Predicting the Future Open Thread.

mmghosh's picture

What the world will look like in 2035.

The WEO finds that the extraordinary growth in oil and natural gas output in the United States will mean a sea-change in global energy flows. In the New Policies Scenario, the WEO’s central scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and is almost self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, by 2035. North America emerges as a net oil exporter, accelerating the switch in direction of international oil trade, with almost 90% of Middle Eastern oil exports being drawn to Asia by 2035. Links between regional gas markets will strengthen as liquefied natural gas trade becomes more flexible and contract terms evolve. While regional dynamics change, global energy demand will push ever higher, growing by more than one-third to 2035. China, India and the Middle East account for 60% of the growth; demand barely rises in the OECD, but there is a pronounced shift towards gas and renewables.

The consequences of the Iraq invasion in 2003 - Iraqi oil and gas to China and ourselves.  An  Iraq-Iran-China alliance, perhaps. A pogrom against their enemies in Iraq, maybe.

Fossil fuels will remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that, in 2011, jumped by almost 30% to $523 billion, due mainly to increases in the Middle East and North Africa. Global oil demand grows by 7 mb/d to 2020 and exceeds 99 mb/d in 2035, by which time oil prices reach $125/barrel in real terms (over $215/barrel in nominal terms). A surge in unconventional and deepwater oil boosts non-OPEC supply over the current decade, but the world relies increasingly on OPEC after 2020. Iraq accounts for 45% of the growth in global oil production to 2035 and becomes the second-largest global oil exporter, overtaking Russia.

Looking to invest in unconventional gas companies?

While the regional picture for natural gas varies, the global outlook over the coming decades looks to be bright, as demand increases by 50% to 5 trillion cubic metres in 2035. Nearly half of the increase in production to 2035 is from unconventional gas, with most of this coming from the United States, Australia and China. Whether demand for coal carries on rising strongly or changes course radically will depend on the strength of policy decisions around lower-emissions energy sources and changes in the price of coal relative to natural gas. In the New Policies Scenario, global coal demand increases by 21% and is heavily focused in China and India.

NIMBYism is unpatriotic.

“I’m very skeptical that multinational corporations have the best interests of communities at heart,” Don Barber, Caroline’s Supervisor, told me recently. “The federal government sold [Americans] out when they exempted fracking from the Clean Water and Air Acts,” he added. “Federal and state governments are not advocating for the civil society. There’s only one level left. That’s the local government, and it puts a tremendous load on our shoulders.”

 

Caroline’s Deputy Supervisor, Dominic Frongillo, sees local resistance in global terms. “We’re unexpectedly finding ourselves in the ground zero for climate change,” he says. “It used to be somewhere else, mountaintop removal in West Virginia, deep-sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, tar sands in Alberta, Canada. But now…it’s right here under our feet in upstate New York. The line is drawn here. We can’t keep escaping the fossil fuel industry. You can’t move other places, you just have to dig in where you are.”

If one is young, is it finally time to invest in renewable energy companies, or those promoting efficient energy use?

WEO-2012 presents the results of an Efficient World Scenario, which shows what energy efficiency improvements can be achieved simply by adopting measures that are justified in economic terms. Greater efforts on energy efficiency would cut the growth in global energy demand by half. Global oil demand would peak before 2020 and be almost 13 mb/d lower by 2035, a reduction equal to the current production of Russia and Norway combined. The accrued resources would facilitate a gradual reorientation of the global economy, boosting cumulative economic output to 2035 by $18 trillion, with the biggest gains in India, China, the United States and Europe.

Interesting low level of priority to either Africa or Latin America, especially considering their natural resources.  And it is highly interesting how dependent the whole world economic system is in political stability in China, which really means international support for the current regime.  We can expect to hear even less of the "butchers of Beijing" rhetoric than we now do.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Memo To Rob Parker

(#297710)
M Scott Eiland's picture

FOAD, you racist tool.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

RGIII's Fiancee a Little (or a Lot) Too Busty for Me....

(#297711)

 

 

 

...not that anyone asked me!

 

LOL

 

Traveller

Trav, that's a PRV :)

(#297718)

Or at least claiming a woman is 'too busty' ought to be.  Personally, I'll not stand for these verbal assaults on ample mammaral appendages. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Pointing Out The Obvious

(#297676)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Photobucket

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Especially if you have a bunch of Russian friends

(#297680)
brutusettu's picture

Lots of people in the Federation are very into these "end times" fairy tales.

God is the Loneliest of Lovers

(#297641)

For who is there but man to love God
He made 100 billion people
Mary Sues and Janes and Bobs
We make love to each other
But God is married to his job

 

Jesus is a wonderful companion
But a son cannot replace a woman's touch
When every child's prayers someday get answered
Who will return God's request for love

Who is there to kiss God like a soldier
Returning from a year off in the war
And clutch God's naked body like it's threatening to fade
Who's there to love God in this way

 

Jesus is a wonderful companion
But a son cannot replace a woman's touch
When every child's prayers someday get answered
Who will return God's request for love

You may say if God wanted love he'd make someone
From the bones of every angel in the sky
But a God who is all knowing would certainly know
A love that is created could only be a lie

 

Jesus is a wonderful companion
But a son cannot replace a woman's touch
When every child's prayers someday get answered
Who will return God's request for love

Nice Lyrics...YouTube Here

(#297665)

Traveller

It's all 12's

(#297632)

Edit:  What sort of joke is this?  Alrighty, when I posted it was 12:12 12/12/2012.  But nooooooooooooooo, the post time has to say 1:13 and just take a dump on my trivial trivia.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Different time zones nt

(#297640)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

The Great Decoupling

(#297599)

Don't worry everyone, the economy will just take care of itself:

 

Predicting the future - Rubio has to be the 2016 GOP nominee

(#297597)

Pew estimates that 66,000 Latinos turn 18 and over 100,000 elderly (and more conservative) Americans die every month. That means that by 2016, there will be about three million more voting-age Latinos and about five million fewer elderly voters. And that's going to be the case whether we get comprehensive immigration reform or not.
Or put yet another way, Texas will be a battleground state by 2024. So math-adept Republicans are correct that they'll be electorally irrelevant unless they can make inroads with the Latino vote. (And let's not forget the Asian vote, considering it's now the fastest growing in the country.)

 

 

On the other hand, conservatives are right that legalizing 12 million Latinos would gift Democrats a treasure trove of Democratic voters. As one National Review conservative put it:

 

Let’s assume that only two-thirds of former illegals become U.S. citizens — that’s 8 million new Americans with the vote [...] Since these voters are poorer and less assimilated than Latinos as a whole, they will likely skew more Democratic than their ethnic fellows. Republicans would be optimistic if they counted on winning more than one-fifth of them — i.e., 1.6 million voters. On a 100 percent turnout, that would give the Democrats a net advantage of 4.4 million votes. On a more realistic assumption that these new voters would have a lower than average turnout — say, 50 percent — that would give the Democrats an net additional 2.2 million votes over Republicans.

Those new Democratic voters would accelerate the competitiveness of Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, while padding Democratic advantages in Colorado and Nevada (not to mention California and New Mexico).

