From Icebox to Hothouse, and Back Again

Better modeling, by including the biosphere, retrodicts more of Earth's dynamic climate history.

Climate change, while ignored by the current administration, is not ignoring us. The Earth is warming well past where it has been for millions of years. But before that? While the planet has generally had stable climates, they have varied substantially through time, and have gone though occasional catastrophes. There was a little ice age, in the middle of the last millenium, thought to have been caused in part by the depopulation of the Americas due to European diseases. The ensuing regrowth of forests covering the Americas drew down CO2 from the atmosphere and cooled the climate. But more to the point, there have been far more severe episodes, both of heat (the end-Permian extinction event) and cold (the Sturtian glaciation of the Precambrian). All of these arise from CO2 levels, as CO2 is the master controller of heat in the atmosphere, thanks to the greenhouse effect. (As it is on Venus as well.) 

For example, the end-Permian extinction is thought to have been caused by unusual volcanism in what is now Siberia. Over a mere 100,000 years, this poured an estimated 26,000 petagrams of CO2 into the atmosphere, causing its concentration to shoot up to about 2500 ppm (parts per million) and temperatures to shoot up as well, killing off 90% of all species. What we are doing now is much faster, though admittedly in early days. We are pouring roughly 11 petagrams of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly, which has raised CO2 concentrations from a preindustrial 280 ppm to 427 ppm today. It would take us another one to two thousand years to cause a 90% extinction event!

A bedrock of our climate thermostat is the silicate cycle. Since the vast majority of carbon on earth is locked up in rocks, (carbonates of silicon, magnesium, and calcium), not in the biophere, it is rocks that have a dominant effect. Volcanoes belch out CO2 in huge amounts. That CO2 slowly eats away at rocks that are exposed, re-forming carbonate compounds that are weathered off and back into the ocean. Where these compounds (with those built by shelled animals of all kinds) are gradually deposited on the sea floor and subducted back into the Earth's crust. Some of those carbonates are reduced at depth and brought forth again by volcanic activity. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and the warmer it is, the more weathering happens and thus the faster CO2 levels are brought back down. That is the elegant thermostat that has kept Earth at mostly mild temperatures through its long history. 

However, this is a slow thermostat, taking hundreds of thousands of years to equilibrate. Unusual events, like an asteroid impact, prodigious volcanism, or the advent of human ingenuity, can make a mess of things way faster than the silicate cycle can deal with in its slow, grinding way. Many subtler influences can also come into play, like cycles in the tilt of the Earth towards the Sun, or continental arrangements that lead to particular patterns of ocean circulation, can create variations such as ice ages. A recent paper brought out peculiar influences from the biosphere that can also affect, and even destabilize, the thermostat on longer time horizons

The oceans are responsible for roughly half of photosynthetic productivity, and they are also where the carbonate minerals get buried. So how they react to changes in the atmosphere are very influential in the whole cycle. These authors ran half-million year simulations of climate perturbations while including not only the silicate cycle, but also reactions by the biosphere and especially the phosphorous cycle, which has a strong influence on biological productivity. It turns out that when the atmosphere has lower levels of oxygen than we do today, (as was the case during the Precambrain epoch), high CO2 levels cause long-term rises in biosphere productivity and also in phosphate recycling out of the ocean floor. The extra phosphate increases biological productivity even more, and thus causes CO2 drawdown to persist past where the silicate cycle would level out for the long term. The result can be a rebounding ice age after a hot phase. 

Model results over 500,000 years, showing rebound from an injection of high CO2 at year 10,000. A shows concentrations of CO2 over time, B shows O2 concentration, and C shows sea ice, which goes to zero at first, the rebounds sharply, especially under the blue condition of 0.6 times current oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. It shows how exquisitely sensitive the climate is to CO2.

These models make some sense of the Precambrian climate cycles, which had a few dramatic swings that went through so-called snowball Earth phases where the entire surface of the planet seems to have iced over. The silicate cycle naturally came to the rescue eventually, spewing enough CO2 from volcanoes to overcome the snow / albedo effects of all the ice and cause a rebound hot phase. Between the rising oxygen levels and the extreme climatic swings, the stage was somehow set for the rise of animal life, leading the so-called Cambrian explosion, though there was a fair amount of simpler precursor animal live in the Precambrian.dd

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh7730

A schematic of the proposed cycle, with CO2 coming in from vulcanism (red) and being disposed of by various means, first and foremost the silicate cycle (blue). OC = organic carbon, P = phosphorous/phosphate, OCpetro = organic carbon weathered out of sediments, coal, limestone, and other geologic formations. Thus the brown color shows this paper's additions to the classical silicate cycle.

While it is just a modeling paper, models are what we think and do in science. It is nice to have laboratory confirmation for areas of science (like molecular biology) that permit it, but historical sciences, especially those pertaining to whole planets as systems, have to be more forensic and speculative. This new model is a refinement on the basic silicate cycle, and thus seems a strong improvement on what has heretofore been a science of more or less back-of-the-envelope estimation. And judging from this new model, the authors propose that the next ice age is not being put off indefinitely by our profligate emissions, but rather that organic burial feedbacks will bring it closer (than 400k years away) with additional overcooling thereafter!

• Medicine is toast. "MIRA outperformed physicians in diagnostic accuracy and made guideline-concordant, medication-safe and appropriate admission decisions."
• A death sentence for US science.
• Revaluing trash.
• Apparently, fungi in the ocean are a thing.

Vindman on Russia and Ukraine

Not enough appeasement, or not enough deterrence?

I have been watching the Harry Potter series of films, a decade or two after first reading the books. Aside from being extremely entertaining, they show Rowling to have been weirdly prescient about the moral dilemmas only developing as she was writing, and now flourishing in grotesque fashion. How large sectors of supposedly civilized populations can be attracted to blatant racism. How cruelty, destruction, and contemptuous corruption can likewise become an attractive political brand. How corrupt powers corrupt the truth first, and then replace merit with lickspittle devotion among their followers, with predictable consequences. What seemed comically phantasmagoric has now turned into our day-to-day reality, with phones taking the place of wands.

It is not only relevant to US political scene, but also internationally, in the turn taken by Russia from a struggling post-Soviet democracy or at least quasi-democracy, back to an imperial emperorship under Vladimir Putin. After sending clouds of misinformation into the West, he started attacking Georgia and Ukraine with dementors, trying, without success so far, to squeeze the soul out of his "little brother". 

Alexander Vindman has something to say about the matter, in his new book, "The Folly of Realism". Vindman came to fame through his testimony against Voldemort, -er, Trump- during the first impeachment hearing, which revolved around corrupt conditioning of aid to Ukraine to get false political testimony against his foes. Vindman was on the NSC, and had participated extensively in Defense department and White House policy development around the changing conditions in Ukraine and Russia. His book recounts the long historical road that led to the current Ukraine war, and the many missteps by the US that are now part of that history.

The question is about US policy around the catastrophe in Ukraine- what was the US role in it? What should our policy have been, and what should it be now? The "realism" in Vindman's title refers to the foreign policy school that foreswears idealism. It says that we should ignore any sympathetic feelings about democracy or independence for Ukraine and recognize that Ukraine was always going to be in Russia's sphere of influence and not get tangled up in its defense. Under this reading, our policy mistake was to lure Ukraine towards the West with empty promises of joining NATO and the EU, while our paramount interest was actually in maintaining a stable relationship with Russia so that no one starts World War 3. 

