Eccentricity, Obliquity, Precession, and Glaciation

The glacial cycles of the last few million years were highly determined by earth's orbital mechanics.

Naturalism as a philosophy came into its own when Newton explained the heavens as a machine, not a pantheon. It was stunning to realize that age-old mysteries were thoroughly explicable and that, if we kept at it with a bit of diligence and intellectual openness, we could attain ever-widening vistas of understanding, which now reach to the farthest reaches of the universe. 

In our current day, the mechanics of Earth's climate have become another example of this expansion of understanding, and, sadly, another example of resistance to naturalism, to scientific understanding, and ultimately to the stewardship of our environment. It has dawned on the scientific community (and anyone else willing to look) over the last few decades that our industrial production of CO2 is heating the climate, and that it needs to stop if the biosphere is to be saved from an ever-more degrading crisis. But countervailing excuses and interests abound, and we are now ruled by an adminstration in the US whose values run toward lies and greed, and which naturally can not abide moral responsibility.

The Cenozoic, our present age after the demise of the dinosaurs, has been characterized by falling levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has led to a progression from very warm climates 50 mya (million years ago) to ice ages beginning roughly 3 mya. The reasons for this are not completely clear. There has been a marked lack of vocanism, which is one of main ways CO2 gets back into the atmosphere. This contrasts strongly with ages of extreme volcanism like the Permian-Triassic boundary and extinction events, about 250 mya. It makes one think that the earth may be storing up a mega-volcanic event for the future. Yeet plate tectonics has kept plugging along, and has sent continents to the poles, where they previously hung out in more equatorial locations. That makes ice ages possible, giving glaciers something to glaciate, rather than letting ocean circulation keep the poles temperate. Additionally, the uplift of the Himalayas has dramatically increased rock exposure and weathering, which is the main driver of CO2 burial, by carbonate formation. And on top of all that has been the continued evolution of plant life, particularly the grasses, which have extra mechanisms to extract CO2 out of the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere has been falling through most of the Cenozoic.

All this has led to the very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which have been stable at about 300 ppm over the last million years, very gradually declining prior to that time. Now we are pushing 420 ppm and beyond, which the biosphere has not seen for ten million years or more, and doing so at speeds that no amount of evolution can accommodate. The problem is clear enough, once the facts are laid out.

But what about those glaciations, which have been such a dramatic and influential feature of Earth's climate over the last few million years? They have followed a curious periodicity, advancing and retreating repeatedly over this time. Does that have anything to do with CO2? It turns out that it does not, and we have to turn our eyes to the heavens again for an explanation. It was Milankovitch, a century ago, who first solidified the theory that the changing orbital parameters of Earth, and particularly the intensity of the sun in the Northern hemisphere, where most of the land surface of Earth lies, that causes this repetitive climatic behavior.  

Cycles of orbital parameters and glaciation, over a million years.

It was in 1976 that a more refined analysis put a mathematical model and better data behind the Milankovitch cycles, showing that one major element of our orbit around the sun- the variation of eccentricity- had the greatest overall effect on the 100,000 year periodicity of recent glacial cycles. Eccentricity is how skewed our orbit is from round-ness, which varies slightly over time, due to interactions with other planets. Secondly, the position of the Earth's tilt at various points of this eliptical orbit, whether closer to the sun in northern summer, or father away, has critical effects on net solar input and on glaciation. The combined measure is called the precessional index, expressing the earth-sun distance in June. The eccentricity itself has a period of about 93,000 years, and the precessional index has a periodicity of 21,000 years. As glacial cycles over the last 800,000 years have had a strong 100,000 year periodicity, it is clearly the eccentricity alone that has the strongest single effect.

Lastly, there is also the tilt of the Earth, called obliquity, which varies slightly with a 40,000 year cycle. A recent paper made a major claim that they had finally solved the whole glaciation cycle in more detail than previously, by integrating all these cycles into a master algorithm for when glaciations start/end. They were curious about exactly what drives the deglaciation phase, within the large eccentricity-driven energetic cycle. The rule they came up with, again using better data and more complicated algorithms, is that it reaches its maximum rate when, after a minimum of eccentricity, the precession parameter (the purple line, below) has reached a peak, and the obliquity parameter (the green line, below) is rising. That is, when the Earth's degree of tilt and closeness to the sun in Norther summer are mutually reinforcing. There are also lags built into this, since it takes one or two thousand years for these orbital effects to build heat up in the climate system, a bit like spring happening annually well after the equinox.