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/11/1168990/-The-GOP-s-lose-lose-dilemma-on-immigration

So, Cubans are basically Mexicans, right?

(#297637)

They'll totally go for us if we put a guy named Rubio at the top of the ticket.

 

 

That will be great.

(#297620)

Then you can settle down to being a REAL one party state.

How did those errors get on Fox & Friends, how'd it get there?

(#297565)
brutusettu's picture

Fox "News" cannot be this consistently inept on accident.

 

PSY visits Obama, Fox has hit piece on PSY, you can't explain that.

Oops

(#297561)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Yeah, clearly "progressives" are on a glide path to ascendancy. Taft-Hartley, b****es. Let's see Mr. "I Won" deal with that little fact of life.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Didn't attacking unions just lose you guys an election?

(#297574)

Er, I mean, that is, carry on.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Apparently Not

(#297575)
M Scott Eiland's picture

As the linked piece notes, pro-union legislation got crushed in Michigan while Obama was winning in a landslide there. I'm all for the Republicans pulling their own little labor law Inchon landing to keep the unions frantically spending for the next few years.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I was thinking of Ohio, WI, PA...

(#297576)

I mean, right, nevermind. Carry on. Proceed, governor.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Carry On Indeed

(#297577)
M Scott Eiland's picture

If Democrats want to believe that attacking *unions* was the real problem for Republicans in the election, then I certainly won't discourage that fantasy.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

It was one of their real problems

(#297657)
HankP's picture

but please, do go on and exacerbate them as much as possible.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Well...

(#297607)

You club is getting mighty small if after writing off blacks and latinos you also write off the unionized white working class. They were a part of the Reagan coalition, you know, but no longer.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

A reinvigorated labor movement

(#297693)

ready to take on the Koch bros, ALEC, the Chamber of Commerce, and the GOP

 

Um. . .

(#297622)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .you remember what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers, right?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

That was after 35 years of rising real wages

(#297625)
HankP's picture

now we've had 30 years of flat to slightly declining real wages. But hey, you guys knock yourself out hating on the working class.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

You Know, This May Be True...a Pick of Votes for Democrats...

(#297613)

 

...I am hoping that these kind of things will show the broader population the need to turn out to vote in the same numbers in the mid-term and State elections as in Presidential years...and take back the State Houses...

 

Traveller

Good ol Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel

(#297614)

who is busting unions about as hard as any Republican out there.

 

I'm certainly not saying there's no differences between the parties, just that the D base hasn't figured out about a leadership that is often Republican-lite when it comes to labor.

 

Relatedly, Obama has been working as hard on a long-term anti-union Pacfic Trade deal as he has on a short-term jobs bill. 

Oh catchy

(#297615)
HankP's picture

I blame it all on the Internet

I honestly think there's cause for optimism

(#297617)

The demographics pretty clearly paint a picture of a center-left country currently and more so down the road. There's the issue of wealth concentration which mitigates the demographics somewhat, but my takeaway from the recent election is that more money only takes you so far. 

 

I don't see that many in the D base have awakened to this yet -- the depressed expectations seem associated with this still being a center-right country, and the increasing bargaining power seems underutilized.

 

My carping is always intended to raise expectations. I don't see why people are settling for Rahm when there's the opportunity for genuine coordination and change while the GOP is still figuring out how to adapt. An activist base could land Bill Moyers in the white house if the GOP runs another Romney or member of the Bush family in '16.

Is "right to work" good policy or not? nt

(#297566)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Good policy? Eh.

(#297573)

I don't think the govt should be involved but that would be issue #2117 in which I don't think the govt should be involved.  Since that ship sailed I really don't have a problem with the policy.  Leave it up to the unions to gain and maintain membership and leave the employers out of it.  

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Laissez faire doesn't really work in this case

(#297579)
HankP's picture

the power imbalance between the employers and the employees leads to a predictable outcome, as history shows over and over again.

 

But the question was for Scott, since he always talks about sticking it to unions but never actually discusses whether the policies are beneficial or not.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

In Which Case. . .

(#297581)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .keeping unions from coercing employers into only hiring union members is an acceptable counterbalance to forcing employers to deal with unions. If unions can't convince workers in right to work states to join them, maybe they should look at their own practices for a clue as to why membership doesn't seem attractive.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

This isn't what the law does

(#297605)

It effectively defunds unions by removing their ability to collect dues.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

It Removes Their Ability To Collect Dues From Non-Members

(#297621)
M Scott Eiland's picture

People who want to belong to the union--with whatever benefits it conveys, including voting on new contracts and leadership--pay dues. It's not a complicated concept.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Except that it creates a class of free riders

(#297628)

who collect the economic benefits of the union without paying for them through union dues. I thought conservatives disliked free riders.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

No it doesn't.

(#297629)

A union is free to negotiate any terms it wants for its members and leave the non-members out.  When the union decides to work on behalf of some population over and above its membership then the union is creating the free riders. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

After Darth's presentation on free riders and US labor law

(#297689)

That's not how labor laws work

(#297634)
HankP's picture

when a union is certified by a majority vote, they are the sole negotiating entity that deals with management for all employees.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Ok, fair enough. So we still have free riders

(#297644)

because we designed a faulty system.  Seems to me that the fix is to correct the system rather than force people into organizations or relationships that they don't feel to be in their best interest.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

If we only had some sort of record of past events

(#297649)
HankP's picture

that we could refer to so we could see how similar situations worked out in the past.

 

You know what would be a great idea? To let individuals opt out of the UCMJ if they don't feel it's in their best interests.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

The Military Is Not A Labor Union

(#297667)
M Scott Eiland's picture

But thanks for the Dadaesque non sequitur.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Good to know you're against freedom of contract nt

(#297679)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Brutha P, you think the military hasn't tried this?

(#297660)

Officers and senior NCOs were 'strongly encouraged' to join AUSA, a lobbying group for military professionals.  After several cuts to benefits, some of which should have been easy to protect, a lot of dues paying members found better things to do with their dues.  Thanks to an apparent dearth of folks such as yourself nobody passed a law saying I have to pay an organization to represent me even when I think they aren't representing me worth a damn.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Pretty sure that has nothing to do with the UCMJ nt

(#297662)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

UCMJ has nothing to do with the subject

(#297674)

UCMJ is a two party agreement, a basic condition of employment.  That's quite a bit different than having a 3rd party dictate conditions of employment that benefit a 4th party.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

So is unionization

(#297677)
HankP's picture

you either agree to take employment knowing that a union represents the workers or you participate in a certification vote.

 

And BTW, the AUSA is a lobbying group, not a union.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

And The UCMJ Has Nothing To Do With Unions

(#297666)
M Scott Eiland's picture

So the circle is squared.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Darth and MScott on camparing unions and the military

(#297690)

Catchy, I have learned the hard way

(#297719)

that the trick is do disagree without making enemies.  You are making me an enemy.  Right now it's "'tis the season" n'sh*t so I really have to refrain from doing anything, but when the season is over I will insult you and do horribly rude things at my monitor.  For the time being I am stocking up on ginger jokes.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Darth attempting to throw an insult at catchy

(#297725)

Or professional licensure...