On the other hand would be a more values-based, idealistic approach. Under this reading, our promises were not wrong, only our unwillingness to back them up. It is patently obvious that neither Russia nor anyone else is going to use nuclear weapons in these kinds of conflicts- that would be self-defeating when the aim is to gain territory and population (or even to defend one's own population, when pitted against other nuclear powers). In all honesty, having nuclear weapons is more of a prestige thing at this point than a real factor of military strategy, let alone tactics. But to give Putin his due, he used them with consummate skill, rattling the nuclear saber at critical times to cow the West and particularly the US from intervening in Ukraine, much to our shame.

Idealism posits that our interests are inextricably linked to our values. There are no durable and dependable international relationships without shared values, and we should be extremely grateful that, at least up to the current administration, the liberal West has had a solid core of shared values that undergird our entire collective security structure. Thinking that we can pursue "interests" that conflict with those values is chimerical and tends, as we are seeing in the current administration, to sell out and destroy exactly what is most valuable to us on the international stage. 

But perhaps even worse than the philosophical differences within the US policy establishment that led to the schizophrenic and catastrophic approach to Ukraine was the inattentive way we sleepwalked into it. Emblematic of this is Obama's "reset" with Russia. Even after Putin had declared that the loss of the Soviet empire was the most catastrophic event in the last century, even after Russia attacked and set up a simmering conflict with Georgia for trending democratic, even after Russia had spent years pumping offensive and destabilizing propaganda into its enemies in the West, Obama was anxious to get Russia off his plate and initiated the reset. This was a policy of turning a blind eye to all the geopolitical trends that clearly showed that Russia was not going to be a democratic partner to the West, but was, on the contrary, heading rapidly in the opposite direction, despite the window dressing of Dmitri Medvedev. More specifically, it failed to recognize that Ukraine was in mortal peril from these trends. The prior president Bush had declared that his ultimate goal was to bring Ukraine into NATO. But no plan was offered, no timeline or support was given, even while Russia's apoplexy over the prospect was, to those who were paying attention, growing by the year. 

Current status of NATO. Whatever the rhetoric, the new eastern European members of NATO are members in order to defend themselves against Russia. The whole point of NATO is to unite Europe defensively against Russia. Naturally, Russia takes this as an insult, but the history is self-explanatory, as is the same historical reasoning in case of Ukraine. As long as Russia takes no responsibility for its many past crimes, and its current lies, offensive behavior, and ongoing crimes, there can be no question of reversing this fundamental relationship.

The reset ignored all this and assumed, as we all did, that a new war in Europe was inconceivable- whatever complaints Russia had would be raised in some appropriate forum. During this time, Russia was carefully playing its cards for Ukraine, using Paul Manafort to dress up its proxy, Viktor Yanukovych, electing him president, and getting him to cancel progress towards joining the EU. Unfortunately, in 2014, the Ukrainian people wised up to the direction all this was going, and ousted Yanukovych in a popular uprising, sending him fleeing to Russia. Immediately thereafter, Russia extracted its pound of flesh, invading and taking over Crimea, and for good measure starting a war in Eastern Ukraine, to be kept on the simmer. 

All this should have been foreseen by US policy makers. But instead, they had their reset, with a few temporary benefits weighing against the disastrous direction portended by Russia's actual policies and intentions. If the US model for Ukraine was the same as for Belarus, we should have been honest about that and not promised any future relationship or alliance such as NATO. We should have clarified that Ukraine was in Russia's sphere, and tough luck.. they would have to deal with the neighbor that nature had dealt them. On the other hand, if we truly valued the independence of Ukraine and its civilized aspirations, in light of its being in its own right a very large country, both in area and in population, then we would have put more effort into deterring Russia rather than appeasing it. 

Ukraine was not ready for NATO membership- that much was understood. We can see by the example of Hungary how dangerous it is to have backsliding, regressive and frankly traitorous countries within the alliance. Ukraine's democracy was by no means ready for full membership. In light of that, the US should have offered a direct security relationship, as the Georgia war played out, to put teeth behind our desire for Ukraine to remain independent and work out its own relationship with democracy and with Europe. The point was not to influence the government or people of Ukraine, but simply to deter Russian meddling. For by this time, the truth was visible- that Russia wanted to rebuild its empire / sphere of influence, whether its neighbors wanted to be assimilated or not. The race was on, between the gathering strength and determination of Russia to recover "its" former possessions, and its neighbors' growing sovereignty and ties to Europe. 

One might ask.. how is this model different from Vietnam? Wouldn't this have tied us to a corrupt government that would have been fatally impaired, politically speaking, by taking assistance from the US? Wouldn't Ukraine have come to rely on our security crutch, while thumbing its nose at Russia and miring itself ever deeper in corruption and dysfunction? I think the differences are significant. Firstly, the Ukraine war had not happened yet. We would be deterring, not trying to repel, an attack. Secondly, the ultimate prize of European integration remained as a more significant goal, quite beyond any bilateral relationship with the US. It is clear that the people of Ukraine were quite strongly motivated in that direction, and part of that was gaining a functioning liberal political system.

As a Ukrainian by birth, Vindman was and is appalled by the path to war, some of it paved by the US. He is casting about for historical counterfactuals and alternative paths, and, given the dysfunctions of our own political system, those are hard to come by. Perhaps preventing the first election of Donald Trump would have been significantly more productive than any policy adjustments farther back in time.  But I have to agree that our split-the-difference approach to Ukraine, which was initiated in the Bush administration, was fundamentally in error, and was a temporizing solution (which the Obama administration fatally continued) to a problem that turned out to be far more urgent than was anticipated. Though it should have been anticipated.

• Are we second-rate yet?
• There's something about postmodernism... 
• War is now IT.

What is the Matter With the Labor Market?

Labor's share of the economy has rarely been lower- what is going on?

We will start with a graph of share of income, to labor, vs capital. Note that labor here includes all the highly paid executives- all those fat salaries. The share has been going down for decades, while the profit and capital share has been going up. The seventies were the high-water mark, when unions reached their apogee, and after which the Reagan revolution put business and management back in the driver's seat. 

Labor's share of national income is at an all-time low.

The neoclassical theory of labor is that businesses will hire as many employees out of a perfectly liquid labor market until the last hire is exactly as productive as her labor cost. Every worker would be hired into their most productive possible job, with the commensurate pay. Over the economy as whole, this mechanism would mean that everyone who can be productive will be employed, and that every company produces as much as it can sell. And also that wages grossly equal the productive capacity of the workers, as judged by what buyers are willing to part with. 

In a very rough sense, there is logic to this model, which at least has the virtue of generally equating what is being spent by buyers with what companies are making as revenue and paying out for their inputs, including labor. But there are a lot of problems when you get into the details, making the whole topic of labor market operation and wage-setting far more complicated, and far less fair, than capitalists and their favorite economists envision. It is a bit like the market for medical care, which has grievous flaws. One wouldn't want to go to a Stalinist system of state job assignment and wage-setting, but that doesn't mean the market mechanisms are operating fairly and efficiently.

One would have thought that the internet, enabling rapid and nation-wide job posting and hunting, would have fundamentally changed the job market, in favor of workers. But the graph above disagrees- things have gotten worse instead of better. One thing that internet job boards do not mention is pay. That remains a closely held secret, never discussed with workers or with prospects, until the moment when they have already been reeled in and gone through numerous interviews, and the low-ball is offered. There are many other structural asymmetries and power dynamics. Productivity is extremely hard to gauge, and ends up being whatever one's manager gets into her or his head. The whole job-finding process is extremely averse, full of humiliation, uncertainty, and pain, enforcing inertia in current employees, and thus power for employers. 