"We find that the set of precession peaks (minima) responsible for terminations since 0.9 million years ago is a subset of those peaks that begin (i.e., the precession parameter starts decreasing) while obliquity is increasing. Specifically, termination occurs with the first of these candidate peaks to occur after each eccentricity minimum."

 

 

Summary diagram from Barker, et al. At the very top is a synopsis of the orbital variables. At bottom are the glacial cycles, marked with yellow dots (maximum slope of deglaciation), red dots (maximum extent of deglaciation) and blue dots (maximum slope of reglaciation, also called inception). Above this graph is an analysis of the time spans between the yellow and red dots, showing the strength of each deglaciation (gray double arrows). They claim that this strength is proportion to an orbita parameter illustrated above with the T-designation of each glacial cycle. This parameter is precession lagged by obliquity. Finally in the upper graph, the orbital cycles are shown directly, especially including eccentricity in gray, and the time points of the yellow nodes are matched here with purple nodes, lagged with the preceeding (by ~2,000 years) rising obliquity as an orange node. The green verticle bars were applied by me to ease the clear correlation of eccentricity maxima vs deglaciation maxima.

I have to say that the communication of this paper is not crystal clear, and the data a bit iffy. The T5 deglaciation, for instance, which is relatively huge, comes after a tiny minimum of eccentricity and at a tiny peak of precession, making the scale of the effect hard to understand from the scale of the inputs. T3 shows the opposite, with large inputs yielding a modest, if extended, deglacial cycle. And the obliquity values that are supposed to drive the deglaciation events are quite scattered over their respective cycle. But I take their point that ultimately, it is slight variations in the solar inputs that drive these cycles, and we just need to tease out / model the details to figure out how it works.

There is another question in the field, which is that, prior to 800,000 years ago, glacial cycles were much less dramatic, and had a faster cadence of about 40,000 years. This is clearly more lined up with the obliquity parameter as a driver. So while obliquity is part of the equation in the recent period, involved in triggering deglaciation, it was the primary driver a million years ago, when CO2 levels were perhaps slightly higher and the system didn't need the extra push from eccentricity to cycle milder glaciations. Lastly, why are the recent glacial cycles so pronounced, when the orbital forcing effects are so small and take thousands of years to build up? Glaciation is self-reinforcing, in that higher reflectivity from snow / ice drives down warming. Conversely, retreat of glaciers can release large amounts of built-up methane and other forms of carbon from permafrost, continental shelves, the deep ocean, etc. So there may be some additional cycle, such as a smaller CO2 or methane cycle, that halts glaciation at its farthest extent- that aspect remains a bit unclear.

Overall, the earlier paper of Hays et al. found that summer insolation varies by at most 10% over Earth's various orbital cycles. That is not much, yet it drives glaciation of ice sheets thousands of feet thick, and reversals back to deglaciation that uncovers bare rock all over the far north. It shows that Earth's climate is extremely sensitive to small effects. The last time CO2 was as high as it is now, (~16 mya), Greenland was free of ice. We are heading in that direction very rapidly now, in geological terms. Earth has experienced plenty of catastrophes in the past, even some caused biologically, such as the oxygenation of the atmosphere. But this, what we are doing to the biosphere now, is something quite new.

• That new world order we were working on...
• Degradation and corruption at FAA.. what could go wrong?
• Better air.
• Congress has the power, should it choose to use it.
• Ongoing destruction, degradation.
• Oh, Canada!

Realism in Foreign Policy

Idealism or realism? This is not just a left-right issue, but a deeper issue of values in foreign policy.

Think tanks on both the right and the left tout foreign policy realism, impatient with the demands that the post-war era have placed on the US as the unique, exceptional (and rich) leader of the free and democratic world. Whether from a cost perspective or a peace perspective, backing off from our world-wide commitments and ideals is attractive to many. The current administration has dramatically taken up their banner, reversing US policy, dropping Ukraine, allying with Russia, and ending idealism, generosity and empathy as a elements of foreign policy. What was firmly planted after World War 2 and flowered under John F. Kennedy has now been buried. So, are we great yet?

