Krugman connects the dots

Paul Krugman writes:

Recently Dr. Peter Hotez, a leading vaccine scientist and a frequent target of anti-vaxxer harassment, expressed some puzzlement in a post on X, formerly Twitter. He noted that many of those taunting him were also “big time into bitcoin or cryptocurrency” and declared that “I can’t quite connect the dots on that one.”

OK, I can help with that. Also, welcome to my world.

If you regularly follow debates about public policy, especially those involving wealthy tech bros, it’s obvious that there’s a strong correlation among the three Cs: climate denial, Covid vaccine denial and cryptocurrency cultism.

I’ve written about some of these things before, in the context of Silicon Valley’s enthusiasm for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But in the light of Hotez’s puzzlement — and also the rise of Vivek Ramaswamy, another crank, who won’t get the G.O.P. nomination but could conceivably become Donald Trump’s running mate — I want to say more about what these various forms of crankdom have in common and why they appeal to so many wealthy men.

The key thing is, success can easily lead to over-estimation of your ability to understand complicated stuff:

Success all too easily feeds the belief that you’re smarter than anyone else, so you can master any subject without working hard to understand the issues or consulting people who have; this kind of arrogance may be especially rife among tech types who got rich by defying conventional wisdom. The wealthy also tend to surround themselves with people who tell them how brilliant they are or with other wealthy people who join them in mutual affirmation of their superiority to mere technical drones — what the tech writer Anil Dash calls “V.C. QAnon.”

So where does cryptocurrency come in? Underlying the whole crypto phenomenon is the belief by some tech types that they can invent a better monetary system than the one we currently have, all without talking to any monetary experts or learning any monetary history. Indeed, there’s a widespread belief that the generations-old system of fiat money issued by governments is a Ponzi scheme that will collapse into hyperinflation any day now. Hence, for example, Jack Dorsey’s 2021 declaration that “hyperinflation will change everything. It’s happening.”

Now, I’m quite willing to admit that monetary economics isn’t as solid a science as epidemiology or climatology. And yes, even noncrank economists argue about some big issues much more than their hard-science counterparts.

But economics nonetheless is, as John Maynard Keynes wrote, “a technical and difficult subject” — one on which you shouldn’t make pronouncements without studying quite a lot of theory and history — although “no one will believe it.” Certainly people who think they understand climate better than climatologists and vaccines better than epidemiologists are also likely to think they understand money better than economists and to believe in each case that experts telling them that the world doesn’t work the way they think it does are engaged in some kind of hoax or conspiracy.

He adds near the end:

Thanks to the tech boom, there are probably more wealthy cranks than there used to be, and they’re wealthier than ever, too. They also have a more receptive audience in the form of a Republican Party whose confidence in the scientific community has collapsed since the mid-2000s.

All sounds like a good enough explanation.

Another notable death - Paul Johnson

As it happens, it occurred to me just a day or two ago to check whether Paul Johnson was still alive, and saw that he was.   (Seems he might have been on his death bed at the time, though.)  Here's his obituary from the New York Times. 

I've read at least three of his early history books, as well as at least one collection of essays, and yes, he was influential on my views.  I think the first I read was his History of Christianity, which really served to enlighten me about how absurd (to the point of comical) some purportedly religiously motivated behaviour could be; and what a (let's say), obviously human enterprise the development of the religion had been.  (I found his history of the Jews heavier going, and much less of that has stuck with me.)    I think it might have been from Modern Times that I credit him with bringing to my attention the idea that capitalism and markets are basically an organic and natural feature of how humans like to organise themselves; and the contrary, high flalutin' theories of how the world ought to be, like Marxist economics, fail because they don't accord with this aspect of human nature.   This still seems true to me, even though I have learnt to deeply regret that free markets types can love money so much that they actively deny science for the sake of continuing profit.   (You know what I'm talking about, and it gets a mention below.) 

I think it obvious that in his swing from Leftism to Conservatism, he swung too far to the Right, especially when the American Republicans started idolising him.   (There is also, of course, the loss of face suffered when he was exposed as a long term adulterer, after often criticising that behaviour in others and writing a whole book - as entertaining as it is - about hypocrisy in the personal life of famous Leftists.)  

But I think in at least one respect, his Catholicism, he perhaps did become more progressive as he aged:  I remember being surprised in his book of essays that he opined that women being allowed into the Catholic priesthood was inevitable.  Now that I think of it, I think it might also be in that book that he made a comment about how the Church would have to deal with the fact that gay relationships can be as loving as straight ones, making their complete condemnation difficult.  (For some reason, I also remember how he wrote that he increasingly gave all living creatures a chance - preferring, for example, to open a window and try to chase a fly out of the room rather than immediately try to kill it.)  

Generally speaking, though, I have the impression from reviews that the quality of his historical works never really recovered after A History of the American People (which is discussed in this interesting article from 1998.)   On that great indicator of whether a person has retained reasonable judgement or not - his attitude to climate change - I still don't know whether he ever expressed an opinion.  I would be happy to know that he did accept the science on that, but it would not be at all surprising if he didn't.  (Or if he took a Thatcherite path of believing it initially, and then turning against it as being a Leftish plot.)