For example, a paper from a few years back shows that, when women enter a profession and change its composition, the pay across that profession goes down. The scholarly language is restrained, but the lesson is obvious. Pay is set by intuition and power relations, not by an analysis of productivity, or the magical workings of a fair labor market. The 80's started the greed-is-good movement in American business, as executives were empowered to take pieces of the business for themselves. Before, managers were employees, often well paid. Now, their pay became increasingly an expression of power rather than productivity- how much they could extract from the business as rent. Naturally, the more money from the business (whether via salary, stock, or other benefits) went into executive's pockets, the less was left over for workers. Similarly, the whole theory of business underwent a change as well, from an organization with multiple stakeholders and purposes, including civic ones, to a singular focus on profit and rewarding investors. Labor ceased to be involved as a stakeholder, but was demoted to an input, to be paid as little as possible. 

One additional influence is the idea of the sufficient wage. Most people are most keenly interested in having income sufficient to live on, in some style considered in their social sphere to be decent. When wages across society fall below this level, revolutions occur. But do wages ever rise above it? Employers are sensitive to these dynamics, and as part of their wage setting know what workers will put up with, regardless of productivity, fairness, revenue, etc. This is particularly relevant with the addition of women to the workforce. What used to be regarded as a decent wage, in that it supported a family, now only has to support half a family, since most families have two earners. The perverse effect of women entering the workforce is thus, on this admittedly vague social theory, not only to subject them to outright socially based discrimination, but to lower the general level of wages, insofar as employers can get away with that without generating an insurrection. 

The value of the federal minimum wage over time.

Now we are at a dramatic point, where a soaring stock market rides on ever-higher profits taken by US businesses, while a vibe-cession and plunging consumer sentiment show that most Americans are struggling, unhappy, and underpaid. Billionaires are sprouting like mushrooms, each of whose dollars is taken from the hands of labor. So what is fair, and what do workers deserve? We need to take a whole-society view here, rather than confining ourselves to what pure capitalism sees as an ideal. Much of income inequality comes from a minimum wage that simply has not kept up, not even with inflation, let alone with worker productivity. A recent book outlines much of the evidence, but it is well known that raising minimum wages is hugely positive, increasing economic activity and helping low-power workers get a fairer deal out of the system, at very little cost to job creation or profits. The authors suggest (very modestly, one must say) generally keeping minimum wages at sixty percent of the median wage, which is currently 64,000 per year, thus would work out to about $18.50 per hour. Lower pay than that generally reflects power dynamics of oppression, and feeds into bad working conditions and the maintenance of low-value industries.

At the upper end, a new social contract needs to be drawn up to re-orient the corporation to a more socially positive role. Competition, which is the most important discipline on businesses, needs to be fostered. Taxation needs to be raised and made fairer, removing escape hatches, offshore shelters, conduits, etc. Capital needs to be taxed at least equivalently with labor, not less, as is shamefully done now. The chances of any of this taking place in the corrupt environment of the current administration and congress is nil, obviously, but if they won't do it, then the workers they are so blatantly betraying have the votes to forge a new path.

Notice that these are not technical issues, but social ones. The growth of inequality and loss of labor's wage share is a story of lost social cohesion, self-serving ideologies, and political corruption. Hopefully we do not need a crisis on the scale of World War 2 or the Civil War to recover some degree of care for each other, but the current environment would need a dramatic reversal to even begin going in that direction.

• More on the debt.
• How can this staggering loss be sold?
• When labor gets out of hand.
• When companies become tax cheats. We all should have a Carribean subsidiary!

Dalio on Debt

Review of Ray Dalio's "How Countries Go Broke". 

It is difficult to focus on important policy issues, as the national media is led around by the president's revolving fixations like a cat by a laser pointer. But focus we must, if we are not going to decline faster than we already are due to incompetent and corrupt leadership. One looming area is the federal budget. As a card-carrying acolyte of MMT economics, it is hard to say this, but there are limits to federal borrowing. 

A recent book by super-investor Ray Dalio lays out a set of patterns, which he calls the big cycle, that tracks government solvency over roughly eighty year cycles, which typically start out tight and solvent, using relatively hard money, and end up overextended and in crises that are resolved by some mix of inflation, depreciation, and restructuring / reneging on debts. It is a perpetual and international set of cycles. As an investor, he is not much of a writer or economist, so the book is repetitive, poorly written, and markedly incurious about the origins of the patterns he finds. But still, it makes some significant points. 

First is that the cycle happens for all monetary systems, whether fiat and borrowing domestically, or hard currency and borrowing in foreign currencies. But the consequences are far more severe for the latter than the former. Having your own currency, as MMT economists well know, is a blessing when you want to borrow and manage a domestic economy. Second is that even with a fiat currency, the limits are different, but there still are limits to government borrowing, which we are gradually running into. 

Trajectory of US government debt.

Trajectory of interest compared to other US government spending.

At the beginning of a big cycle, the foregoing crisis has scared everyone into hard currencies, like gold, or some properly revalued local currency backed by a solvent government. Probity is everything. Later on in the cycle, the money is softened up due to increased borrowing and laxer standards. Eventually, there are private debt crises, where the central bank is obliged to take on a large part of the private debt and expand its balance sheet. Eventually, the central bank no longer bothers to unwind its balance sheet after such crises, and holds on to both private debts and government debt that it monetizes. And at the far end of the cycle, the debt service paid by the government threatens to become so onerous that a crisis develops- investors flee, interest rates go up, inflation goes up, and the debts, fiat though they are, become unsustainable. There is "restructuring".

This is a big cycle because it is superimposed on the regular business cycle that takes much shorter time- something like five to ten years. And it concerns the government's management of the money, not the private sector's vacillating enthusiasm about business conditions. Turkey is currently in the far end of such a cycle, plunged into high inflation and struggling to find a way to put itself back on a sound basis after massive mismanagement. And obviously the US is somewhere late in the same continuum. The issue is not the size of the federal debt, or its relation to GDP, but the amount we have to pay in interest from the annual budget. That is heading towards one trillion dollars, and if interest rates remain where they are, (given the inflationary pressures from the current administration's bad policies such as tariffs, oil shortages, and tax cuts), there is danger of a growing spiral of higher revenues going to interest, and less money available for government functions, increased monetization by the central bank, and ultimately, loss of faith in the currency. 

A fascinating case is that of Japan, which both Dalio and MMT economists focus on for its unique approach to monetary policy. Since its debt bubble in the 90's, Japan has shifted lots of private debt and public debt to the central bank's balance sheet, which stands at about three times GDP- far beyond what other countries would deem acceptable. This can be sustained because the bank of Japan has kept interest rates very low- in the zero to one percent range. Thus the cost of all this debt is manageable, and will remain so unless and until interest rates go up. But this also means that the bank can not use interest rates to manage the economy and foreign exchange. In consequence, Japan's currency has weakened enormously on the international currency markets, making imports (such as of oil, significantly) much more expensive, while improving the competitive position of Japanese export manufacturers. Additionally, Japanese banks and businesses have been reluctant to unwind bad debts, which leads to the stagnation and lack of overheating that the low interest rates would otherwise foster. Everyone kicks the can down the road, waiting for either a crisis, or a resolution, neither of which seem in the offing. 