Where idealism in foreign policy takes up moral crusades, like human rights, women's rights, and global equity, even climate change, realism sticks to power and assumes anarchy, not order, as the natural state of international affairs. Realists sell themselves as hard-headed, unsentimental, and into the bargain, less likely to get us mixed up in wars. The most recent US wars, after all, from Vietnam to Iraq, were all crusades to foster democracy, in one form or other. Better to wash our hands of it all, care less about saving the people of the world, and more about bullying our neighbors to get what we want.

These are not really exclusive approaches, but rather shades of emphasis. The raw power of military and economic kinds is central to both, even if soft power is more of a focus for the idealists. But if you think about it more deeply, even these distinctions fade away, and both approaches end up being idealistic, just differing in the ideals they vaunt. The current administration clearly has its ideals- of Putin, Victor Orban, and authoritarianism ascendant world-wide. Its lack of empathy is not realism, it is a crabbed idealism- that of the rich and powerful lording it over the masses, both domestically and internationally.  

International power is composed of many things. But mostly, it is made up of relationships multiplied by technological capabilities. Two people can always overpower one person, and the same is true internationally. Bigger countries can field bigger armies. Bigger countries can field more researchers and manufacturers to arm those people with better weapons. Alliances between countries can make even more menacing combinations. 

It is, at base, social relationships that create power, and this is where realism really falls down. If one's ideal is transactional and bullying, worshipping power and taking a small-minded and greedy approach to international affairs, (that is to say, a zero-sum approach), then one will find that the few friends one has are fair-weather friends of convenience. Alliances between such partners frequently fall apart and re-arrange, creating the extremely dangerous environment conducive to major wars. Relationships are fungible and disposable. Europe had a long balance-of-power phase in the 1800's after the Napoleonic wars, until it collapsed in the 1900's in cataclysmic world wars, thanks in both cases to unstable alliance structures, not to mention authoritarian manias. The post-World War 2 era, the one we are witnessing the collapse of right now, was founded on something much more stable- true friendship and shared ideals of democracy. 

One can reply that helping the weak defend themselves against the strong is a sure recipe for entanglement in a lot of wars. Our involvement (up to now) in Ukraine is a case in point. We encouraged Ukraine to pursue a democratic path, thwarting Russia's clear and stated interests. And then we got dragged into this cataclysmic war. Why not side with the strong against the weak, instead? Wouldn't that make for a more stable world? Well, at some point we may be the weak one, not the strong one. What then? In the ever-shifting constellation of international alliances in a transactional, "realistic" world, there is no telling what tomorrow may bring, since values are not anchored in natural friendship or sympathy, but in naked interests, which are subject to rapid adjustment and negotiation. The disastrous Ribbentrop-Molotov pact comes to mind, as an example of such "realistic" foreign policy.

That is not a good world to live in, even if it has represented most of history. Realists may be right that their view is the mafia-like baseline of international relations, devoid of any human values and run on a power basis. Well, we can do better, both morally and objectively. That is what the last eighty years of international relations were all about. They were about setting up an international system where big countries at least tried to cloak their leadership in common interests, progress, and values. Where there was order, of some basic sort, which led to prosperity and security. And the Soviets bought into it as well, trying desperately to sell their adventures as standing for some kind of progressive, pro-worker ideology. Which lasted all the way to the end of the cold war, till its contradictions had grown too glaring. The US-led system has had its contradictions and hypocrisies as well, but the latest leap into the authoritarian camp is hardly fore-ordained or natural to our traditions.

Now, it looks like Winter is Coming. If the US forcibly devolves the international system into a value-less scramble for power, no one can rely on, or be satisfied with, stable friendships, so the system will be in greater flux, as powers test each other. When friendships are devalued, what is left but competition, such as trade wars, causing general destruction, and eventually desperate measures to regain relative power. 

• The policy is plain.
• Social insecurity.
• Nothing strategic about it.
• Wells on the pandemic. For me, the remarkable memory is how little we collectively knew about the simplest things- masks, aerosols, surfaces. That was inexcusable.

Impeachment is Inevitable

Whether congress wants to or not, it will be forced to defend its role in government.