(#297652)

Why go to the expense and trouble of law school and bar exams? I'm sure I can find all the answers on Google, and a formally-trained lawyer can step in if things get too screwed up.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Apples And Oranges

(#297668)
M Scott Eiland's picture

But I know that the concept that unions can do no wrong is a liberal matter of faith*, so I'll keep the mockery to a low roar.

*--which, naturally, I will decline to specifically attribute to anyone here.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Nah, Unions Suck

(#297684)

Like banks do.

 

But life is harder without them.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Heh...

(#297670)

Where did the love of liberty go?

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Formal training is for elitists

(#297654)
HankP's picture

"Just bang the s*&t out of it with a hammer" is all anyone needs to know.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Exactly...

(#297659)

Why should the trauma surgeon putting you back together have to bother with a residency if it offends her sensibilities? The God of Market Forces will make it all OK in the end.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

"the fix"

(#297646)

That's a classic libertarian/conservative head fake. 

 

I think eeyn had a "two wrongs don't make a right" variation earlier. 

 

The question is whether passing RTW laws makes things worse given the laws as they are. And that question isn't answered by pt.ing out some other part of the system you don't like. 

 

Reminds me of William Buckley debating over deregulation after the S&L scandal on Firing Line. His guests reasonably pointed out that deregulation had made things worse. 

 

Buckley did the same head fake and said "the fix" was to get rid of the FDIC guarantee on deposits and also to deregulate. "We're passing laws regulating our delinquencies," he said. 

 

Same fallacy. The question is whether deregulation/RTW laws are bad policy as implemented in our current system, not what fantasy libertarian world either of you would prefer to live in.

and they're required by law to negotiate the same terms

(#297636)

for both union and non-union members.

 

Uhm, how is a "My God you were right, catchy" sounding?

They Were Written That Way At The Request Of Unions

(#297635)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The alternative of having lower paid non union employees working at the same company as union employees would be bad for the unions, for obvious reasons. The law was also written to allow states to adopt right to work--you keep ignoring that.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

That's not why

(#297639)
HankP's picture

it's because management would offer higher wages to non-union workers to break the union, and then go back to the horrible pay and conditions that existed before the union was certified.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

C'mon, Hank... we should just bow to our Galtian Overlords...

(#297648)

...while their budddies ream us where the sun doesn't shine.

 

After all, it's OK if executives steal pension funds and award themselves bonuses.

 

And if you're a bank, you can buy your way out of criminal liability for money-laundering for drug cartels.

 

But hey, the Republican Forces of Freedom have saved us from the tyranny of collective bargaining.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

JKC, you have this exactly backwards

(#297675)

If you desire to join a union and that union has enough ass to properly represent your interests then more power to you.  But it ought to be up to you and your fellow unionites to sell your organization to prospective members, not the law or the employer.  You're the one assuming the position of determining what's best for the little guy and then making him pay for it, I prefer to let the little guy make that determination.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I can see both sides of this one Darth

(#297697)

and unions cna certainly be a malign influence on flexibility, productivity and social justice in some cases,  but you can't just pretend that unions are a law of physics or spring from a vacuum. It's only a century ago that this was a war - unionised poor against the boses. I would find it hard to construct an argument that the win by organised labour was a bad thing for society. In that context, one man's self determining little guy is another man's scab.

Nyoos, I can see both sides too

(#297701)

I'm not knocking organized labor or its necessity.  But there are rough edges that could be smoothed over.  The lefties here are painting the picture that anyone who doesn't want to force folks into paying for something they may not want, or may even be opposed to are longing for the days of the company store.  It's all about free-riders to them.  That's not quite the entirety of the issue.  Union dues are used for a number of things, to include support for politicians that hold positions one may be opposed to. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Hank remembering what he's read on US labor history

(#297691)

Question

(#297681)
HankP's picture

have you ever read anything about the labor movement in the US? Because there's a reason the laws are the way they are today, and it's because business owners screwed over workers (including violence and breaking the law) and there was no way for workers to fight back until they unionized and their right to unionize was protected by law.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Excellent counter to an argument not made.

(#297698)

I'm not disputing the right of workers to unionize, I'm disputing the influence of union favoring laws over workers who don't want to be part of the union.  I get that it makes the union work harder for money and membership.  I'd sooner see the union adapt than force folks into paying for something they aren't asking for.  If free-riders were the sole issue I'd be generally indifferent to RTW laws, but free-riders aren't the sole issue and I think you already knew that. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Darth when asked if he's read extensively on the labor movement

(#297692)

Catchy realizing many commenters here

(#297695)

might've actually read some history on this stuff

 

That's Why Unions Exist

(#297686)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The laws are the way they are because Democratic politicians tilted the rules of the game heavily in favor of labor during the New Deal (only to see the balance slightly tilted back just after WW II). There's nothing particularly magic or sacred about them--certainly nothing that should make Republicans pretend Taft-Hartley never passed.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

By the "logic" in use here

(#297678)

I should be able to, if I so wish, be able to withhold the portion of my taxes that goes to pay for the military. Or the salaries of Republican congressmen. Yeah, I may benefit from the services (of the military, not Republican Congressmen), but why should I be coerced into paying for them?

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

What sort of 'logic' are you using?

(#297696)

The logic you are advocating is that you should have to pay directly to any organization that advocates on your behalf whether you'd like them to or not.  The NRA was an example used.  You may not care that your right to keep and bear arms is protected, but it is by that organization, so pay up.   Chances are that you've donated or become a member of any number of groups that benefit you from national organizations to rotary clubs, it's an entirely different ball of wax when you're forced to donate. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

False equivalence.

(#297699)

My ability to buy a new deer rifle or a shotgun is not in any way dependent on the NRA, and my rights as a gun owner are not in any way negotiated by them. That is not the case with the contract in a union shop.

 

But the real issue here is the fact that the Michigan GOP are a bunch of sniveling, weak, spineless little pussies. If "Right To Work" (for less) is so popular, as M. Scott alleges, why not pass the bill in full light of day? And why didn't Gov. Snyder have a lavish signing ceremony? It's the same reason they snuck through a bill allowing religious fanatics to deny health care services to Those They Don't Approve Of. There certainly wasn't any Great Gooper Mandate for that. 

 

 

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Given That Democrats Have Made "Fleeing The State". . .

(#297707)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .their go to plan for trying to stop legislation they don't like, they've pretty well monopolized the "cowardly lawmaker" label for the foreseeable future.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Oh Christ! A false equivalence claim from the guy

(#297702)

who just compared the taxing power of government to union dues.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

In other words...

(#297703)

you got no answer.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Nope.

(#297704)

.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

In fairness to you...

(#297705)

comparing mandatory union dues to the taxing power of a government is not a great analogy. I think a better example might be a homeowner's association.