But more interesting than the economic drama is the larger cultural cycle which Dalio alludes to as well. For this is not just an economic big cycle, but something deeper. For the US, Dalio starts with the civil war, but I think it is much more instructive to include the cycle before, which started with the Revolutionary War. These wars, plus World War 2, mark the three big cycles that the US has been through. Each started with war, and with currency disruption. The Continental Congress issued reams of Continental currency that had, by the end of the war, become worthless. So, one big objective of the ensuing constitutional order was to put the newly minted dollar on a sound footing, as also the finances of the federal government. This led to decades of growth, prosperity, and (the war of 1812, and various Native American extermination campaigns aside) peace. The middle of this period also saw a progressive cultural flowering, with the transcendentalists, various experimental communes like Brook Farm, and the Great Awakening. All this stability allowed people to envision a better society. However, what happened instead was increased division and conflict, leading to the Civil War. 

Here again, paper money was issued and resulted in significant inflation, as the accumulated hatred tore the country apart. But in its wake, prosperity again reigned, with rapid technological advancement, peace, and, eventually, and progressive movements for women's suffrage, temperance, anti-corruption and anti-monopoly, and the Settlement movement. All this was reset in the Depression and ensuing world war, which then began a new cycle of conflict avoidance enshrined by the US role in the UN, NATO, and a very sedate and conventional media environment. As peace and stability took hold, a new progressive movement rose- the hippies, the anti-war, civil rights, and feminist movements. Did these foster peace and togetherness? Not exactly. One can sense that the culture was eager for truth, for not sugar-coating things anymore, for honesty and, indeed, for conflict. Humor shows became more cutting, movies more biting, tinged with horror and apocalypse. And here we are, in a country where the two parties can't stand each other and are headed towards something that smells distinctly martial.

All this conflict has smothered discussions of actual policy, which anyway has gone to the dogs in the new administration. For example, a high level of federal borrowing is more defensible if it builds US productive capacity, through investments in future-oriented technology and education. But the current adminstration is spending billions to cancel renewable energy contracts that had already been entered into. This is money not just down the drain, but subtracted from future productive capacity. 

Is Dalio sanguine about our prospects? Not particularly. But nor does he view them as terribly dire. In the first place, the gulf between sovereign, fiat-issuing countries and others comes out starkly in his many graphs and analyses. The latter get into much more difficult straits when they borrow too much of someone else's money. Secondly, rather modest adjustments now, to federal spending, to taxation, and to interest rate policy, can change the trajectory we are on, from spiraling to sustainable. I would focus particularly on the tax side, which has so egregiously been attacked by the current administration, in its contempt for making the rich pay anything. Dalio mentions, however, that the most consequential lever is that of interest rates, which, as Japan shows, can, if low enough, make eye-watering debts quite easy to carry. But given a system where we want to retain the interest rate as a lever of macro-economic policy, (and capitalist motivation), it would be best to approach rates not by fiat, as Japan has done, but by good policy on the other fronts, which will naturally lead to lower interest rates, if properly handled. 

• Are we headed into the China century?
• A pathetic spectacle of weakness and decline.

Peak Carbon?

Are we at peak oil, perhaps even peak burning? Thanks to Donald Trump, renewables are looking better than ever.

It turns out that using the oil weapon opens people's eyes to the alternatives. The Saudis have recognized for a long time that stability in oil pricing and supply was the way to keep the world addicted. But in the current wars, Russia has used the natural gas weapon, and Iran has used the oil weapon. Now the addicts realize what a thin needle it is that brings them the fossil fix. After two months of closure on the Strait of Hormuz, the economic responses around the world have been surprisingly muted. While Paul Krugman rang the alarm of $200/barrel oil, prices have stabilized around $110 or so. It turns out that demand is more elastic than anticipated, at least it has been while supplies are still in transit. However, as physical shortages begin to hit, prices may rise again.

As a matter of strategy, the US administration is clearly flailing, unwilling to recognize a loss, and callous about the worldwide harms being imposed by its fruitless dithering. Is a blockade of Iran going to break its government? That is highly unlikely. They have been through much worse, such as during their war with Iraq. Trump's attacks and insults have rallied the population, entirely contrary to the administration's intention, but entirely foreseeably. Iran's sensitivity to economic pain is much lower than ours. And, as the administration was already doing on an ongoing basis prior to its war, it continues to make enemies of the US around the world, more so with each passing day that shipping in the Persian Gulf is stalled.

Paul Krugman bemoaned the "demand destruction" that continued shortages and high prices would cause, which may lead to economic slowdowns, perhaps recession. However I welcome it. It represents conservation of this precious resource, and, one might say, more realistic pricing that brings in, at least to a small degree, the widespread harms of fossil fuels. When one adds volatility and geostrategic dependencies, on top of the gross environmental harms, and what is now an economic disadvantage of fossil fuels when compared with renewable energy, the solution is clear, if not easy. The transition to renewable energy is going to accelerate.

Trend of world-wide carbon emissions.

Currently, the world is at the cusp of still-rising carbon emissions. This means that, even after all the climate conferences, and the reports, the activism, and the technological development, humanity as a whole is still burning more fossil carbon every year than the year before, and thus increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ever faster, and driving the climate crisis to ever-accelerating harms and disasters. Is it possible that this strategic-economic crisis, brought on by the blundering of a demented US administration- one that has done all in its power to deny climate change and scuttle the energy transition- will finally turn the tide? Could we be at peak carbon? And if so, will the downslope of emissions be faster than the upslope, in this slow-motion catastrophe? One can see that the US is already past peak carbon, and the state of California stands at 75% of the peak carbon emissions, which happened back in 2004. The upslope has been driven by highly uneven, and gradual, technological development and increased population. The downslope will be driven by the much more globally integrated rise of renewable technologies, so it has a chance of happening at a faster pace, despite the challenges of transitioning difficult economic sectors like trucking and aviation.

With the economic tailwinds of cheaper energy storage technologies, coupled with other advances in geothermal, solar, and wind power collection, the transition is inevitable. But public policy can make it faster or slower. The Biden administration worked towards the future, while the current administration works against it. Outside the US, China is enabling both its own transition and those of all other countries by leading extremely efficient solar and storage manufacturing. Those economics are going to eliminate new coal plant construction, and eventually use of all fossil fuels. China now sells more EV than fossil-based automobiles. While it has a prodigious fleet of coal-burning power plants, and is still building new ones, the overall level of coal power generation has leveled off, as it closes plants close to reduce pollution in sensitive urban areas.

While ironies abound, the important part of the story is that the biosphere is baking and needs help as fast as possible. If that help comes through the narcissism of small-minded tyrants, so be it. 

• Caesar, King, tomato, tomahto.
• Coding is toast.
• Renewable energy has beaten methane in the US electricity generation.
• Krugman chimes in.

The Death of Boredom and the Future of Politics

Can politics work without a civic sphere?

How can we have a loneliness epidemic when we are connected like never before? It is a problem that perplexed Robert Putnam in "Bowling Alone". He put it mostly down to TV, internet, and the growth of passive and isolated forms of entertainment generally. When you read between the lines of history of any time before about one hundred years ago, you realize that people were, before the modern age, bored out of their minds. Who plays cards? Who puts on operas, or runs numbers, or goes bowling? Who needs an Easter pageant, or a three-to-four-hour baseball game? Only people with nothing better to do. If you wanted music, you had to make it. If you wanted conversation, you had to share it. Human society was built on simple quid pro quos- social rewards and resolution of boredom and isolation for personal participation.