Looking out over the incredible destruction the new president has already wrought at home and abroad, it is hard to see this continuing for a full four-year term. There is a honeymoon now, and a shock campaign. There is delirium in hard-right circles that their fondest dreams of rampant chaos in the bureaucracy, with racism and fascism ascendant, are coming true. But there will come a time when the costs begin to appear, the appetite for dysfunction will wane, and the tide turns. Congress has small Republican margins, and it won't take many members to face up to our rapidly expanding constitutional crisis.

Maybe I am spinning a fantasy here, but one thing seems certain. The current president is constitutionally (pardon the expression) unable to follow directions. His oath of office was barely out of his mouth before he started violating the constitution and running roughshod over the explicit authorizations and appropriations of Congress. Not to mention direct assertions that the constitution doesn't mean what it plainly says, about birthright citizenship. This is not going to stop, and the only way our system of government is going to survive is that the other branches, specifically congress, use their powerful tools to reset the balance.

Article 2

Harder to judge are the attitudes of the congresspeople who are on the spot. The Republicans have largely rolled over in approving the first, abysmal slate of cabinet nominees. Again, there is a honeymoon of sorts. Party discipline is particularly strong on the conservative side, and the president has eagerly used his tools of intimidation and hatred to obtain obedience. So it is hard to say when they will crack. But as the functions of government degrade, the country is laughed at and reviled around the world, the economic damage accumulates, and constituents line up to complain, the equation will change. And anyhow, they would merely be elevating the vice president, who is hardly an opponent of their ideological aims, and is part of the Senate community (however disliked on both sides). So impeachment becomes a much less imposing action than it might otherwise be. 

As they say, the third time's the charm!

• Presidents day.
• Oh the irony. Science comes up with a vaccine that saves millions, who turn into idiots.

The Climate is Changing

Fires in LA, and a puff of smoke in DC.

An ill wind has blown into Washington, a government of whim and spite, eager to send out the winged monkeys to spread fear and kidnap the unfortunate. The order of the day is anything that dismays the little people. The wicked witch will probably have melted away by the time his most grievous actions come to their inevitable fruition, of besmirching and belittling our country, and impoverishing the world. Much may pass without too much harm, but the climate catastrophe is already here, burning many out of their homes, as though they were made of straw. Immoral and spiteful contrariness on this front will reap the judgement and hatred of future generations.

But hasn't the biosphere and the climate always been in flux? Such is the awful refrain from the right, in a heartless conservatism that parrots greedy, mindless propaganda. In truth, Earth has been blessed with slowness. The tectonic plates make glaciers look like race cars, and the slow dance of Earth's geology has ruled the evolution of life over the eons, allowing precious time for incredible biological diversification that covers the globe with its lush results.

A stretch of relatively unbroken rain forest, in the Amazon.

Past crises on earth have been instructive. Two of the worst were the end-Permian extinction event, about 252 million years ago (mya), and the end-Cretaceous extinction event, about 66 mya. The latter was caused by a meteor, so was a very sudden event- a shock to the whole biosphere. Following the initial impact and global fire, it is thought to have raised sun-shielding dust and sulfur, with possible acidification, lasting for years. However, it did not have very large effects on CO2, the main climate-influencing gas.

On the other hand, the end-Permian extinction event, which was significantly more severe than the end-Cretaceous event, was a more gradual affair, caused by intense volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia. Recent findings show that this was a huge CO2 event, turning the climate of Earth upside down. CO2 went from about 400 ppm, roughly what we are at currently, to 2500 ppm. The only habitable regions were the poles, while the tropics were all desert. But the kicker is that this happened over the surprisingly short (geologically speaking) time of about 80,000 years. CO2 then stayed high for the next roughly 400,00 years, before returning slowly to its former equilibrium. This rate of rise was roughly 2.7 ppm per 100 years, yet that change killed off 90% of all life on Earth. 

The momentous analysis of the end-Permian extinction event, in terms of CO2, species, and other geological markers, including sea surface temperature (SST). This paper was when the geological brevity of the event was first revealed.

Compare this to our current trajectory, where atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm at the dawn of the industrial age to 420 ppm now. That is rate of maybe 100 ppm per 100 years, and rising steeply. It is a rate far too high for many species, and certainly the process of evolution itself, to keep up with, tuned as it is to geologic time. As yet, this Anthropocene extinction event is not quite at the level of either the end-Permian or end-Cretaceous events. But we are getting there, going way faster than the former, and creating a more CO2-based long-term climate mess than the latter. While we may hope to forestall nuclear war and thus a closer approximation to the end-Cretaceous event, it is not looking good for the biosphere, purely from a CO2 and warming perspective, putting aside the many other plagues we have unleashed including invasive species, pervasive pollution by fertilizers, plastics and other forever chemicals, and the commandeering of all the best land for farming, urbanization, and other unnatural uses. 