The above article about him indicates other personal faults beyond (hypocritical) adultery - heavy drinking, for one, but also having views on politicians seemingly determined by whether they had ever met, or praised, him.   Jacob Weisberg, who wrote the article, concludes this:

...it is hard to avoid the impression that he is a misunderstood man, at least in America. Johnson is much less a bitter ultraconservative than a professional provocateur, a controversialist. Creating outrages, he has learned, can be a good business.

That may be true, although I don't think it a feature of his earlier works, which will remain worth reading for a long time yet.   

 

 

  

I have trouble taking the Greens seriously

The Guardian notes:

Greens candidate for Brisbane, Stephen Bates, has taken out an advertisement on Grindr, “the world’s largest social networking app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people”.

“You always come first with the Greens,” one reads, and another says: “Spice up Canberra with a third”.

Speaking directly to a specific market – in this case, a younger, LGBTQ+ market – could work, according to Dr Andrew Hughes, a political marketing lecturer at the Australian National University who says for any other party it might come across as “tokenistic”.

I do find this supports my feeling that while the Greens are in the right space on the environment and climate change, and (possibly) economics, they have a sort of air of immaturity about them (when they're not being overly earnest on "culture war" issues - which I also think is a kind of immaturity) on other issues that really puts me off voting for them.    

On looking at the old Catallaxy

So there was much wailing and grinding of teeth on the weekend from the wingnut Catallaxy club - I was able to spend quite a few merry hours trolling them.  

The site is now deleted - save for some captures done by the National Library.   (Mind you, they have saved some pages of this blog too - so that's not particularly significant in the scheme of things.)

But there is also still, for some reason, a bit of the old version of Catallaxy hanging around the internet - before it moved to its last hosting arrangement, I think.   It's from 2010, and it's interesting to see what the blog was talking about then.

You can see how it was a hotbed for climate change denial/"scepticism".   Rafe was promoting Monckton articles that appeared in Watts Up With That, Sinclair was giving hat tips to arts graduate Delingpole.   He and Chris Berg were apparently in an article in the IPA Review about "Climategate."   Oh, and "Glaciergate" gets a couple of mentions by Sinclair too - that embarrassing but relatively minor, quickly identified, mistake in an IPCC report which no one sensible ever thought demonstrated that climate change science in totality was wrong. 

Move a decade in the future, and the blog was still heavily devoted, mainly from Rafe's posts, to denying climate change and scaremongering about the cost of changing to clean power.   Sinclair  stopped posting about the topic some time ago - maybe he has modified his views, while nonetheless being happy to have Rafe and Moran crap on weekly about how bad renewable energy is, and Steve Kates (literally) call people idiots for believing in AGW at all, and the Left evil.   Who knows?

It was certainly not as if Sinclair was into admitting error - remember the Monty temporary banning in 2014 for pointing out his stagflation call?   

Speaking of economics more generally, here he is praising this assessment of Keynesian economics:

Ultimately, any economic theory, if it is to survive, must withstand repeated attempts to falsify it, repeated exposure to the predictive test that deductive science imposes on its creations. The Keynesian model (I call it this rather than the model of Keynes since no master should ever be judged by the words of his inadequate disciples) was floored by a sequence of empirical failures: an alleged consumption multiplier that regularly under-performed; an alleged inelasticity of aggregate investment to interest rate changes that was notable by its absence; a liquidity trap that failed to manifest itself; a Phillips curve trade-off between the rate of unemployment and the rate of price inflation that proved to be explosively unstable; a flexible exchange- rate system that eliminated final macroeconomic vestiges of fiscal influence. …
…
Dear reader, the Keynesian model never worked; and never will work. It has been resuscitated by opportunistic economists, not because they believe in its merits as an agent of macroeconomic rehabilitation, but because they recognize its political value as a weapon for moving economies from laissez-faire to state capitalism, or (hopefully) beyond that to fully-fledged socialism.

Now, I'm not qualified to understand a lot of those claims - but thanks to Sinclair's failed stagflation warning made a year or so after that post, I can tell that this was probably a load of exaggerated bollocks.   So, yeah, Catallaxy was good for that!

Oh, and look:  there's a post in which Sinclair is apparently endorsing Nigel Farage "Telling the EU where to get off".   Gee, Brexit has gone so well.   

In the spirit of generosity, and bearing in mind the internet never forgets, if Sinclair would like to appear in comments here and confess his mistakes and errors, he's welcome to.

Heh. 

Update:   someone called Adam has created a clone (in appearance) of the deleted Catallaxy site, and all the people who regularly posted there have migrated to the open thread.  I see Sinclair has turned up with this message:

Ah yes:  that would be the blog where I voluntarily stopped commenting because an old regular could make a comment about how a woman (I forget who) should be "kicked in the slats" and Sinclair wouldn't moderate it.   Or more recently, where a male commenter could call an apparent rape victim in the news "a dud root", and again, the comment remained there.   

Sinclair let it turn into a toilet that he would not moderate to any reasonable standard of civility.  Golf clap for libertarianism, hey.  

As I explained in my comment at monty's post in 2014:

....I can't tolerate the lack of overall moderation of the place any more. I have a theory that Sinclair might consider the blog threads are a sort of "test" of how libertarian communities might self moderate - if someone says something outrageous and offensive, then others might try to pull them in line and a certain natural level of acceptable propriety prevail.

In fact, this happens exceptionally rarely, so that the blog threads have become full of sexist and (for want of a better word) "homophobic" comments which, if I overheard in a pub, would offend me and make me slide away from the group. And when they get onto racism issues it can get exceptionally ugly, and pretty dumb.