But that deal has broken down dramatically in the modern age. We have a thousand channels, talk radio, recorded music. With AI, we are getting personal chatbots and bespoke romantasy partners. Sports have slid tectonically from participation to spectation. Boredom is a thing of the past, though if you do want to play cards, plenty of computers are willing to take a hand.

An interesting article in the New Republic knit this together very nicely with the problems we are having in politics. In the US, political engagement is increasingly shallow, leaving the field to extremists who can still call up foot soldiers to storm the ramparts. What happened to the Occupy movement? For all its inherent logic and flash organization, it fizzled into nothing because it gave little thought to its own institutionalization (indeed, was allergic to organization) and durable engagement, all the while railing against the overwhelming organization and deep pockets of the entrenched systems of capitalism. The Left is notoriously inable to herd itself into an effective, organized force. While capitalism is naturally organized and institutionalized by virtue of naked self-interest and corporate structures, civic groups grow out of far more disparate, and evanescent, motivations. Unions have been an attempt to organize around a countervailing, while still self-interested logic, which inherently limits their reach and coherence. The true civic sphere, however, is threadbare.

Political parties have similarly shallow roots. In California, the governor's race has 61 candidates, and little control by the party establishment, particularly by the Democratic establishment that supposedly runs the state. Like other non-profits, parties ask little of their adherents, other than possibly a monetary contribution, and wouldn't dream of holding truly social events that could deepen civic engagement. Expectations of civic engagement have hit rock bottom, mostly because people have tuned out across the civic spectrum. The testimonial dinner is a relic. The ice cream social is unheard of. Service organizations like Rotary and Elks are fossils, unions are on life support. Events and organizations that previously kept people entertained and involved in a civic way are scarce. These traditions both trained people for common action, and led to the kind of networking and contact that fed political consciousness and activity. They also helped to vet people directly for office holding (see the recent Swalwell case). 

Bernie Sanders can draw a crowd, but do those crowds go out, organize, and persist?

Republicans have found a partial solution to these problems by ginning up endless outrage through their propaganda outlets, predominantly talk radio and hate TV. While motivating, the results have, naturally, been intellectually disastrous and have us teetering on the edge of fascism. Democrats, as the more level-headed and progressive temperament, have not used the same tools effectively, and shouldn't. What should they do? Well, the field for civic engagement is pretty wide open. For example, one could imagine a tax on political advertisements, say 10%, which is collected by the government / FEC, and sent to counties or municipalities for civic engagement purposes, either election-related or not. This would create a fund for local talks, events, civic education, and the like that would, in theory, complement the advertising that is increasingly vacuous and meretricious. 

Another approach is direct action, where Democrats could use some of their energy and resources to build civic engagement, outside of straight campaigns. Just as the Republicans have harnessed ancillary issues like abortion and tax cuts that energized specific segments of their base, Democrats have to be a bit more canny about asking for more engagement and offering more involvement. Climate change is a great example, where a wide spectrum of individual action (trash pickups, solar panel installation, water quality testing) could be integrated into civic engagement that builds party alignment and ultimately, institutional strength. All great religions know that the more you ask, the more you get, and the deeper the commitment of followers. Additionally, the left already has a bewildering array of non-profits, whose efforts would ideally be more closely integrated with the Democratic umbrella to generate more organizational power- synergy or leverage, in business-speak.

On the other hand, how could civic disengagement be accommodated rather than fought? One approach might be to enhance the vetting and exposure of candidates by having nominating conventions at the local level. Even though California has an open primary, and thus does not grant each party automatic spots on each ticket, the parties should not shy away from selecting, testing, and promoting candidates. This should not be a central commitee operation hidden in the dark, the province of interested apparatchiks, but open forums that promote philosophies as well as people.

We are in a tough position, trying to keep politics alive in a world where its underpinnings- of civic engagement, communal organization and leadership, and simple conviviality- are fading in a deluge of individualized enjoyments. Political parties are at the forefront of this change, and need to think very deeply about how to keep themselves relevant and effective.

• Tax reform
• Is power based on insults?
• Everybody has deterrence these days.
• Who is being served here?
• Patient, heal thyself.
• Norway is going electric.

Dreaming Our Way Out of Capitalism

Review of "Understanding Capitalism", by Richard Wolff.

When I picked up this book, I thought it was going to be a sober analysis of capitalism, by a real economist. But what I was met with was something quite different- a Marxist screed with the most flaccid intellectual grounding, disingenuous and dishonest by turns. Wolff apparently has been paid to teach economics at liberal institutions, but this book is evidence that they have little idea what they are buying. 

Not that I am unsympathetic. Capitalism is a highly problematic system. But it hardly helps to make statements like: "Given China's huge influence on poverty measures, one could claim that reduced global poverty in recent decades results from an economic system that insists that it is not capitalist, but socialist." Note the squirrely way this is phrased, not defining the economic system, but noting only the wholly outdated self-description. China is one of the most capitalist countries in the world right now, having harnessed naked capitalism (and a lot of stolen IP) to raise its industries and living standard dramatically. 

Or how about this, in a discussion of why the idea that capitalism is highly innovative is a myth: "Yet the USSR, for example, exhibited much small business formation on its collective farms, in its service sector, and in its black markets, all replete with competition and innovations." If black markets are evidence of the innovative capacity of socialist economies, then the US is surely headed for Marxism forthwith.

It is almost funny how poorly this book is argued, and how formulaic its critiques and nostrums. But it provides a jumping-off point for a discussion that is a bit more grounded. Wolff casually describes capitalism as just another system, like feudalism and mercantilism, having its day and sure to pass on to some other, better system. He ends up promoting worker-owned cooperatives that are democratically run, where every action is voted on. Needless to say, such ideas have not, and will not, go anywhere. They are simply not practical. For we are, at base, dealing with human nature and the imperatives of existence. 

The state of nature (in larger societies) is organized crime- the strong rule the weak, and call themselves noble. Workers are managed by aristocrats (and priests), who make a fetish of not doing any work themselves. The feudal system was an attempt to give some order to this system of relations, by raising the serfs from mere slavery, and mandating some notional reciprocal duties. Capitalism, as even Marx appreciated, was an enormous advance over feudalism, putting the workers and businesses both on firmer legal footing, with a (labor) market intermediating between them. Labor markets have all sorts of problems and biases, but with advances in regulation and labor agitation, it has become for most people a relatively civilized way to exchange labor for money. 

Is capitalism still unfair? Yes, grossly so. But let's look two of its most basic injustices. First is that it takes money to make money. If one is born rich, one can be a capitalist and not work a day on one's life. Capitalism puts a high value on using that money to take risks and create businesses. But most rich people are content to buy bonds and sit on their money. What kind of capitalism is that? On the other hand, there is a large industry of venture capital that exists to lure money from the pockets of dentists and other rich people, promising high returns from risky ventures. This is the kind of essential engine that classical capitalism envisions- a tireless hunt for new business opportunities and technologies that will, in the end, make the economy more efficient and raise the standard of living. 

Wolff offers a telling example of capricious unfairness in management, where a business brings in a machine that replaces half of its workers, who are fired. He decries the loss of jobs, and suggests that the machine be used instead to fund continuing pay for all the workers. But just in the section before, he had decried the much-vaunted efficiency of capitalism as a myth. It does not sound like a myth here, where more work is done by fewer workers, and those fired workers are then freed to go off into other (presumably) productive forms of work.