CO2 concentrations, along with emissions, over recent time.

We are truly out of Eden now, and the only question is whether we have the social, spiritual, and political capacity to face up to it. For the moment, obviously not. Something disturbed about our media landscape, and perhaps our culture generally, has sent us for succor, not to the Wizard who makes things better, but to the Wicked Witch of the East, who delights in lies, cruelty and destruction.

• The oligarchy is upon us. Oh, and they will help the working class!
• The attention economy.
• Which distorts our public understandings.
• Good coverage will never win in the attention economy.
• Keep Greenland white!

A Housing Guarantee

A proposal for an updated poor house.

I agree with MMT economists who propose a job guarantee. That would put a floor on the labor market with an offer to anyone who wants to work for a low, but living wage, probably set below the minimum wage mandated for the private sector. State and local governments would run cleanups, environmental restoration, and care operations as needed, requiring basic discipline and effort, but no further skills. But they could use higher skilled workers as they come along for more beneficial, complex tasks.

Similarly, I think we could offer a housing guarantee, putting a floor on homelessness and misery. In the state of California, homelessness is out of control, and we have not found solutions, despite a great deal of money spent. Housing in the private market is extremely expensive, far out of reach of those with even median incomes. The next level down is housing vouchers and public housing, of which there are not enough to go around, and which is extremely expensive. And below that are shelters, which are heavily adverse settings. They are not private, chaotic, unpleasant, meant to be temporary, can be closed much of the time. And they also do not have enough space. 

A local encampment, temporarily approved during the pandemic under the freeway.

As uncompassionate as it sounds, it is unacceptable, and should be illegal, for public spaces to be commandeered by the homeless for their private needs. Public spaces have many purposes, specifically not including squatting and vagrancy. It is a problem in urban areas, because that is where people are, and where many services exist at the intersection of public and private spaces- food, bathrooms, opportunities to beg, get drugs, etc. Just because we have been, as governments and citizens, neglectful of our public spaces, does not mean we should give them over to anyone who wants to camp on them. I was recently at San Francisco city hall and the beautiful park surrounding it. But at lunch time, I realized that there was nowhere to sit. The plague of homelessness had rendered park benches untenable. We deserve to keep these public spaces functional, and that means outlawing the use of public spaces by the homeless. At the same time, provision must be made for the homeless, who by this policy would have nowhere to go in fully zoned areas. Putting them on busses to the next town, as some jurisdictions do, is also not a solution. As a rich country, we can do more for the homeless even while we preserve public spaces.

I think we need to rethink the whole lower end of housing / shelter to make it a more regular, accessible, and acceptable way to catch those who need housing at a very basic level. The model would be a sort of cross between a hostel, an SRO (single room occupancy hotels) and army barracks. It would be publicly funded, and provide a private room as well as food, all for free. It would not throw people out, or lock them in.

This poor house would not demand work, though it would offer centralized services for finding jobs and other places to live. It would be open to anyone, including runaway teens, battered women, tourists, etc. It would be a refuge for anyone for any reason, on an unlimited basis. The space and the food would be very basic, motivating clients to seek better accommodation. It would be well-policed and its clients would have to behave themselves. The next step down in the ladder of indigent care would not be homelessness, which would be outlawed in areas offering this kind of poorhouse, but would be institutionalization, in increasingly stringent settings for either criminal or mental issues. 

Such a poor house might become a community center, at least for the indigent. It would be quite expensive, but given the level of inequality and lack of care for people in various desperate straits, we need to furnish a humane level of existence between the market housing system and institutionalization. Why not give everyone a house? That is neither financially practical, nor would that co-exist well with the market housing system. Certainly, more housing needs to be built and everything done to bring prices down. But to address the current issues, stronger housing policy is needed.