As I have said over the years, it particularly annoys me when the women who comment there let offensive comments slide (IT and his twice made comment now that a woman deserves a "kick in the slats", for example.) And that Sinclair, despite his presumed friendship with Tim Wilson, rarely does a thing about the way homosexuality is used for the purpose of ridicule.

Sorry, but blog moderation that extends to "no one uses the 'c' word, and if I notice something I think is a bit OTT I might delete it" has made the place too ugly to be seen in.

So, yeah, it was a "wonderful" place for intense and offensive sexism, homophobia, and racism (although I have not preserved examples of the latter - but even JC would complain about that, so I am far from imagining it.)

It was a toilet that deserved to go, and the world is a better place that it has.

A feeling of disgust

I have been wanting to note for a while that my assessment of Adam Creighton and his ilk (economist Paul Frijters, for one, who Nicholas Gruen has let overrun his blog with "BUT YOU ARE ALL WRONG AND PANICKING UNNECESSARILY" guff about COVID) has moved from something like "dismissive of such clownishness" to "you absolutely disgust me".   

I mean - it is just so freaking obvious that COVID spread and optimal responses to it are hugely complicated questions with wildly varying effects across wildly varying cultures and populations such that it is going to be years, if ever, that unpicking the evidence is going to provide anything like definitive  answers that are 100% clear.   Yet Creighton, Frijters and other economics types (for the most part) decided a position at the very start and are determined to promote it and attack all others (including, of course, public health officials whose lifetime job has been devoted to these issues) as if the answers are obvious and that those against them are the real ones causing unnecessary trouble.

It's a level of arrogant certainty and pig headedness that just makes me sick to read.   I guess I could say I tend towards the same feeling now towards climate change denial - certainly towards the likes of politically motivated gadflies like Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair who promote stupidity in the media - but with COVID it's the immediacy of the problem that has intensified my anger and disgust with the economists who think they know best and will not change position or admit there is substantial evidence against them.

Update:  just a couple of days after I wrote this, Adam outdid himself:

There are many funny replies rubbishing him.

 

 

Stiglitz on debt

Despite my feeling that economics is having something of a crisis in understanding what is happening in the world at the moment,  I still sense that Joseph Stiglitz is credible and well worth listening to.

Here he is in The Guardian warning of a looming debt crisis, and what should be done about it:

While the Covid-19 pandemic rages, more than 100 low- and middle-income countries will still have to pay a combined $130bn in debt service this year – around half of which is owed to private creditors. With much economic activity suspended and fiscal revenues in free fall, many countries will be forced to default. Others will cobble together scarce resources to pay creditors, cutting back on much-needed health and social expenditures. Still others will resort to additional borrowing, kicking the proverbial can down the road, seemingly easier now because of the flood of liquidity from central banks around the world.

From Latin America’s lost decade in the 1980s to the more recent Greek crisis, there are plenty of painful reminders of what happens when countries cannot service their debts. A global debt crisis today will push millions of people into unemployment and fuel instability and violence around the world. Many will seek jobs abroad, potentially overwhelming border-control and immigration systems in Europe and North America. Another costly migration crisis will divert attention away from the urgent need to address climate change. Such humanitarian emergencies are becoming the new norm.

This nightmare scenario is avoidable if we act now. The origins of today’s looming debt crisis are easy to understand. Owing to quantitative easing, the public debt (mostly sovereign bonds) of low- and middle-income countries has more than tripled since the 2008 global financial crisis. Sovereign bonds are riskier than “official” debt from multilateral institutions and developed-country aid agencies because creditors can dump them on a whim, triggering a sharp currency depreciation and other far-reaching economic disruptions.

Back in June 2013, we worried that “shortsighted financial markets, working with shortsighted governments,” were “laying the groundwork for the world’s next debt crisis.” Now, the day of reckoning has come. This past March, the United Nations called for debt relief for the world’s least-developed countries. Several G20 countries and the International Monetary Fund have suspended debt service for the year, and have called upon private creditors to follow suit.

Unsurprisingly, these calls have fallen on deaf ears. The newly formed Africa Private Creditor Working Group, for example, has already rejected the idea of modest but broad-based debt relief for poor countries. As a result, much, if not most, of the benefits of debt relief from official creditors will accrue to the private creditors who are unwilling to provide any debt relief.

The upshot is that taxpayers in creditor countries will once again end up bailing out excessive risk taking and imprudent lending by private actors. The only way to avoid this is to have a comprehensive debt standstill that includes private creditors. But without strong action from the countries in which debt contracts are written, private creditors are unlikely to accept such an arrangement. These governments therefore must invoke the doctrines of necessity and force majeure to enforce comprehensive standstills on debt service.
 

No doubt I have copied more than I should, but go to the article to read about his proposed response.

Adam Creighton re-confirms his foolishness

Look, as I have said before, I have never held Creighton in high regard; but with today's column in The Australian:  Coronavirus: Inflated pandemic estimates weaken climate forecasts, he re-confirms  himself as the most ignorant fool.

He decided early on to go with one take on the COVID-19 problem and he is sticking to it, obviously in such a way that no evidence is going to change his mind.

Most of the column is devoted to the COVID pandemic, but when it gets to climate change, he only quotes this:

Climate modelling was struggling even before the pandemic, given the planet has warmed about half as much as forecast by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in back 1990.

