: A court in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday revised the punishment given to a stateless Palestinian poet convicted of apostasy, reducing it from death to eight years in prison, 800 lashes and public repentance, his lawyer said.

The poet, Ashraf Fayadh, had been sentenced to beheading because of the apostasy conviction announced in November, based partly on his published poetry.

Krugman on Rubio

Well, in my pre-Iowa notes I called the Republican primary right:

I know what will happen on the Republican side: someone horrifying will come in first, and someone horrifying will come in second.

Let me add that someone horrifying also came in third. Marco Rubio may seem less radical than Cruz or Trump, but his substantive policy positions are for incredibly hawkish foreign policy, wildly regressive tax policy, kicking tens of millions of people off health insurance, and destroying the environment. Other than that, he’s a moderate.

Link.  

Seems it will be worth seeing

Critic Reviews for Hail, Caesar! - Metacritic

Now that I expect to live to 120, I should revise my superannuation

Researchers extend lifespan by as much as 35 percent in mice

Morally offensive

The questions the ABC did not ask

Seriously, I find the gung-ho Andrew Bolt attitude of "I blame everyone but the government for what happens when you lock hundreds of people, including children, together on a hot rock of an island for years with no hope of satisfactory resolution;  oh, and are those kids really being raped and self harming anyway - I have my doubts" expressed in this column to be pretty damn offensive for its moral triteness.   And pretty dumb, given the experience of allegations made against Save the Children workers.  

Update:  with a High Court "win" for the government, the moral question of the extent to which you can justify the continuing punishment of one set of people (particularly children) to act as a  deterrent to others from attempting to enter the country in a particular way is one which is now clearly "owned" by Malcolm Turnbull, and any politician with a sense of morality.   One suspects he would have been relieved by a High Court decision against the government on this, but no such luck.

Nasty way to go

Elephant in Thailand kills British tourist in front of his teenage daughter | Home News | News | The Independent

I wouldn't have thought there was much danger of this happening on a tourist elephant ride.  And statistically, I suppose there isn't.  But it would still make me reconsider getting on the back of one for fun.