Why not go back to a public housing model? It turned out that public housing was somewhat unrealistic, promising far more than it could deliver. It promised fully functional neighborhoods and housing, pretty much the equivalent of market housing, but without the ongoing discipline from the market via private financial responsibility by the residents or from the programs via their bureaucratic structures and funding, to follow through on the long term. The public authorities generally took a hands-off approach to residents and their environment, in line with the (respectful) illusion that this was the equivalent of market housing. And the long-term is what counts in housing, since it is ever in need of repair and renovation, not to mention careful use and protection by its residents. Building is one thing, but maintaining is something quite different, and requires carefully though-out incentives. 

With a public poorhouse model, the premises and residents are extensively policed. Individual rooms may descend to squalor, but the whole is built, run and maintained by the public authorities with intensive surveillance and intervention, keeping the institution as a whole functioning and growing as needed for its mission. There is going to be a sliding scale of freedom vs public involvement via financing and policing. The less functional a person is, the more control they will have to accept. We can not wash our hands of the homeless by granting them "freedom" to thrash about in squalor and make dumps of public spaces.

• Or you could join the squid game.
• Economic policy should not be about efficiency alone, let alone rewarding capital and management, but about long-term cultural and environmental sustainability.
• Could AI do biology?
• Carter was an evangelical. But that was a different time.

Money For Nothing: Two Views of Crypto

Is crypto more like gold or a simple scam?

I have to confess some perplexity over crypto. Billed as currencies, they are not currencies. Billed as securities, they are not securities, either. They excite a weird kind of enthusiasm in libertarian circles, in dreams of asocial (if not anti-social) finance. From a matter of fringe speculation, they are migrating into the culture at large, influencing our politics, and becoming significant economic actors, with a combined market cap now over three trillion dollars. For me, there are two basic frames for thinking about crypto. One is that they are like gold, an intrinsically worthless, but attractive object of fascination, wealth storage, and speculation. The other is that they are straight Ponzi schemes, rising by a greater-fool process that will end in tears.

Currencies are forms of money with particular characteristics. They are widely used among a region or population, stable in value, and easy to store and exchange. They are typically sponsored by a government to ensure that stability and acceptance. This is done in part by specifying that currency for incoming taxes and outgoing vendor and salary payments. They are also, in modern systems, managed elastically, (and intelligently!), with ongoing currency creation to match economic growth and keep the nominal value stable over time. Crypto entities would like to be currencies. However, they have far from stable value, are not easy to work with, and are not widely used. Securities, on the other hand, have a basis in some kind of collateral (i.e. the "security" part) like business ownership, a contract of bond interest payments, etc. Crypto does not have this either. Crypto has only its own scarcity to offer, a bit like cowrie shells, or gold. Crypto entities are not investments in productive activity. Indeed, they foster the opposite, as their only solid use case has been, at least to date, facilitating crime, as demonstrated by the ransomware industry, which asks to be paid in Bitcoin.

So how about gold? Keynes railed against gold as the most useless, barbaric form of wealth, inducing people to dig holes in the earth and cause environmental degradation. And for what? A shiny substance that looks good, and is useful in a few industrial applications, but mostly was, at the time, held by governments in huge vaults, notionally underpinning their currency values. Thankfully we are past that, but gold still holds fascination, and persists as a store of value. Gold can be held in electronic forms, making it just as easy to hold and transfer as crypto entities, if one is so-inclined. Critically, however, gold is also physical, and humanity's fascination with it is innate and enduring. Thus, after the apocalypse, when the electricity is off and the computers are not connected anymore, gold will still be there, ready to serve as money when crypto has evaporated away. 

Bitcoin barely recovered from an early crisis. 

How durable is the fascination with crypto, as a store of wealth, or for any other purpose, under modern, non-apocalyptic conditions? Bitcoin is the grand-daddy of the field, and seems to have achieved dominance, certainly the field of criminal money laundering and transfer, as well as libertarian speculation. It appears to have a special mystique, whether from the blockchain, its "mining" system, or its mysterious pseudonymous founder. The other forms of crypto range from respectible to passing memes. There is a fascinating competition in the attention space that constitutes the crypto markets. Since they do not have intrinsic value, nor governmental buy-in, they float entirely on buyer sentiment, in a greater-fool cycle of rises and falls. Crashes in the stock market are halted by fundamental value of the underlying asset. As the speculative fervor wanes, vultures step in to, at worst, liquidate the assets. But for crypto, there are no assets. No fundamental value. So crashes can and do go to zero.