Maybe China does a better job using state capitalism to deploy large amounts of capital. Maybe the USSR did a reasonable job, for a couple of decades, in deploying capital to build its heavy industry and arm for World War 2. And maybe free capital markets tend to vacillate between over-enthusiasm and credit contraction. But over the long term, it is clear that relatively free capital markets (with lots of government regulation!) do a good job of finding innovative business prospects and driving efficiency increases over the whole economy. So ... we should definitely think about taxing wealth, and finding ways to make the rich use their money in socially beneficial ways. But the idea that voters, or the state, can do a better job of general capital deployment is not realistic.

A second gross unfairness is management and surplus production. Why are workers still treated like slaves, told what to do, and then underpaid? Sadly, the fact is that management is a difficult job too. We had a worker-run bakery down the street in our city, and it only lasted a few years, because of the inherent problems of not having someone in charge of a business organization. The leading methods of worker-owned corporation now are oriented to giving workers ownership (like the Publix supermarket chain), but not management roles. Workers are on the board, but they do not run the day-to-day operations, because there simply has got to be decisiveness, accountability, and responsibility up the chain of a productive organization. Whether these roles have to be paid a lot more is open to question. But they do have to exist. Even in socialism, political commissars were part of management.

It is worth noting here that while management and unemployment are the disciplining factors for workers, competition is the disciplining mechanism for capitalists (in addition to government regulation). Without competition across the gamut, for labor, for markets, and for inputs, capitalists can abuse their workers and their customers. That is why a renewed focus on antitrust enforcement is an essential part of any progressive program of state oversight over the capitalist system.

As the example of black markets shows, market capitalism is a natural way of organizing human activities and satisfying our desires. But capitalism has plenty of problems. Capital and credit markets can not be left to their own devices. Glaring market failures, like in medicine, show that whole sectors of the economy have no business being capitalist businesses. Capitalism is an engine for turning "externalities", like minerals, air, and creativity, into money, heedless of destructive effects. So capitalism needs heavy regulation and continual reform to tame it into something that provides us with a civilized life. But at its core, it merely expresses our desires, needs, and ambitions, and that core engine needs to be preserved as well.

• When your Tesla crashes, it's your fault.
• Cheap e-vehicles are all the rage.. scooters, bikes, trikes.

Just Whose Foreign Policy Is This?

Our foreign policy appears to be led by people whom Trump gets weak in the knees for. Does that serve US or world interests?

US foreign policy serves not only US interests. We share an interest in the peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable future of the whole world, and as the leading nation, have an outsize role in its development. That is why Barack Obama got a Nobel peace prize, and why Donald Trump will not. As with most bullies, Trump puts on a show of strength and enjoys humiliating the weak. But there is also a curious weakness. He also loves humiliating himself at the feet of bigger and tougher bullies, for reasons that I frankly do not understand. 

The current war on Iran is not really in the US interest. Iran had already been boxed in by last year's attacks, which had supposedly obliterated any nuclear ambition. It is Israel that, in the person of Bibi Netanyahu, has been beating the drum about attacking Iran for several decades. It is Netanyahu who has been whispering in Trump's ear about how easy all this would be, including how the Iranian government would crumple under sustained assault. But I am sure our own intelligence knew better- that the Islamic state of Iran is a tough customer, having lived through the original takeover and US hostage crisis, then the brutal war with Iraq. It has legions of loyal IRGC and Basij all over the country. 

Unlike Netanyahu's view of things focused on its tactical defense, the US interest is in the long-term positive evolution of Iran, not in its tactical weakening. The bombing campaign is not only not going to break the government, but will make it stronger vs its people internally. The two likely paths it will lead to are, (at best) a civil war breaking out among the current actors in power, if they are not happy with the new supreme leader and the defense the Islamic leadership takes in this war. Or second, and more likely, the continued involution and isolation of the Iranian government, heading towards a North Korean model in a culture of suffering and perpetual resistance. And also, incidentally, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb at any cost. The idea that the powerless masses will somehow march their way into power during a bombing campaign is ridiculous.

So it is obvious that Trump was sweet-talked into this war, with no request from congress, no clamor from the American people, and no precipitating threat abroad, by none other than Netanyahu. And he was not smart enough to realize that he would not have a way out that serves US interests. Now oil prices are up, stocks are down, and those economic interests who really have the president's ear are going to be urging surrender after what, strategically speaking, has been a futile and immiserating affair. 

Even worse has been our policy towards Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that Trump loves to talk with Vladimir Putin, and Putin knows how to manipulate Trump. Just this week, the US dropped sanctions on Russian oil, in a bid to clean up its catastrophe in the Persian Gulf. Not seize Russian oil and sell it into world markets to benefit Ukraine, not block shipments of Russia's shadow fleet, but outright dropping sanctions. It is unbelievable, in any world where US interests drive US policy.

The Ukraine fight would have benefited from more decisiveness from the start, obviously. At least the Biden administration was rhetorically consistent, on the side of Ukraine, its position in Europe, and supporting our European allies. Our strategic interest is firstly in keeping Europe free of military conflict (as we keep the North American region). And secondly in containing Russia, in its new guise of anti-NATO imperialist revanchist power. Now all these aims are subordinated to getting a bad real-estate deal in Eastern Ukraine, and giving Russia what it wants. 

All through the second Trump administration, the US has been following Russian desires, reducing our support for Ukraine to nothing, berating Volodimir Zelensky in person, and bad-mouthing our European allies and alliance structures. How is all this in the US interest, when our core power stems from leadership of a community of like-minded and like-valued allies that have particularly and especially foresworn making Europe a battlefield? It is making the US weaker by the day. All due to the mental weakness of Donald Trump.

• Or perhaps other influences were at work.

Bad Faith

"Skepticism" about vaccines, or about evolution... isn't skepticism at all.

This was going to be a post about the Ediacaran epoch, which is a fascinating time, spanning the hundred million years before the Cambrian, when animals began to appear in the fossil record. First tentatively, as sessile sheets of tissue, then later as beautiful motile segmented discs (below), and later still as something a bit more aggressively shaped. All this is yet another (as though more were needed) justification of the overall scheme of evolution developed by Charles Darwin, who knew about what in his time was already a distinct and puzzling lack of animal fossils below the Cambrian strata. If one seeks data in good faith, and while pursuing a well-reasoned hypothesis, one is bound to find something interesting! Incidentally, David Attenborough and the BBC gave an excellent treatment of this era.

The beautiful, and slightly motile, Dickinsonia, from the mid-Ediacaran, about 560 million years ago.

Yet there are some who don't see things that way. Over at the Discovery institute, they don't discover anything, but they do write blogs taking potshots at science. No fossil is enough, no explanation is acceptable. There is always a question left to answer, a gap that has not been filled, wherein God can be squeezed. It is the essence of bad faith, arguing not from reason and evidence, but from a pre-existing truth that must be defended at all costs, particularly against an inveterate enemy which ignores them so assiduously. An enemy who publishes, and publishes, and for whom the God hypothesis is not even worth mentioning in the quest to explain how things happen. Who regards them and their arguments as beneath contempt.

Well, needless to say, they were all in for Trump. If one likes to argue in bad faith, why not vote for the master? The new administration doesn't seem to have much stomach for the Darwinian evolution culture war of decades past (though there are three years to go.. who knows!?). But they have been doing their best to destroy science in the US and put China in the lead for good. Whether it is climate science, medical science, space science, it is all being gutted. Diplomats and other experts? Who needs them? We have discarded our allies, and our best friends are now Victor Orban, Vladimir Putin, Muhammad bin Salman, and Bibi Netanyahu. Fairness and legality at the Justice Department? Who needs that? The theme is kicking intelligent, moral people in the teeth, to bring in a callous, greedy and corrupt new dispensation for the US. One of the more alarming and consequential elements of this campaign has been against vaccines. All the real scientists were thrown off the advisory panels, replaced with vaccine "skeptics". 