“Almost the entire alarm about global warming is based on model predictions. If you just look at the last 30 to 40 years of data, nothing spectacular has happened, there’s no sign temperature increase is accelerating,” says Benny Peiser, founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.

This claim has been debunked years ago - Creighton reads only what he wants to on the topic, obviously.  As for quoting Benny Peiser - his qualifications:

Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science. 

Yeah, the man to trust.   

The rule of thumb should apply - if anyone is running with "climate change is no problem" line after all this time, they are not to be trusted on any topic, even one they are supposedly an expert on, such as economics.   It's a solid marker for foolishness, not knowing how to tell a genuine expert from a charlatan, and an inability to admit to past error.   

Jason goes Gray again

Gee Jason, why do you think Gray Connolly makes for a good analysis of the current state of the world?   He makes excuses for Trump all the time, and has a pat over-simplification line that is too much orientated towards the culture wars (as you have to be to excuse the blatant authoritarianism inherent in the Trump's performance since day one.)

What's the evidence for this, for example?:

The Right that emerges from this time will be more orientated to families & workers, not big business. 

Really?  Where's the sign of that in America?   Or is this just theorising on the never never?

Connolly makes a lot of Trump having won due to appeal to those that economic (and cultural?) liberalism has left behind - he ignores things like the substantial majority vote win by Clinton; the actual failure of Trump to reinvigorate industries he said he would; the long term uncertain effect of his populist trade wars; the uncertain effect of long term massive increase in government debt; the boosting the military while at the same time saying he will use it less.  

You and Connolly seem to want to make a boogeyman of "liberalism", yet don't get into the nitty gritty of economic policy (well, Connolly doesn't.)    Because, let's face it, economics is complicated and populism in only benefiting your own nation's population is not all that moral if the rest of the world is in poverty.   Globalisation is supported by the Catholic Church because of the wealth generation in poorer countries it can create, if done properly.   Conservative Catholics, like Connolly, seem to ignore that and want to welcome the retreat into isolationism that ultimately hurts everyone.

If you and Connolly want to make a useful contribution, start critiquing actual economic policies:  what should happen with tax rates;  how to deal with corporations gaming governments out of tax by their international and financing arrangements;  how to respond to the "gig" economy;  and how all policy needs to be geared towards averting disaster climate change affecting huge parts of the world within a couple of generations.


All this bleating about "woke capital", and how the Left is more interested in lattes than appealing to the (increasingly hard to define) working class, and getting upset because of college students being too politically correct, is just fiddling around the edges of what's important.

I've been saying this to you for years now, as you seem to retreat more and more into the weird world of conservatives who are more interested in criticising the Left for not being what you want it to be, while ignoring what the Right is actually doing.       

Yet more way overdue climate economics scepticism

Further to yesterday's post:  there's been a good thread on Twitter about this, which I think you will find here.

And Ken Rice has tweeted a link to a paper from 2016 that appears to show (I only have time to scan it at the moment) that DICE models tested with 20th century growth show results nothing like what actually happened.

Interesting, but as I've been saying - why has it taken so long for people to question this whole field in the way that they finally are now?

Oh:  and someone on Twitter linked to an article on GDP effects of climate change that made some interesting points - but I am having trouble finding it now.   Keeping track of info via blogs used to be much easier than it is under Twitter.

Update:  Jason, do you have any idea what Graeme's story about you in the comment I have left is about?

Graeme - don't get optimistic.   99% of your comments are still going to be deleted, whatever they are about. 

Great contributions by Jewish folk noted

The Spectator has a review of a book with the heading:

Is there no field in which the Jewish mindset doesn’t excel?

Norman Lebrecht celebrates the explosion of Jewish talent between 1847 and 1947 in music, literature, painting, film, politics, philosophy, science and invention

In the body of the review is this:

‘Between the middle of the 19th and 20th centuries,’ Genius & Anxiety opens,

a few dozen men and women changed the way we see the world. Some of their names are on our lips for all time. Marx, Freud, Proust, Einstein, Kafka. Others have vanished from our collective memory, but their importance endures in our daily lives. Without Karl Landsteiner, for instance, there would be no blood transfusion or major surgery; without Paul Ehrlich no chemotherapy; without Siegfried Marcus no motor car; without Rosalind Franklin no model of DNA; without Fritz Haber there would not be enough food to sustain life on earth.

 I don’t know if Lebrecht actually buys into so simple a description of scientific progress, or whether it is just a good, combative kick-off to a book, but either way the main thrust of the argument is inescapable. For the best part of the past 200 years a small and threatened minority has exerted a creative influence out of all proportion to their numbers, and whether they flaunt it like a Disraeli or a Bernstein, or a convert like Mendelssohn, whether they hate it like Marx, are religious or atheist, Orthodox or Reform, assimilist or Zionist, the one thing they share is their ‘Jewishness’.

It's a good argument, even allowing for the later negative contributions to economics, climate change, and political discourse generally of Steve Kates and Sinclair Davidson.   (Is SD himself Jewish or just married to one?  He certainly notes their feasts on the blog.)

And for an added bonus - I get to delete probably scores of comments by Graeme - for whom this post will be like 100% irresistible clickbait. 

About climate economics

I had been posting for a number of years that economic modelling on the cost of climate change seemed dubious at best, and a complete crock at worst.  I was puzzled that Pindyck's criticisms didn't have more publicity.