There are also external factors, like the fact that many crypto entities have been outright scams, or the environmental costs of Bitcoin, or their facilitation of criminality, which may eventually draw popular and regulatory scrutiny. Boosters have been trying to get the Federal Reserve and other validating entities to buy into the crypto craze, and political contributions from newly crypto-riche holders and exchanges have transformed the landscape to one that seems increasingly sympathetic, especially on the Republican side. Thankfully, the smaller memecoins have market caps in the low millions, so do not present a threat as yet to the financial system, in the almost certain event of their evaporation once each meme passes. This blasé acceptance of "securities" that are pure schemes of speculation is a sad commentary on our current age. The sophisticated investor of today would not study corporate efficiency, market prospects, or finances. He or she would be conversant in current memes on social media, ready to jump on the newest one, and sensitive to the withering of older memes, in an endless conveyor belt of booms and busts. 

It is weird how people fail to learn the lessons of the past, from the tulip craze and other speculative booms. Where there is no value, there is likely to be a very deep crash. The libertarians among us, who may have been gold bugs in the past and now have flocked to the new world of crypto, may represent a psychological type that is ineradicable, so motivated to ditch the humdrum official currency for anything that offers a whiff of notional independence, (though being tethered to the new crypto infrastructure of exchanges and wallets is not for the faint of heart or independent-minded), that they can float these crypto entities indefinitely. But in the absence of deeper value, might their psychologies change to those of hawkers who get in at the ground floor and make out, while the schlubs who buy at the top are left holding the bag? It comes down to human psychology in the end- what is personally and socially valuable, who you think your counterparts are on the other ends of all these trades, and who (and what sort of motivation) is making up the institutions and communities of crypto.

• Star Trek was fighting the cold war.

Capitalism on the Spectrum

Prospects for the new administration.

Political economics can be seen as a spectrum from anarchic gangsterism (Haiti) to total top down control such as in communism (Cuba, North Korea). Neither works well. Each end of this spectrum ends up in a state of terror, because each is unworkable on its own terms. Capitalism, in its modern form, is a compromise between these extremes, where free initiative, competition, and hierarchical relations (such within corporations) are allowed, while regulation (via the state and unions) makes humane what would otherwise a cutthroat system of gangsterism and corruption. The organization and stability allowed by state-sponsored legal systems raises system productivity far above that of the primeval free-for-all, while the regulatory rules also make it bearable to its participants- principally the workers. The magic comes from a dynamic balance between competition and guardrails to keep that competition focused on productive ends (that is, economic/business competition), rather than unproductive ones (war, assassination, corruption, capture of the state, etc.)

The new Trump administration promises to tear up this compromise, slash regulations, and cut government. That means that the workers that voted for this administration, and who are the primary beneficiaries of the regulatory state, will be hurt in countless ways. The grifting nature of so many in this incoming administration is a blazing alarm to anyone who pays attention. Whether it is stiffing workers, bloviating on FOX, hawking gold sneakers, making a buck off of anti-vax gullibility, defrauding the government of taxes, promoting crypto, or frankly asking for money in return for political favors like petroleum deregulation, the stench of corruption and bad faith is overwhelming. Many of them, starting from the top, see capitalism as a string of scams and frauds, not exactly Milton Friedman's vision of capitalism. An administration of grifty billionaires is unlikely to rebuild US manufacturing, help workers afford housing, or fulfill any of the other dreams of their voters. Indeed, a massive economic collapse, on the heels of bad policy such as crypto deregulation, or a world-spanning trade war, is more likely, and degraded conditions for workers all but certain.

Freedom for capitalists means permission for companies to abuse workers, customers, the environment, the law, and whatever else stands in the way of profit. We have been through this many times, especially in the gilded age. It can spiral into anarchy and violence when business owners are sufficiently "free" from the fetters of norms and laws. When the most powerful entities in the economy have only one purpose- to make money- all other values are trampled. That is, unless a stronger entity makes some rules. That entity can only be the government. It has been the role of governments from time immemorial to look to the long term interests of the collective, and organize the inherent competition within society into benign and productive pursuits.

OK, more than a little ironic, but you get the idea.