 

Now I think homeowner's associations are dumb, and I have therefore chosen to not live in neighborhoods where they exist. I would suggest that employees absolutely against the concept of unions work someplace without one.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Well, my suggestion for anyone seeking employment

(#297706)

in a unionized industry or organization would be for them to join the union or at least pay dues.  But that would be a suggestion, not a dictate.  Also, an employee doesn't need to be absolutely against the concept of a union to want to withhold dues.  An employee may be pro/anti a lot of issues that aren't in accordance with the political campaigns the union contributes to.  Money talks and I don't think it's particularly unamerican to allow the employee to vote with his wallet in such a case.  Yeah, I know there are laws designed to cover that, and I think we both know they are BS.  You may also have a case where the union is ineffective, corrupt or both.  I seriously resented the arm twisting to pay dues to an organization that supposedly represented my interests while benefits were being cut.  Some of the cuts were understandable, some were idiotic.  When the organization in question touted one of the stupidest cuts as a benefit they protected I una$$ed.  Fortunately, I wasn't part of a union and I could do that, despite the arm twisting.  I don't see why that same principle shouldn't apply to any other worker.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

A Union Is Not A Government

(#297685)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Thanks for playing.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Either Way. . .

(#297643)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .the union members benefit by insisting that everyone be paid on the same scale; therefore, no free rider problem.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Like I said, people who don't learn from history

(#297650)
HankP's picture

are the ones who will be getting an ugly lesson in 20 years or so.

 

The funny thing, of course, is that this doesn't affect me personally. But all you wage slaves are going to get screwed good and hard for it.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

With no guarantee of a similar outcome

(#297687)

The particular hapenstance of circumstances that led to the labour movement in western countries making the gains it did seem to be a pretty rare thing. In general movements like that loose more often than win. This one not only won to the benefit of all, it pulled things like universal healthcare and welfare along on its coat-tails. 

 

And indeed it was a close run thing!

(#297688)
mmghosh's picture

Free markets and racial competition led to WW1 and WW2 which strengthened centralising forces.  The necessity to produce in-nation in wartime and the immediate aftermath meant being somewhat at the mercy of the in-nation working class.  The left wing is sufficiently demonised by the failures of communism. The decline of fascism as an ideology means that the national working class does not need to be wooed by a right wing. 

 

Now we are back to a situation when the world is in a long peace, and indentured labour is again available globally.  Why bother with pandering to unions?

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

The populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan...

(#297709)

... not to mention any number of African countries might wish to differ with your suggestion that we at any sort of peace, let alone a long one.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Darth is right. n/t

(#297720)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Thanks Mannish. It's good to see some folks with class

(#297727)

still hang around here.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

He's correct as far as it matters

(#297714)

The big consumers of labor are at peace and the providers of reasonably able cheap labor are as well.  Yes, we're engaging in combat operations in Afghanistan but we're using something along the lines of .02% to .03% of our population to conduct that fight.  Call it .05% to account participants who aren't fully engaged.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

You Make Me Crazy With Your Wide Seeing Acuity, Manish...nt

(#297708)

Traveller

I don't see the relevance of who requested the law

(#297638)

a free rider problem either exists or it doesn't. 

 

I also don't see what difference it makes if right to work laws are "allowable". The question is whether they're good policy or not.

 

Since RoW laws depress incomes and we're currently suffering under a 4+ year drought in demand amidst falling incomes, I don't see that they are. Unless one is seeking to advantage a narrow economic faction.

Creating A System With A Free Rider Problem. . .

(#297642)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .that is not solvable without forcing other people into the system who don't want to be there is the relevance--this isn't even a situation where everyone is inherently "in the system," as is argued by proponents for universal health care. Many, many people arrange to get employment without union representation every day--and when cost of living is taken into account, right to work states do just as well as union shop states as far as average wages go.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Ha. If we only had comparisons to other countries

(#297658)
HankP's picture

so we could see which health care systems worked efficiently and which ones didn't.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

But with RTW Laws you have the...

(#297656)

...let's call it the "free dragger" problem.

 

In non-union shops, people who are bad at negotiating salaries depress the wages of those who are better at it.

 

It's economically more beneficial to have a free rider problem with wages than a free dragger problem, unless unionized workers are such a high proportion of workers that they lead to wage inflation. This is far, far, far from being true today.

 

The free rider problem is easier to fix. Everybody pays dues, end of problem. The free dragger problem, no easy fix. Everybody gets low wages. Big problem.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

"when cost of living is taken into account ...

(#297645)

... right to work states do just as well as union shop states as far as average wages go."

 

Cite?

 

An Economic Policy Institute study says wages are depressed by over 3% and pensions are cut by 4%, even when controlling for cost of living.

 

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp299/

When MScott doesn't acknowledge my awesome EPI study

(#297694)

What?

(#297633)

"A union is free to negotiate any terms it wants for its members and leave the non-members out."

 

My understanding is that unions typically can't just bargain for contracts solely for their members.

There is no such coercion

(#297582)
HankP's picture

employers are not forced to hire union members and employees are not forced to join the union. They are required to pay union dues, because the union is negotiating for all employees. You're endorsing a free rider situation where employees benefit from the union negotiations (which statistically lead to better pay and benefits) without paying for it.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Yes, There Is

(#297588)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The fact that you have an (inadequate) justification for it does not make it non-coercive. It's not the non-union employees' problem if they aren't enticed by the invitation of the union, or if the employer chooses to pay the non-union employees the same as the union ones (assuming the union didn't demand it to avoid being undercut).

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You said they had to join a union, they don't

(#297591)
HankP's picture

you said employers could only hire union members, they don't. You have problems with union certification, it's been the law for a long time and you still haven't explained why you want it changed.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Oh

(#297594)
M Scott Eiland's picture

and now a duly passed and signed law of the state of Michigan.

*raises glass* Here's to Taft-Hartley, and to the unions wasting even more money in a futile attempt to overturn this in the courts.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Um, you're a worker, you know that, right? nt

(#297609)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

And the Michigan GOP proved themselves to be nutless cowards:

(#297595)

They attached an appropriation measure to the bill so that it couldn't be overturned by referendum, rammed the bill through in a lame-duck session before they lost seats that would have prevented the bill's passage, and then that little pussy of a governor, Rick Snyder, didn't even have enough residual testosterone left to sign the bills in public. Of course, if he had, he might have had to answer questions why, if the law was such noble public policy, cops and firefighters were exempted.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

How Rude

(#297596)
M Scott Eiland's picture

With that kind of methodology, you'd think that they were a Democratic Congress passing a healthcare bill or something.

*smirks* Scoreboard.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Now In Partial Bullet Point Form

(#297611)
brutusettu's picture
  • Was the ACA passed in a lame duck session?
  • Did Obama and other Dems run on that issue?
  • Did Obama sign the bill?
  • Did Obama and other elected reps get re-elected after that?

 

Upon further review, the score is overturned.

Hey give MSE a break!

(#297627)

 

He hasn't had much to gloat about lately and MSE lives for gloating and triumphalism. The utter irrelevance of his gloating to the points raised is not important.

The big difference is

(#297606)

Dems ran on HCR reform, won an election, then passed it.

 

Snyder and the Republicans didn't only not run on this... Snyder was against right-to-work laws right until a couple of days ago, when he flip-flopped. He even disparaged Scott Walker in Wisconsin when he passed anti-union laws.