We in the US have a long history with vaccines. The revolutionary war featured solicitations for soldiers already vaccinated against (or recovered from) smallpox, the most frightening scourge of the army's camps. Later on, Washington approved mass vaccination for the army. Vaccination in that day (variolation) was no easy matter. It involved introducing someone else's smallpox into an opened vein, and taking all the risks of infection. It was lethal 1-2% of the time, but those were better odds than the 25% death rate from normally contracted small pox. These people knew how to assess risks, and took the vaccination risk to forestall the greater risk. Then there was the polio vaccine, in the 1950's, that wiped out another scourge. One would think that getting a vaccine made in record time that promptly resolved the Covid pandemic and saved millions of lives would have been greeted with a bit more appreciation. But no, it was all too easy to take that science for granted, and adopt bad faith arguments against that and other vaccines.

Today's vaccines still carry risk, though minuscule compared to variolation. The odds are incredibly good. It takes no brains at all to judge vaccines worthwhile. But we have "skeptics". Why do we have them? For the same reason that we have Donald Trump, or have believers in religion. Humans are gullible and seek easy truths over hard ones. It is easy to feel squeamish about getting an injection. It is easy to believe that a con man with enormous self-confidence and wealth has some degree of competence. And it is easy to believe that we as humans are special with some special someone running the universe who cares about our fate. Those are the easy truths, archetypally ingrained, apparently. It takes higher intellectual standards and discipline to look at reality and accept that many easy truths are not true at all. 

For all their religious faith, (and indeed because of it), the religious people who pervade the current administration, Supreme Court, and culture war strongholds routinely argue in bad faith. They are pre-selected for their ability to believe stupid and wrong things. They are not sincere in looking for evidence, or making logical arguments. They put forth laughable legal arguments. They hardly even bother to explain why the "endangerment finding" on CO2 is wrong on the merits. They care about loyalty ahead of competence. And do not even understand what might be systematically wrong about raging corruption. When faith (in their charismatic leader, or their warped religious convictions) comes first, intellect takes a back seat. That is the fundamental rule of this new dispensation in the US, and it will be damaging us for a very long time.

• Clowns in high places.
• History repeats, the second time as farce.
• An AI winter?
• To touch, or not to touch, in curling.
• The rich just keep getting richer.
• For three justices, the law has no meaning whatsoever.

The Federal Reserve is an Executive Agency

On the logic of the unitary executive, and the Supreme Court.

As our system of Federal institutions melts down, one actor deserves particular blame and disgrace. That is the Supreme Court. The extreme right majority have time and again tossed consistency, precedent, and logic to the winds in order to legislate their extreme view of executive power, which unfortuitously coincides with that of the current president. They have funneled dark money into the political system, equated money with speach, refused to address the glaring problems of gerrymandering, granted the president blanket immunity, and allowed the president to eviscerate civil service protections and independent agency structures specifically constructed by the legislature. And they have often used the shadow docket to do this dirty work, not even deigning to offer explanations at all, pursuasive or not.

Now they are tying themselves into pretzels to carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve, another independent agency that the president wants under his thumb. But it isn't so easy. The Federal Reserve clearly carries out executive functions, regulating banks, and setting interest rates, mostly by cooperating with the Treasury Department in the management of government debt. Is the Fed a court? Obviously not, as their criteria for action are economic conditions, guided by a mere two parameters- the dual mandate. They flexibly respond to conditions on the ground, in order to manage the US economy and currency. That sounds like an executive function to me. Is the Fed a legislature? They do not seem to enact laws, other than under their regulatory guise. But there are countless other agencies that promulgate rules. If that were the mark of a legislative institution, the court would have had to have made a wrong turn somewhere.

No, the Fed is just as executive as any other agency, and the court can not, by special pleading, argue otherwise. Therefore, either the Fed comes under the president's malign influence, or all the other agencies that Congress in its wisdom provided with measures of independence should have those structures respected as well. 

The significance of what the court is doing here is enormous. First, in their haste to give the president anything he wants and to execute a desire, apparently burning in the breast of John Roberts since the Nixon administration, to construct an imperial presidency, the court has repeatedly authorized the counter-legislative actions of the president to eviscerate agencies such as the labor relations board, the consumer financial protection agency, FTC, AID, and many others. This constitutes the reversal of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which laid the groundwork of regulatory agency structures. Second, the court is now casting about for rationales to not do the same to the Federal Reserve, out of an understandable practical desire to not have the country and its economy completely melt down. 

Both threads of action lack basis, and essentially constitute exactly what the court has heretofore so bitterly complained about- legislating from the bench. But of course, when Republicans do it, it is OK. The obvious solution is for the Supreme Court to climb down from its unitary executive horse, reverse its own shadow decisions, and accept that regulatory agencies can be structured by Congress with measures of independence to preserve the public interest precisely, as now, in the face of hostile and intemperate executives. 

Across the constitutional landscape, the problem is not that the executive is too weak, it is that Congress has ceded too much of its power to the executive. Just last week, when faced with Democratic demands that homeland security be brought to heel as a civilized agency, Republican Senators floated the idea of beseeching the President for a new executive order or two. It is incredible. Through the New Deal, World War 2, and the Cold War, the executive branch grew enormously, almost beyond the capacity of Congress to conceive of, let alone oversee. Yet in the Constitution, article 1 is by far the longest, most detailed, and most extensive. Congress has the ability "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States", etc. etc. and on and on. Congress makes the rules and provides the structures within which the executive works. Indeed, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution." It sure seems that Congress is able, as envisioned throughout article 1, to structure executive agencies as it sees fit. 

The constitutional section on the executive branch is, in comparison, exceedingly brief, only requiring reports to congress, command of the armed forces, and the making of treaties, with the consent of Congress. He or she also gets the veto power and makes a variety of appointments, to the courts and the executive branch. That is pretty much it. All else is left to interpretation and conjecture. While the President has wide appointment powers, it is not given the he or she has equally wide dismissal powers. That would be something well within the lawmaking capacity of Congress to regulate. It is apparent from this text that Congress makes all the rules and oversees the operation of the government as a whole, in the broadest terms. Congress is the body that makes the best decisions, that are most accountable to the people, in a deliberative and careful way. Thus the most important decisions are reserved to it. It is also notable that Congress has the power to impeach officers of each of the other branches, a power none of them have over Congress. It is only the people, and Congress itself, which can remove or discipline its own members.

The need for an executive is a practical matter, for someone who is present all the time (does not adjourn for long periods), and who, by his or her nature as a single person rather than a committee, can make hasty decisions in those areas that require it. And not every area of administration, needless to say, requires such an approach. Just because the Presidency is patterned on the relations between Britain's parliament and its king (which had itself developed by that point, given the civil war, beheadings, etc. to a complex system of power sharing) does not mean that the President has infinite latitude. Far from. 