I think this view has finally spread more widely, not only amongst science exaggerating political movements such as Extinction Rebellion, but more broadly into mainstream opinion.

I hadn't realised that controversial Australian economist Steven Keen had thrown his commentary into the mix too.   Now, I know a lot of people attack him for exaggerated attacks on various economic issues (house price bubbles especially, I think), but if he is right in his criticisms in this post, and in the video following, it does seem remarkable that it has taken this long for people to say "this can't be right".



I also note that last month And Then There's Physics had a post and thread about the related topic of Integrated Assessment Models.   Many good comments about them are to be found there. 

I try to be charitable, but...

....Steve Kates just couldn't be more stupidly un-self aware if he tried. 

Here's the shorter version of what he's been writing for years "Why won't they engage in good faith dialogue, those moronic Lefties who want to kill everything good in the world and crush us under their totalitarian heal?  They need to dialogue, so as to learn how I understand both economics (buy my book) and the science of climate change perfectly, and they don't have a clue."

The point I was trying to make yesterday is that it is all very well to be speaking among ourselves on our side of the fence but useless if we cannot force these climate totalitarians to engage in a dialogue.....There is, of course, nothing that these ignoramuses say that we are unaware of. They, on the other hand, are unaware of every bit of the counter-arguments that have been made on our side. They are certainly unaware of the massive evidence proving that they are almost certainly wrong.

When a person is so clueless as to what the "massive evidence" actually says about climate change, and is always claiming evil ulterior motives on those who he does not agree with, why would anyone try to "dialogue" with him?   It's why no one bothers engaging on the topic on the science side at his Catallaxy outlet anymore.  They are, as with their contrarian scientist heros, nearly all old obnoxious cranks who'll be dead within 20 years anyway.  Unfortunately, we can't wait that long to get into serious CO2 reduction, though.

And it's fair enough that The Conversation won't let denialists engage in comments debate anymore.  It's pointless and just as bad as it would be to allow nutty anti-vaxers free rein on the site.

Jason, it must be a residual bit of your libertarian past that the Conversation policy annoys you - and citing Ian Plimer, for God's sake.  He has zero credibility on the topic; always has.  Freeman Dyson has next to no credibility on this topic - which is one well out of his field of expertise, too.

Stop being such a sucker for thinking people with high IQ and success in one field are worth paying attention to in fields outside of their expertise.  They very often aren't.

 

Samuelson on Putin

Robert J Samuelson's column in the Washington Post on Putin's "liberalism is dead" comments seems pretty fair to me.

First, he says post WW2 liberalism is strapped for cash, due to slowing economic growth, an ageing population and uncertainty as to how far budget deficits can stretch.   (He probably could have added things like the revival of Lafferism, the race to the bottom in terms of international competition to reduce tax takes, and gigantic companies that play the "hide the pea" shell game to avoid paying tax.)

Secondly, he writes this, which is worth quoting in full (with my emphasis):

We’ve long governed by hope: a better life. In its loftiest state, postwar liberalism was expected to have a cleansing effect on countries’ social climate, liberating people from prejudice and small-mindedness. The liberal appeal spanned the ideological spectrum. In the United States and Europe, centrist governments of the left and right ruled.

It is this promise of a morally elevated electorate that Putin panned. The trouble, professor Putin lectured to the Financial Times, is that many people have lost faith in the liberal idea. They have moved on. Now, Putin and his fellow travelers, including President Trump and others, propose that we govern by fear: a dread of outsiders.

No one should suppose that Putin’s nationalistic substitute for lapsed liberalism will make the world a kinder, gentler or more stable place. The liberal ideal presumed, perhaps naively, that people could be brought together by common interests and common values. The nationalistic alternative takes as its starting point the view that there will be winners and losers.

People feel threatened. Liberal high-mindedness has created a backlash by justifying policies and practices that are unpopular with large swaths of the population — open borders, unwanted immigration, globalization and multiculturalism. Liberal policies “come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population,” Putin said.

 

People value their national identities. They generally fear policies and practices that would erode these identities. One question in a 2016 Pew study asked whether increases in the number of ethnic groups, races and nationalities made their countries “a worse place to live.” Large shares of Greeks (63 percent), Italians (53 percent) and Germans (31 percent) said “yes.”

We are straddled between two systems. The daunting task is to salvage the best of postwar liberalism while, at the same time, acknowledging the importance of national identities and sovereignty. It may be a mission impossible.

I tend to think that this is too pessimistic.   I reckon that the West has had a fright over two things - immigration surges from war torn and economically savaged regions, ironically sometimes contributed to by interventions from the West; and the unevenness in global economic growth (also, somewhat ironically, caused by the globalisation as promoted by Western economists as a good thing overall - which it is.)  

It's hard to "cure" continued conflict in the Middle East and within Islam, which has remarkably wide-reaching effects.   But I find it hard to believe that the swing to conservatism in parts of Islam will continue to have long term wins.   And the irony is that increased isolationism internationally of one type (economic) can worsen internal conflict and encourage the unwanted immigration.   It's all very tricky to balance, but I don't see that the retreat into all forms of isolationism can do anything other than hurt.