 

This is abject cowardice, and in a state like Michigan where the Union comes with the mother's milk, they are badly over-reaching.

 

 

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

The Polls Seem To Indicate Otherwise

(#297624)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Not to mention that a pro-union measure on the Michigan ballot in November went down to a resounding defeat. The unions overreached and got slapped down hard by the voters in the midst of an Obama landslide--which probably emboldened the Republicans. Sucks to be the geniuses who gave them the opening.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Well, that's different then.

(#297700)

You're arguing that the Michigan GOP is just expressing the will of the people.

 

Oops. Not so much...

The Republican-controlled Michigan House on Wednesday approved a replacement for an emergency manager law struck down by voters in the November election, despite Democratic complaints that it doesn't differ significantly from what voters rejected and would still subvert local control.

So much for Republican Principles.

 

Actually, this is a perfect example of 21st Century Republican Principles, which are to lie, cheat and steal to maintain their increasingly tenuous grasp on both political power and relevancy.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Polls are split

(#297669)

But they don't account for intensity.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

The Same Intensity. . .

(#297671)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .that saw the same electorate that gave Obama a ten point win reject a union ballot measure by sixteen points? Yeah, I can't imagine why MI Republicans don't seem particularly worried. I'm sure David Frum will be along any minute to explain why this is absolute evil, of course.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

THe measure lost by 16 pts?

(#297672)

Sheesh that's awful.

 

26% of Obama supporters voted against it?

It was probably not cut and dry pro/anti-union in general vote

(#297682)
brutusettu's picture

FWIW, it would probably be specious to think that in
 

Anecdotal evidence suggest that many people that wouldn't want to work a union job, would like having a union factory across town.  And that others would be scared of what "could" happen. Actual ads in Michigan claimed that if the state constitutional amendment passed, that criminals "could" teach at public schools among other things, other things that "could" happen htat probably barely missed the final edit; that Matt Millen "could" become the Lions GM again and "could" be given sole power to offer scholarships for Michigan, MSU, EMU, CMU, and WMU after the ballot proposal passed.

 

Anecdotal evidence would also suggest there's a good chance a lot of people think they were voting on whether they'd be forced to join a union or not.

We'll see

(#297610)

Republicans did their part on behalf of wealthy interests and Democrats typically don't turn the clock half back when they're in power.

 

I have no recollection of any state-level Republicans joining up with Dems to put their own party in the minority after they just won significant electoral victories at both the state and national levels. Yet here we are with NY and WA... 

 

To me that's symptomatic of larger problems with the D party pushing back against conservatism, and I don't see that us little guys have figured out how to address those probs. 

Jim Jeffords

(#297616)
HankP's picture

at the national level.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

OK, but I did say "significant electoral victories"

(#297619)

The GOP didn't win the national popular vote in 2000. 

 

The problem is Democrats like Cuomo are "centrist" plutocrats first, Democrats a distant second.

 

And that apparently provides clarity when choosing whether to join forces with Republicans and/or crush labor.

It's Also Been The Law For A Long Time. . .

(#297593)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .that individual states had the right to opt for right to work, and all the union temper tantrums over that annoyance in the last sixty-five years hasn't changed that.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I have a simple rule

(#297584)

If a supposed "benefit" has to be forced on people through law, threats to their employment, etc it's not really a benefit.

 

There are any number of reasons why a particular employee might feel that a union is not in her interest: (a) the union might (in her opinion) be trying to get a level of pay/benefits that will make the company unsustainable,  (b) she might feel that she could get promoted faster in the absence of seniority rules, or get paid more than colleagues if there was not a negotiated scale, (c) she might feel that union rules related to division of labor make her job less interesting or more frustrating,  (d) she might feel that her dues support outside activities she is opposed to, for example, political activity and lobbying*, (e) she might feel that the union officers are corrupt, thuggish, or more interested in preserving their own positions than advancing her.   

 

Or, of course, she could intend to free ride.  The simple solution to that is to not have the union contract apply to non-union employees.

 

*Money is fungible so the regulations about not using non-member dues for politics are nonsense. 

 

PS If someone suggested that no one had to join the National Rifle Association, but everyone should pay dues to them, because they protect the constitutional rights of everyone, you'd see that the free rider argument is kind of silly.

That's Pretty Simple

(#297587)

Compulsory education?

 

Not really beneficial.

 

Compulsory tax payment?

 

Not really beneficial.

 

And so on.

 

 

Silly

(#297590)

Paying taxes isn't a "benefit".  It might be necessary but the purpose of paying taxes is not to benefit the particular taxpayer, who might even be a victim of government rather than a beneficiary.   The taxes are used to carry out the will of the majority, including highly partisan measures that might be opposed by 49% of the population.  Fair enough, that's democracy, but the benefits go to the winners, not everyone.

 

In the case of education we're talking about children who presumably can't make the judgment on their own.  

 

"children who presumably can't make the judgment on their own."

(#297618)

you forgot we're also coercing their adult guardians?

Guardians not owners

(#297630)

Adults can do things like refuse to eat, or refuse medical treatment, for themselves, but are limited when making such decisions for their children.

 

But anyway, the analogy isn't a good one.  Although there are a lot of arguments about the details of education, there is a very broad consensus that children ought to be educated.

 

On the other hand, there is a large fraction of the population that think unions do more harm than good,  and another large fraction that apparently doesn't feel they need the assistance of a union.   Together they are a majority.

Simpler Still

(#297592)

The benefit of paying taxes is to fund myriad government activities, many of which absolutely benefit the individual taxpayer, even those in the minority.

 

It's directly analogous to compulsory payment of union dues in a union shop.

 

Here's another one for ya: Compulsory licensing of professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers). 

****************Right to work****************

(#297564)
brutusettu's picture

The vaunted libertarian argument in support of right to work would be far more convincing if libertarians supported the rights of employees to reject at their discretion the countless rules and obligations that employers mandate as a condition of employment. The argument seems to be that employees are free either to quit a job or not take it in the first place if they find various company requirements—e.g., what time they are to come to work—onerous or unpleasant. Libertarians do not argue, however, that workers have the right to retain their employment yet arrive at work at noon if their employer wishes them to arrive at 9. Don’t start, or quit, but if you’re on the job, follow the boss’s rules, right?

 

Yet we are to believe that only the requirement that workers must join a union or else compensate the union for work it will do on his or her behalf constitutes a grave blow to the worker’s economic freedom. Despite the high-minded justifications proffered by some of its defenders, right to work has no distinguished, abstract theoretical pedigree, no elevated standing in the mansion of Western political theory. It’s a snarling pit bull of a policy that disempowers the institutional voice of employees—unions—for the benefit of corporations. Most of the wealthy states don’t have right-to-work laws, and most of the poor ones do. Workers in right to work states make less than those in non-right-to-work states, and their unions have fewer resources to fight the corporations and politicians who benefit from this lopsided system. That’s the idea.

h/t LGM

Actually the purist

(#297572)

libertarian position is against right-to-work laws but not for the confused reasons given in the quote.  