It is thus apparent from this structure and from the history from the earliest times that Congress can make institutional structures of many kinds, in its quest to do whatever is necessary and proper. The first Bank of the United States is an example of one such structure, totally divorced from the President (and perhaps overly independent, as it later turned out). Not every executive function needs the immediate attention of the President, or benefits from his or her political meddling. Sometimes the structures necessary and proper for carrying laws into execution make use of experts, or bipartisan appointees, or public-private partnerships, or tenured appointees. Right now, the Justice Department stands out as an area that particularly needs better statutory protection from the whims of the executive. The Consitution itself provides for modes of shared appointment, as when Senate approval is needed for high executive officials, or long tenure, such as for Supreme Court justices. Such methods of reining in the dangerous and highly political powers of the presidency are clearly consistent with the text, history, and spirit of the Constitution. If those methods are not working, or one does not like them, change the laws, do not unlegislate them from the bench.

• NATO is falling apart.
• Krugman has some harsh words on Warsh.
• Insults and cruelty will continue until you like me.
• Science and football helmets.

Jonathan Singer and the Cranky Book

An eminent scientist at the end of his career writes out his thoughts and preoccupations.

Jonathan Singer was a famous scientist at my graduate school. I did not interact with him, but he played a role in attracting me to the program, as I was interested in biological membranes at the time. Singer himself studied with Linus Pauling, and they were the first to identify a human mutation in a specific gene as a cause for a specific disease- sickle cell disease. After further notable work in electron microscopy, he reached a career triumph by developing, in 1972, the fluid mosaic model of biological membranes. This revolutionized and clarified the field, showing that cells are bounded by something incredibly simple- a bilayer of phospholipids that naturally order themselves into a remarkably stable sheet, (a bubble, one might say), all organized by their charged headgroups and hydrophobic fatty tails. This model also showed that proteins would be swimming around freely in this membrane, and could be integrated in various ways, ether lightly attached on one side, or spanning it completely, thereby enabling complex channel and transporter functions. The model implied the typical length of a protein alpha helix that, by virtue of its hydrophobic side chains, would naturally be able to do this spanning function- a prediction that was spot-on. He could have easily won a Nobel for this work.

I was intrigued when I learned recently that Singer had written a book near the end of his career. It is just the kind of thing that a retired professor loves to do in the sunset of his career, sharing the wisdom and staving off the darkness by taking a stab at the book biz. And Singer's is a classic of the form- highly personal, a bit stilted, and ultimately meandering. I will review some of its high points, and then take a stab of my own at knitting together some of the interesting themes he grapples with.

For at base, Singer turns out to be a spiritual compadre of this blog. He claims to be a rationalist, in a world where, as he has it, no more than 9% of people are rational. Definition? It is the poll question of whether one believes that god created man, rather than the other way around. Singer recognizes that the world around him is crazy, and that the communities he has been a part of have been precious oases amid the general indifference and grasping of the world. But changing it? He is rather fatalistic about that, recognizing that reason is up against overwhelming forces.

His specific themes cover a great deal of biology, and then some more mystical reflections on balance and diversity in biology, and later, in capitalism and politics. He points out that the nature/nurture debate has been settled by twin studies. Nature, which is to say, genetics, is the dominant influence on human characteristics, including a wide variety of psychological traits, including intelligence. Environment and nurture is critical for reaching one's highest potential, and for using it in socially constructive ways, but the limits of that potential are largely set by one's genes. Singer does not, however, draw the inevitable conclusion from these observations, which is that some kind of long-term eugenic approach would be beneficial to our collective future, assuming machines do not replace us forthwith. Biologists know that very small selective coefficients can have big effects, so nothing drastic is needed. But what criteria to use- that is the sticky part. Just as success in the capitalist system hardly signals high moral or personal qualities, nor does incarceration by the justice system always show low ones. It is virtually an insoluble problem, so we muddle along, destined probably for continued cycles of Spenglerian civilizational collapse.

Turning to social affairs, Singer settles on "structural chaos" as his description of how the scientific enterprise works, and how capitalism at large works. With a great deal of waste, and misdirected effort, it nevertheless ends up providing good results- better than those that top-down direction can provide. He seems a sigh a little that "scientific" methods of social organization, such as those in Soviet Russia, were so ineffective, and that the best we can do is to muddle along with the spontaneous entrepreneurship and occasional flashes of innovation that push the process along. Not to mention the "monstrous vulgarity" of advertising, etc. Likewise, democracy is a mess, with most people totally incapable of making the reasoned decisions needed to maintain it. Again, the chaos of democracy is sadly the best we can do, and the duty of rational people, in Singer's view, is to keep alive the flame of intellectual freedom while outside pressures constantly threaten.

Art, and science.

What can we do with this? I think that the unifying thread that Singer was groping for was competition. One can frame competition as a universal principle that shapes the physical, biological, and social worlds. Put two children on a teeter-totter, and you can see how physical forces (e.g. gravitation) compete all the time, subtly producing equilibria that characterize the universe. Chemical equilibria are likewise a product of constant competition, even including the perpetual jostling of phospholipids to find their lowest energy configuration amidst the biological membrane bilayer, which has the side-effect of creating such a stable, yet highly flexible, structure. With Darwin, competition reaches its apotheosis- the endless proliferation, diversification, and selection of organisms. Singer marvels at the fragility of individual life, at the same time that life writ large is so incredibly durable and prolific. Well, the mechanism behind that is competition. And naturally, economics of any free kind, including capitalism and grant-making in science, are based on competition as well- the natural principle that selects which products are useful, which employees are productive, and which technologies are helpful. Waste is part of the process, as diversity amidst excess production is the essential ingredient for subsequent selection. 

And yet.. something is missing. The earth's biosphere would still be a mere bacterial soup if competition were the only principle at work. Bacteria (and their viruses) are the most streamlined competition machines- battlebots of the living world. It took cooperation between a bacterial cell and an archaeal cell to make a revolutionary new entity- the eukaryotic cell. It then took some more cooperation for eukaryotic cells to band together into bodies, making plants and animals. And among animals, cooperation in modest amounts provides for reproduction, family structure, flock structures, and even complex insect societies. It is with humans that cooperation and competition reach their most complex heights, for we are able to regulate ourselves, rationally. We make rules. 

Without rules, human society is anarchic mayhem- a trumpian, dystopian and corrupt nightmare. With them, it (ideally) balances competition with cooperation to harness the benefits of each. Our devotion to sports can be seen as a form of rule worship, and explicit management of the competitive landscape. Can there be too many rules? Absolutely, there are dangers on both sides. Take China as an example. In the last half-century, it revamped its system of rules to lower the instability of political competition, harness the power of economic competition, and completely transform its society. 

The most characteristic and powerful human institution may be the legislature, which is our ongoing effort to make rational rules regulating how the incredibly powerful motive force of competition shapes our lives. Our rules, in the US, were authored, at the outset, by the founders, who were- drumroll please- rationalists. To read the Federalist Papers is to see exquisite reasoning drawing on wide historical precedent, and particularly on the inspirations of the rationalist enlightenment, to formulate a new set of rules mediating between cooperation and competition. Not only were they more fair than the old rules, but they were designed for perpetual improvement and adjustment. The founding was, at base, a rationlist moment, when characters like Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson- deists at best and rationalists through and through, led the new country into a hopeful, constitutional future. At the current moment, two hundred and fifty years on, as our institutions are being wantonly destroyed and anything resembling reason, civility, and truth is under particularly vengeful attack, we should appreciate and own that heritage, which informs a true patriotism against the forces of darkness.

• Bill Mitchell on AI.
• How this drives politics.
• And can thought survive against an onslaught of slop?
• Paul Krugman on abasement.
• Is evil lack of religion, or too much religion?