As for the economic problem - the cure for that is probably more "liberalism" in economics policy, not less - with inequality being addressed by better tax targetting, and (to be honest) reduced expectations of unending growth.   As many on the Right like to point out, most of the poor being poor in the West is not the same thing as it was 100 years ago.   That shouldn't be used as an excuse for not caring about inequality, but it is relevant to the questions of expectations of growth.   (Yes, I know, growth lifts all boats; but ageing and then declining populations change the picture somewhat.)

The very convincing Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz has a very lengthy piece at the TLS, reviewing three books on capitalism but with a lot of his own commentary.

It's a great read.   Wasn't Judith Sloan sneeringly rude to him when he was out in Australia last?   When she can write as well and as convincingly as him, rather than being an overpaid free market shill for a billionaire's loss making vanity paper, I'll reconsider their respective merits.

Some extracts I liked:

By now it is clear that something is fundamentally wrong with modern capitalism. The 2008 global financial crisis showed that the system as currently constructed is neither efficient nor stable. If a slew of data hasn’t already convinced us that during forty years of slow economic growth in advanced economies the benefits overwhelmingly went to the top 1 per cent – or 0.1 per cent – the anti-establishment votes in the United States and United Kingdom certainly should. The mainstream economists, central bank governors and “centrist” Blairite and Clintonite politicians who set us on and maintained this dismal course and confidently pronounced that globalization and financial-market liberalization would bring sustained growth and financial benefits for all, have been soundly discredited.

Considering the devastation wrought by misguided financial policies over the past decade in particular, one might reasonably have expected a revolution in the economics profession akin to the Keynesian one in the aftermath of the Great Depression. But we tend to forget that, back in the 1930s, as the economy sank ever deeper into depression, many economists in the US and UK stuck to laissez-faire. Markets would correct themselves, they said; no need to meddle. And even after John Maynard Keynes brilliantly articulated what was wrong, and how government actions could set things right, a great number of economists did not want to follow his prescriptions, out of ideological fear of excessive government intervention. So it is no surprise, really, that the economics profession’s response to the 2008 crisis has been slow and halting.

And then this:

Our current economic system is often referred to as capitalism, a term – as Fred L. Block points out in Capitalism: The future of an illusion – that the left once used pejoratively and the right now champions as if it’s an unchanging and noble framework that delivers miraculous, never-ending growth from which everyone benefits, or would if only government didn’t interfere. But all the underlying premisses of this blanket term are wrong: no economy, and certainly no modern economy, has a private sector that functions in a vacuum. The government is right there alongside it, enacting rules and regulations, enforcing trading standards, backing up the banking system and stabilizing the market economy. Capitalism isn’t one, rigid system. It’s ever changing. And the promises made by its most reductive advocates – that deregulation, privatization and globalization will bring wellbeing to most citizens in all countries – have proven to be horribly wrong. (Globalization, to its credit, has contributed to the enormous decrease in global poverty: the successes in East Asia, in particular in China, where some 740 million have been moved out of poverty, wouldn’t have been possible without it. Still, mismanaged and inequitable globalization, with large agriculture subsidies for corporate farms in the advanced countries, has hurt the poorest of the poor: rural workers in the least developed countries.)

Two other crises accompany the crisis in our economy. The first is a crisis in our democracy, for the two are inseparable. It is through our political system that the rules of the economy are set, and when the outcomes of those rules are unacceptable – as in the 2008 crisis – the consequences must be addressed, and addressed through radical change. And those kinds of changes have to be made through the political system – otherwise, matters will only get worse, especially when a third interconnecting crisis is taken into consideration: the environment. Unfortunately, none of these books faces up to our system’s failure to address the existential question of the moment: climate change.

But read the whole thing...

The de-evolution of Mark Latham

Mark Latham's descendent into creepy old man Right wing culture war whinger was on full display in his maiden speech to the New South Wales Parliament, where some high(?)lights included:

"Like a scene from Orwell's Animal Farm, the Green-Labor-Left has become the thing it originally opposed: elitist, would-be dictators taking away from the working-class communities the things these battlers value."

He also attacked political correctness and the "confected outrage" of the "elites".

Quoting Monty Python actor John Cleese, Mr Latham argued that telling a joke about someone does not mean you hate them.

"We love the people we joke about — the Irish, the blondes, the gays, everyone — as they've helped to bring humour and joy into our lives."

Yeah, tremendous jokes and commentary such as he gave on Sky News recently:

Discussing the new "Respect Victoria: Call It Out" advertisement in which a man leers at a woman on a train – eyes running down and up her, persisting despite her visible discomfort and distress – Latham dismissed the man’s behaviour as normal.

“If you don’t have a good look at a beautiful person of the opposite sex there’s something wrong with you,” the One Nation NSW leader said on Sky News last week.

“Was he thinking … did I used to root her at uni?”

 The rest of the summary of his speech:

The One Nation MP spoke for more than 47 minutes, calling for limits on immigration, an end to identity politics, an overhaul of the state's education system and the introduction of nuclear power and greater investment in coal-fired power.

If you want to read how much he has devolved, have a look at this 2014 piece with its moderate,  thoughtful and regretful analysis of why climate change denialism had been so successful amongst large parts of the public.

Now he belongs to a climate change denying party.  (One Nation's policy position on this looks like it was written by nutter Malcolm Roberts.)  

His culture war whinging has won him many admirers at Catallaxy - fellow man-stuck-in-the-social- zeitgeist of the 1950's, CL claims this:

It’s really disappointing to me that Latham cannot be prime minister.
He is the outstanding man in Australia’s polity right now.