 

The laws are a restriction on employers, not unions - it's the employer that would get fined/jailed if they refused to hire non-unions workers - and thus a limitation on the employers' economic freedom to decide whether the benefits of cutting an exclusivity deal with the union workers outweigh the disadvantages.

 

The counter argument (among libertarians) would be that the special rights granted by law to unions (e.g. the company can't refuse to hire union workers) require compensating restrictions to protect non-union workers,  but IMO that's a two-wrongs-make-a-right claim. 

:) *Right to Work*

(#297578)
brutusettu's picture

So, "Right to Work" is a misnomer created by the professional right wing to trick workers, because they're bitter they might actually have to pay labor a living wage.

 

---And people with enough money "right" to cut wages, their economic freedom is teh most important?  People's  with enough money, their economic freedom trumps those with labor skills who want adequately compensated?

*snicker*

(#297570)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Views of professional left wing union cheerleader bitter over an impending crushing defeat, regarding what *real* libertarians should allegedly think. . .noted.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Probably the most important youtubes ever.

(#297528)
mmghosh's picture

Mitigating near term climate change. Something I learned - the total effect of methane, carbon monoxide and "black carbon" is almost equal to that of CO2. But those three are important in that air quality is significantly degraded - which is not the case with CO2.

via RC

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Memo to Scott

(#297527)
HankP's picture

Yes, that defense.

I blame it all on the Internet

Indeed

(#297529)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I wonder how many people picked Seattle for the "highest score of the week" tie-breaker on Yahoo? If it was a double digit number or higher I'd be astonished.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Some of you may recall the man who shot himself in the butt

(#297516)

in a movie theater in Las Vegas a couple of months back.

 

We're running a series here at the forvm on people who shoot themselves in their privates, and here's the latest installment.

Just so you know,

(#297547)
aireachail's picture

there's a vas deferens between shooting the butt and shooting the penis.

Air, depends on how you look at it

(#297549)

In reality there 'taint much between 'em.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

They're both pretty hairy

(#297550)

but one poses a much greater danger to the pubic.

If only his penis had had a gun, this terrible

(#297518)

tragedy could have been prevented.

Now that was hilarious. -nt-

(#297534)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Yes, but if you make it illegal to shoot yourself

(#297524)

in the penis then only criminals will do so.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Now who doesn't find a shot to the penis

(#297537)
HankP's picture

to be bracing and invigorating?

I blame it all on the Internet

John Stuart Mill once said that

(#297535)

not all conservatives shoot their own penises, but most self penis shooters are conservative.

George Santayana: those who shoot themselves in the fun gun

(#297543)

are doomed to repeater.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

This Is Actually Probably True (Except for the JS Mill Part) nt

(#297536)

Traveller

Yeah, that sounds more like Hobbes nt

(#297538)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Carbon taxes gaining traction.

(#297514)
mmghosh's picture

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/12/10/121210taco_talk_kolbert

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Memo To Harley

(#297510)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Has the ghost of George Steinbrenner taken up residence in Chavez Ravine?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I thought this was obvious since the days of Stripes,

(#297508)

Ghostbusters and, mirabile dictu, Meatballs.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

The Best Summary, If Possibly An Apocryphal One

(#297495)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.--attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

My Uncle's Bday is December 7

(#297501)

I called him up and yelled "Happy Biiiiirrrrlll Harbor Day" 

 

I suggest trying that one out if you have any friends or family w. a Dec. 7 Bday. 

Random Vin Scully Love

(#297481)
M Scott Eiland's picture

His call of Hank Aaron's 715th HR, hit before tens of thousands of fans in the Deep South:

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

IPCC AR5 is going to be conservative. Maybe too conservative.

(#297464)
mmghosh's picture

Events are outstripping the last date of submissions.  It will be interesting, but more so in a historical snapshot kind of way 20 years later, when social scientists will be grappling with the inability of our time to understand and analyse statistically significant data.

 

For example, the Atlantic hurricane season has ended (even if we discount Hurricane Bopha now in the Pacific).

The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season closes this Friday with another top-five tally for named storms--nineteen. This is the third consecutive year with nineteen named storms in the Atlantic, which is a remarkable level of activity for a three-year period. The closest comparable three-year period of activity occurred during 2003 - 2004 - 2005, when each season had fifteen-plus named storms. Since 1851, only two seasons--2005 (28 named storms) and 1933 (20 named storms)--have been busier than 2010, 2011, and 2012.

---

How rare are 3 consecutive top-five hurricane seasons for named storms?
It is tremendously rare to get three consecutive top-five years in a database with a 162-year record. This would occur randomly just once every 34,000 years--assuming the database were unbiased, the climate were not changing, and a multi-year climate pattern favorable for active seasons were not present. However the database IS biased, the climate IS changing, and we have been in an active hurricane period that began in 1995. So, which of these factors may be responsible for recording three consecutive years with nineteen named storms? It is well-known that prior to the arrival of geostationary satellites in December 1966 and aircraft hurricane reconnaissance in 1945 that tropical storms in the Atlantic were under-counted. Landsea et al. (2004) theorized that we missed up to six named storms per year between 1851 - 1885, and up to four between 1886 - 1910. Landsea (2007) estimated the under-count to be 3.2 named storms per year between 1900 - 1965, and 1.0 per year between 1966 - 2002. Other studies have argued for lower under-counts.

---

So, 2012, 2011, and 2010 would still rank as top-five busiest seasons since 1851, but the odds of having three consecutive seasons with nineteen named storms would drop from a 1-in-34,000 year event to "only" a 1-in-5800 year event. More recently, Landsea et al. (2010) showed that the increasing trend in North Atlantic tropical storm frequency over the past 140 years was largely due to the increasing trend in short‐lived storms (storms lasting 2 days or less, called “shorties”), after the 1940s (Figure 2, top). They did not detect a significant increasing trend in medium‐ to long‐lived storms lasting more than 2 days.

NOAA's Arctic Report Card pointing out the main issue (my emphases)

A major finding of the Report Card 2012 is that numerous record-setting melting events occurred, even though, with the exception of a few limited episodes, Arctic-wide it was an unremarkable year, relative to the previous decade, for a primary driver of melting - surface air temperatures. From October 2011 through August 2012, positive (warm) temperature anomalies were relatively small over the central Arctic compared to conditions in recent years (2003-2010). Yet, in spite of these moderate conditions, new records were set for sea ice extent, terrestrial snow extent, melting at the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, and permafrost temperature.

 

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

It appears the IPCC has been too conservative for 20 years

(#297477)
HankP's picture

[link]

 

They should learn from experience, they're never going to get support from denialists by self censoring. Just put the numbers out there.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Reminds me of the polls in the last election

(#297479)

A lot of liberals on this site and elsewhere underestimated Obama's electoral win b/c they thought they should give conservative viewpoints at least a bit of credence.

 

Another example: I wrote a dumb diary on this site when the stimulus bill came out saying it was about the right size. I had factored in some conservative misgivings that the bill might have negative consequences.

 

Now all the climate science is coming in as too conservative b/c they've been bullied by conservatives.

 

It's getting harder to doubt the general conclusion that if you're interested in accuracy, it's better to just ignore conservatives on almost every topic lest you pollute your judgment.