It all again shows that Right wing opposition to climate change action is simply based on culture war resentment and has nothing to do with a serious consideration of science or economics.

One final question:   doesn't Latham's wife find this change of persona worrying?   It must be like living with a different man from the one she married.   And don't his sons, who must at least be teenage now, find him cringeworthy and "old before his time" as well?
 

Judith not good at analogies (when it suits her)

Whenever The Australian or AFR run articles by the likes of Judith Sloan or Alan Moran on climate change economics, they should (but don't) put a large rider in bold "READERS SHOULD KNOW:  THIS ECONOMIST DOES NOT BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL OR NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN ANY MANNER AT ALL.".  Because, of course, if your analysis is springing from  that fundamental belief, there is no reason to trust its objectivity at all.

So I see today that Sloan's column in The Australian on the modelled costs of Labor's climate plan is able to be accessed.  

To be honest, much of her account of the uncertainties is pretty well aligned  with what I heard on Radio National this morning - she could have put more effort into poohing-poohing Labor's policy than she did.   Is this a sign of a crack in her noggin that is letting in light that action is going to happen and she had better start sounding like she hasn't always been a flat earth climate change denier when talking about policy responses?

But my main reason for posting about this:  she claims to be completely puzzled by Bill Shorten's "fat person eating 10 big macs" analogy.  It's not perfect, but the point is clear enough:  the fat person [Australia] can't just continue with the easy and fast fix for hunger [energy needs] by eating fast food all the time [building coal power stations], because we all know that in the long run it will hurt/kill them [climate change effects].   They  have to put the effort in to get a better diet [clean energy and reducing all emissions] even if a good meal costs more than a Big Mac [that's where the analogy starts to go off road - although if the only choice were restaurants, it might work.]

She's just being deliberately obtuse in saying she doesn't understand it.

Floods and economics considered

The recent monsoonal rainfall event in North Queensland has certainly been devastating to the cattle industry:

The latest estimate is that 500,000 cattle have perished in the floods. That is a death toll of biblical proportions.

At a value of $1000 a head, that’s $500 million worth of livestock gone.

But this is about more than the dollars.

Many of these cattle have been kept alive by desperate farmers who have battled seven years of drought — drought that continues despite one dump of rain. They have spent thousands of dollars on fodder they can no longer remember once growing themselves.

The toll on those farmers is enormous. Unthinkable even.

Agforce chief executive Michael Guerin rightly described it as a “massive humanitarian crisis”.
“The loss of hundreds of thousands of cattle after five, six, seven years of drought is a debilitating blow, not just to individual farmers, but to rural communities,” said Mr Guerin, whose organisation is the state farming association.

Looking to the future, the CSIRO openly admits that it is very difficult to be sure of the long term rainfall effects of climate change in Australia.   I thought they generally expected North Australia to get wetter, but Southern Australia to dry out, but the Climate Change in Australia website says this about the Monsoonal North:

Providing confident rainfall projections for the Monsoonal North cluster is difficult because global climate models offer diverse results, and models have shortcomings in resolving some tropical processes. Natural climate variability is projected to remain the major driver of rainfall changes in the next few decades.

By late in the century, rainfall projections have low confidence. Potential summer rainfall changes are approximately -15 to +10 per cent under an intermediate emission scenario (RCP4.5) and approximately -25 to +20 per cent under a high scenario (RCP8.5). Per cent changes are much larger in winter in some models, but these changes are less reliable because average winter rainfall is very low.

Impact assessment in this region should consider the risk of both a drier and wetter climate.

They do, however, expect extreme rainfall events to increase:

Despite uncertainty in future projections of total rainfall for the Monsoonal North cluster, an understanding of the physical processes that cause extreme rainfall, coupled with modelled projections, indicate with high confidence a future increase in the intensity of extreme rainfall events. However, the magnitude of the increases cannot be confidently projected.

Drought will continue to be a feature of the regional climate variability, but projected changes are uncertain.

In terms of risk, let me muse this:   the problem is surely with the frequency with which extremes occur - if a flood of this kind that formerly happened only once in (say) 100 - 300 years starts to occur 2 to 3 times within a lifetime (say, every 20 - 30 years), you can readily imagine that certain agricultural enterprises will just abandon that form of land use due to the "wipeouts" coming at such a rate that it becomes too much of a risk, even if you can get some good years out of it in the intervening years.

This is why I am completely sceptical of economic predictions of the effect of climate change:  even if you make guesses on whether certain regions become generally wetter or drier (and therefore more or less potentially agriculturally productive), the confounding factor is in the details of the frequency of wet or dry disasters within the big picture.  

There's no way of confidently predicting that at the moment, so how can you deal with it in economic models?

On France

Reading this piece in The Guardian by a journalist who has long worked in France, you get the distinct impression that part of the problem is that the country has so many people who share a fondness for public demonstration as a political tool that once they start, no one really has any clear idea how unified the demonstrators are.  Hence there always ends up being a multitude of possible mixed motivations, which makes calming it down all the more difficult.

Of course, people say that about demonstrations in other countries too (you know, the matter of whether demonstrations are being "hijacked" by a radical group), but it seems a really chronic problem when you're in a country where anyone will demonstrate at the drop of a political hat.   As Lichfield says:

I’ve lived in France for 22 years and have witnessed street protests by workers, farmers, wine producers, truck drivers, railway employees, university students, sixth-formers, teachers, youths in the multiracial suburbs, chefs, lawyers, doctors and police officers. Yes, even police officers. 