 

Any ideology in which Jim DeMint is a major player is going to be wrong about nearly every damn thing.

I don't agree with your idea of a conservative

(#297487)
mmghosh's picture

a real conservative would be very doubtful about the idea of dumping of gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere causing massive, unquantifiable change.

 

A conservative would be very cautious before advocating radical changes such as these.  You're conflating free marketers with conservatives.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Ha

(#297488)

I don't agree either Manish. Here in the US though the term "conservative" has come to mostly mean reflexively and aggressively pro-corporatist and anti- whatever the other tribe (liberals or moderates) want. Bible-thumping panty-sniffers (not all religious people by a long-shot though) and racists are a part of this group as well. 

 

The actual conservative meaning of Conservative, doesn't apply anymore in the common vernacular. 

Tell Me, My Friend Manish, Why So Much of India Appears...

(#297447)

...to be in the North of the Subcontinent?

 

Or is that all Pakistan up there?

 

Seriously curious...Earth as the Black Marable below:

 

 

Earth

Best Wishes, Traveller

Something Odd There

(#297455)

London is dark. Egypt is way too bright along the Nile and Nile Delta.

 

It looks like a composite with missing or incorrectly normalized data.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Maybe use of incandescent light sources - more heat

(#297461)
mmghosh's picture

than fluorescent/LED?  

 

The sensor measures passive IR - i.e. heat not light intensity, if I read the article correctly.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

BBC Link to Black Marble, Larger Image...

(#297456)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20621177

 

I agree with everyone's perception that the image looks off in a lot of ways...for me, Eastern Italy is way to bright as is the Nile and Cairo.  

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

UnFinnished work on the satellite images. n/t

(#297458)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Link? n/t

(#297448)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Link!

(#297452)

NASA Suomi project.

 

EDIT: [The data was acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.]

 

Would this be during India's 2012 blackout...? No! The blackout was July 30-31.

 

I'm out of hypotheses.

Enough about Romney

(#297425)
HankP's picture

I thought he was a terrible candidate with terrible positions, but stuff like this is just getting dickish. He lost, and I'm glad he did, but there's such a thing as being a sore winner. It doesn't reflect well on people who keep pointing and laughing.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

I agree

(#297428)

And will add that I don't really get why any of those pics are funny. He actually looks like a normal person.

Voter Suppression is a Non-issue: Day 30

(#297424)

Senator Barbara Boxer is proposing a new bill that would set federal guidelines attempting to ensure that no US voter has to wait longer than an hour to cast a ballot.

 

Evidently, it's something that needs to be done.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Huge increase in traffic through the Northern Sea Route.

(#297421)
mmghosh's picture

Utterly fascinating article (especially the images of the Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker flotilla).

The 2012 navigation season on the Northern Sea Route is coming to an end. Never before have so many vessels taken the Arctic shortcut between Europe and Asia, and never before has so much cargo been transported along the route.

---

There has been a tenfold increase in the number of vessels using NSR during the last two years. This season 46 vessels have sailed the route, compared to 34 in 2011 and only four in 2010.

 

The total cargo transported on the NSR this year is 1 261 545 tons – a 53 percent increase from 2011, when 820 789 tons was shipped on the route.

---

As BarentsObserver reported, the Northern Sea Route was used for transportation of LNG for the first time in history this autumn. The tanker “Ob River” transported 66 342 tons (134 738 m³) from Statoil’s gas plant in Hammerfest to Tobata in Japan. The vessel spent nine days on NSR from it passed the Kara Gate on November 9 to in entered Cape Dezhnev on November 18.

via Neven

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Verily, if you see a possibly drunk man that needs help

(#297411)
brutusettu's picture

right before a subway train is about to hit him.....freelance photographers should take several steps back to get the train and the man in the shot and take the picture, warn the driver by take several pictures with your flash on?????

 

 

good job for the NY Post getting the freelance photographer some $......

"(He was only was ok with limited whipping of 13 y/o slaves)"

(#297363)
brutusettu's picture

Henry Weincek's article in the Smithsonian on Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Lucia (Cinder) Stanton responds, Stanton, in short, disagrees with Weincek's scholarship, Stanton is the Senior Research Historian at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation.    just sayin'

 

 

 

Legal Historian Paul Finkleman's NYTimes article The Monster of Monticello.

 

 

David Post at the Volokh Conspiracy ask us to basically forget all that Jefferson did and wrote and just think of the happy thoughts that inspired Lincoln.

 

 

 

Corey Robin of Crooked Timber has to bring out actual extended quotes of Jefferson to rebuke Post's piece.

 

 

 

Jefferson was a man that claims he wanted slavery to end, but helped procreate more, told friends what a great investment owning people was, was very worried about *State's Rights* during the Missouri Compromise, and wrote at length pieces that have people confusing Jefferson with John C Calhoun or Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest or if you change some names and wording around a bit, some of Jefferson's writing looks like Thomas Jefferson was damn near tinkering with a solution to a slave question,  Robin at CT points that out too.

 

 

h/t Scott Lemieux of LGM and my Smithsonian subscription 

Is Bubba Screwing Interns Again?

(#297367)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The last time people were spending this much mental energy in public contemplating Jefferson's flaws, it was acting as chaff to distract from the Lewinsky Scandal.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

"contemplating Jefferson's flaws" that's quite an euphemism

(#297405)
brutusettu's picture

A historian wrote a book about Jefferson, some other historians went on an Apology Tour for Jefferson's brand of slave holding, slave owning advocating,  owning slaves that look a lot like Jefferson, claiming to not being a fan of slavery but being most upset with the violation of *State's Rights* to decide if white people could own non-whites after he hears of the Missouri Compromise.

 

Lots of Americans are passively aware that Jefferson owned slaves, most seem to whitewash that over.  Pointing out again what slavery actually entailed under Jefferson's ownership, and letting Jefferson's own words show he was a tributary to the deluge of white supremacy....showing those flaws is a public service.

 

 

---I don't know why on earth of all the assault claims, the poisoning the well "Lewinsky Scandal" lives as a term and not the "Paula Jones Scandal."

Back when this sort of thing was big in the early 90s

(#297378)

the discussion of Jefferson was a lot more along the lines of an angry high school senior who's just discovered Zinn--"I've discovered that liberal democracy is a sham because the founders owned slaves and now I'm a Marxist." This latest round appears to be more about Jefferson in the context of his time, about the similarities and differences between him and other founders who owned slaves but realized the wrongness of slavery, etc.

 

Or who knows, maybe all this talk about how The American Dream is Dead and the Rising Asian Power Will Supplant us has triggered a collective spasm of early 90s nostalgia.

I Wrote to the New(ish) Editor at the Smithsonian Praising...

(#297369)

 

...the Jefferson Article. There is a more scholarly attitude at the magazine after the appointment of Michael Caruso in October 2011...he has been somewhat brutal in laying off staff...but the editorial direction of the Magazine is much more serious, non-fluff, now.

 

BTW, Jefferson lived in a time when you could own other human beings and treat them as chattel....and in some ways he did.

 

I think none the less of Jefferson...he is simply a much more complex figure now...how would you own other human beings...and sweet Sally Hemmings?