Anyway,  another article in The Guardian looks at the question of whether petrol prices in France are really that expensive, and they apparently aren't.   But Macron being a strange political fish, who believes in climate change, is pro-EU, leery of populist sentiment against immigration, but also wants to de-regulate work conditions, has the problem of thereby not being able to have solid support from either arm of politics. 

I don't know enough about France to have really solid opinions about it or him, but naturally I gravitate towards centrism and moderation, and (of course) view the populist Right as a real danger.  It's a pity that the Macron brand of centrism seems not to be working.  But whether that's because he's too far "dry" on economics or too "wet" on environmentalism - or a bit of both - I don't really know.

Malcolm Turnbull continues to disappoint, even as an ex PM

I had something of a hope that Malcolm Turnbull would use his exit from politics to try to blow up the Liberals by stating the obvious:   there is no working with those in the party who deny climate change.   The party needs to split, as there is within it too large a rump of Right wing, American style "conservatives" who are more obsessed with trying to win back an already lost culture war, and it poisons their judgement against good and necessary policy on climate, economics, and even humanitarian issues.  (The first two because evidence is ignored in favour of conspiracy and ideology; the latter because fighting a culture war means being obsessed with strength and never admitting you have gone too far - hence punishing wannabe refugees can continue forever as far as they are concerned.)

But Malcolm on his Q&A session last night gave no hint of understanding his party that way.  Sure, he makes a good point that the electoral evidence from 3 former safe Liberal seats (now with independents) is that people are wanting Liberals to be centrist, small "l" liberals; but he just does not still seem to appreciate that the conservative wing who dumped him will continue to make it impossible to market the party as the one that he wants it to be.

"Broad church" fails when it tries to accommodate those who won't even acknowledge that a key and urgent issue such as climate change, with its broad impact on energy and economics policy, really exists.

Even Andrew Bolt seems to understand this better than Malcolm, since he has muttered about a split recently. 

So, bring on an election, and let the Liberals have their crisis in Opposition where they can do less harm.

Bannon out

Even allowing for the fact that literary writing or "ideas" festivals seem to have increasingly become an insular haven for the political Left and (in the last few years at least) the worst of identity politics,  I still think that the great majority of people who watched Steve Bannon's 40 minute interview on Four Corners last night would see no point in him appearing at something like the New Yorker festival.  (He has been disinvited after public outcry.)

He motormouthed his way through the interview, and doesn't address correction or criticism so much as dismiss them as simply being typical liberal media takes on the matter, and therefore obviously wrong.

He shows no sophistication or nuance in his understanding of trade, economics and corporate behaviour;  everything is perceived simply through his populist, nationalist, "clash of cultures" worldview, with his apparent love of capitalism mixed up with his somewhat contradictory distrust of corporate elites for making too much money.   (The Catholic influence is pretty clear - but only in so far as identifying a problem with capitalist excess.  There's not much sign that accepts the simple proposition that is also Catholic:  that it is an appropriate role of government to directly intervene in those excesses for the greater good.   Instead, he just seems to think that if all globalism stops, all companies will naturally behave better.)

In short, as lots of people have been saying about the New Yorker decision - it's ridiculous to think we don't know enough about his views and politics already, or that he is ever amenable to genuine, detailed debate.  He has his views; he makes his living by being a polemicist; and he dog whistles for support from the obnoxious and racist alt.right continually.

There is no point in his coming to a Left leaning festival, other than to invite an unedifying shouting match.

Update:

I've gone back over some of my past posts about Bannon. 

Even if I do say so myself, I nailed it pretty good in this one. 

And from another post, look at the way he was the source of the Trump quasi-fascist "fake news" meme that has killed hope of rational debate with Trump cultists:

But it's clear that a huge part of the problem is the people around him - particularly the unhealthy looking Stephen Bannon, who is obviously either behind, or completely supportive of, Trump's paranoia with how the media presents him.  Here he is, quoted by the NYT:

“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”

“The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our campaign,” Mr. Bannon said. “Look at the Twitter feeds of those people: they were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.” (He did not name specific reporters or editors.)

“That’s why you have no power,” Mr. Bannon added. “You were humiliated.”

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” 

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

Yes, just what you want.  An unstable, vindictive culture warrior who won't accept that the Trump victory was, in fact, very narrow, advising a vain, insecure man-child who stumbled into a presidency he didn't really expect.

The guy has ideas, sure:  but they are obnoxious and merely asserted - it is not as if they are well researched or ever justified with details you can argue about.

As such, no matter how much you don't care for Lefties not challenging themselves at literary love ins (or however you want to put it), to invite Bannon to a serious "ideas festival" is too much like the false equivalence of  claiming you must have a climate change fake "skeptic" at a science festival or a serious TV discussion in order to say it has given the topic proper coverage.

No, he has shown he does not deserve a mainstream platform to bluster his views again, or to attempt to rehabilitate himself as some sort of misunderstood Mr Reasonable.

Update:   amusingly, I see that some of the old characters at Catallaxy thought Bannon did great in that interview.   Their reactions are so predictable:   if any right wing guy talks over a woman interviewer (especially one from a public broadcaster), they'll think he's fantastic.