 

A serious question.

 

This would be Complex for sure.

 

Traveller

 

Edit:

 

To be fair to Jefferson, see also:

 

http://www.libraries.uc.edu/libraries/arb/exhibits/archivesmonth2009/jefferson_to_barrow.html

In some ways?

(#297370)
HankP's picture

In the only way that counts, he full endorsed slavery by his actions. It's so very interesting to see the conservative reaction to this, which consists of equal parts inability to see that no human is entirely good or entirely bad and the abject worship of a politician.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Carbon on Mars!

(#297353)
mmghosh's picture

Link.

The SAM instrument also detected chlorinated methane – a small, simple compound that falls in the category of organics, which are the building blocks of life. However, the scientists said it was much too early to say that the soil itself contained organics. The carbon could be vestiges of molecules that the spacecraft took to Mars from Earth, and the organics could have been generated by chemical reactions as the dirt was heated.

 

Whether the carbon could point to anything biological on Mars, “that’s well down the road for us to get to,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

Bring on carbon-based lifeforms! and hopefully thereby end organised religions.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

"hopefully thereby end organised religions"

(#297357)
brutusettu's picture

A little dry humor?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm Sure He Didn't Amino Any Disrespect -nt-

(#297358)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Maybe the nucleotide is turning. -nt-

(#297382)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Yeah, I Don't Think It Can Be DNA-ied Any Longer -nt-

(#297397)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I certainly think that finding extra-terrestrial life is

(#297371)
mmghosh's picture

much a death-blow to the idea of the Universe being made around humanity.  And a definite death-blow to young-earthism.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Somehow I Doubt It

(#297396)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I remember reading a Star Trek novel about twenty five years ago that had Spock remarking on the (in story universe) existence of offworld chapters of the Flat Earth Society, and my reaction was more or less, "Yep, there would be."

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Their numbers may decrease, maybe not.

(#297389)
brutusettu's picture

7th Day Adventist are more legion than they ever been.

 

 

Dinosaur fossils.

 

 

 

ET's could easily be swept into the new narrative.  They're fallen angels or not much different than baboons....God is sovereign and (*the*) Bible is the word of the Lord... (and so on)

Manish, you really underestimate the ingenuity of humans

(#297373)
HankP's picture

starting with the fact that many religious people believe there is a qualitative difference between all other forms of life and human beings.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

HankP is mostly right.

(#297416)
mmghosh's picture

I see the Jesuits are already preparing themselves for extraterrestrials.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7918497.stm

We Jesuits are actively involved in the search for Earth-like planets.
The idea that there could be other intelligent creatures made by God in a relationship with God is not contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian thought.
The Bible has many references to, or descriptions of, non-human intelligent beings; after all, that's what angels are.

---

The important thing is to keep in mind that the Universe is the deliberate creation of a loving God. Catholics should not be afraid to embrace such speculations, but we should always remember that they are just speculations. We don't know. But reflecting on these possibilities lets us appreciate in a deeper way what God's redemption actually does mean for us.
My science tells me how God created the Universe and that he loves that Universe.

Sigh.  This reminds me of the "milk miracle".

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

3rd graders place celery in water with red food coloring

(#297422)
brutusettu's picture

Celery turns red, you can't explain that.

Corporate profits/GDP in red, wages/GDP in blue

(#297334)

The important takeaway is that the Occupy Wall Street folks need a bath.

 

Can't Afford the Soap, Can't Afford a Place to Shower In...

(#297359)

 

...all the money is siphoned elsewhere where gnomes and shifty eyed elves keep it hidden away in useless

vaults...whereas it is the velocity of money that counts in all instances.

 

Traveller

Don't forget

(#297364)
brutusettu's picture

those unwashed women were in a city and they couldn't even scream out to protect themselves from "other" unwashed men that surely weren't just sexual predators that exploited the situation. 

What is your solution to redress this situation? n/t

(#297342)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Nobody ever asks!

(#297345)

The important thing to understand is that these trends aren't the result of immutable laws of nature, the economy has been deliberately designed in a variety of ways to distribute wealth upwards.

 

This could be reversed at any time given sufficient education and organization of workers and other members of the middle and lower classes.

But it's a trend that at this point is forty years old

(#297379)

It predates the Reagan Revolution by a decade, which leads me to think that there's probably more at work than just economic policies.

I think economic policies are the majority of it

(#297384)

35 yrs. ago is when neoliberalism started to ascend, and that's when incomes stagnated. 

 

Of course stuff like declining union participation is also relevant.

 

You've also had a move away from mere stagnation to outright decline in living standards for the majority the past decade. Real median incomes fell under Bush even before the great recession and are now in free fall.

This is the mark of deliberate and aggressive policies to redistribute wealth upwards.

There appear to be two big declines:

(#297385)

There's the first, which can, I think, be traced to oil shocks, the break down of Bretton Woods, and the U.S. having a smaller share of the global pie. That's the first major decline, say from around 1970 to 80 or 81. Then, long-term we see a dip and a rise until the Bush years, when the decline kicks into free-fall again.

 

It basically seems that you can run an economy okay on the neo-liberal consensus as long as you've got good regulation, tax, and monetary policies.

As I use the term "neoliberalism"

(#297387)

it includes a consensus in favor of deregulation. 

 

I think it's plausible that the de-regulation of the Bush II and latter Clinton years show that you cannot run an economy with a neoliberal consensus.

That's Marxist talk! And Marxism is discredited, no?

(#297349)
mmghosh's picture

As long as there is enough social mobility for enough of the cleverer members of the lower/middle classes to climb out of the low-income trap, and not foment disaffection - the current dispensation will work.  The trick is to find the correct mix.  

 

In general, I would think if you are clever/hardworking/talented in the USA, opportunity is relatively open.  Or at least open enough for 60% of society, which is all that is needed in a democracy, perhaps.  

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

If you're lucky you'llget Marxism

(#297362)
HankP's picture

otherwise you get heads on a pike and drawing and quartering for the amusement of the children.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

It's about the trend

(#297352)

the US might have enough social mobility to be compatible with democracy at the current moment, even though it has the worst social mobility in the developed world (it used to be in the top 10 40 yrs ago).

 

But the US is on a one-way track to a banana republic with a completely rigid social and economic caste system unless the country changes course. The wealthiest 400 families in the US currently have as much wealth as the bottom 200 million, and this top tier is concentrating wealth in large part by reducing the quality of living for those 200 million at ever-more alarming rates (see above).

 

Since a semi-feudal society in the US is the central goal of conservative economic policy, reversing this trend requires a 180 on every single on of their economic policy goals - higher taxes on the wealthy, corporations, and capital gains, raising the minimum wage, massive public investment in physical and human infrastructure, higher salaries for public employees, protection of unions, expansion of social insurance, etc.

 

This is progressivism or liberalism in the US. It's the country's last hope for a non-feudal society.

USA "on a one-way track to a banana republic"

(#297354)
mmghosh's picture

Will you get much support for extremism? 

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

You mean I'm being too hyperbolic

(#297355)

for people to take my concerns seriously?