On the other hand, there is a problem even at the golden mean of governmental rule-making over the capitalistic free-for-all, which is that the quality of the rule makers and their rules, their attention to real conditions, and their prompt decision making, all can decline into bureaucratic inertia. While this may not be a Stalinist system of top-down planning and terror, it still can sap the productive energies of the system. And that is what we have been facing over the last few decades. For instance, there is the housing crisis, where home construction has not kept up with demand, mostly due to zoning stasis in most desirable places in the US, in addition to lagging construction after the 2008 financial and real estate crisis. Another example is public infrastructure, which has become increasingly difficult to build due to ever-mounting bureaucratic complexity and numbers of stakeholders. The California high speed rail system faces mountainous costs and a bogged-down legal environment, and is on the edge of complete inviability.

Putting rich, corrupt, and occasionally criminal capitalists at the head of this system is not, one must say, the most obvious way to fix it. Ideally, the Democrats would have put forward more innovative candidates in better touch with the problems voters were evidently concerned with. Then we could have forged ahead with policies oriented to the public good, (such as planetary sustainability and worker rights), as has been the practice through the Biden administration. But the election came up with a different solution, one that we will be paying for for decades. And possibly far worse, since there are worse fates than being at a well-meaning, if sclerotic, golden mean of governmental regulation over a largely free capitalist system. Hungary and Russia show the way to "managed democracy" and eventual autocracy. Our own history, and that of Dickensian Britain, show the way of uncontrolled capitalism, which took decades of progressivism, and a great depression, to finally tame. It would be nice to not have to repeat that history.

• Daniel P. Moynihan was for the job guarantee.
• Housing in New Zealand.
• Nature's key scientists of 2024.
• A grumpy Krugman signs off.
• Notes on crypto and its grifting community.
• Who is for workers?
• MAGA to kill off the greatest public health advance, ever.

Things Shouldn't be This Difficult in Retirement

Social Security is engineered to cheat a lot of people. Why?

Social Security was one of the great and enduring accomplishments of the New Deal. It followed European models of progressive policy, insuring old age income for what was at the time a very low cost- a 2% tax on wages. It is fundamentally a semi-progressive program, with payouts indexed to what you earned (and paid in as taxes) while working, but using a formula of sharply diminishing returns at higher income levels. As we live longer and have fewer children, the finances of Social Security have had to be shored up a few times, with higher taxes, longer waits till retirement, and other revisions. One of the most devious of these has been the offer to get early benefits for a lower payout.

Basic Social Security rules: The monthly benefit payment is constructed out of a set of tiered rates, by income level, to define the "primary insurance amount", or PIA. The income level is based on the highest ten years of earnings. The lowest level of income (here up to $774 monthly) is paid back at 90%, for example.

A recent opinion column (with followup) noted that while 90% of people would be better off waiting to take their benefits, only 10% do, missing out on a large amount of lifetime income. The deal is that full retirement age is (now) pegged at 67 years of age. If you take benefits at the earliest time, age 62, you will get 70% of the full payout, forever. On the other hand, if you wait till age 70, you will get 124% of the full payout, (plus some extra based on inflation and other factors), which works out to almost double the lowest payout, each month. The life-time payout is of course highly dependent on when one dies, and the break-even point ends up at about age 77, after which everyone would do better waiting than taking the early payout. For example, if you make it to age 85, you would be 30% ahead in lifetime benefits having waited to take payments till age 70.

This is, as the columnist notes, a fraught policy. Psychologically, it resembles some of the most classic marshmallow experiments, testing self control in children. Just as most children don't have the self-control to wait for the two marshmallows, most retirees apparently do not have the foresight to maximize their ultimate income. And this is quite understandable. Principally, the future holds a great deal of uncertainty. Who knows (or wants to know) when one will die? Even if the average life expectancy, upon reaching age 62 is ~83, well past the breakpoint noted above, it is easy to rationalize taking the money while one can. Poorer people tend to have worse jobs, that they really want or need to retire from as soon as possible. The poorer one is, the less savings one is likely to have to tide one through from 62 to 70. And the poorer one is, the poorer health one is likely to be in, with a shorter prospect of collection. All in all, it can be an attractive, even compelling, deal.

But statistically, this ends up being a regressive policy, cancelling much of the otherwise progressively engineered system. Poorer retirees are in this way snookered out of possible income, on top of getting lower payouts to begin with (due to their lower incomes and contributions), and typically having shorter lives. It seems akin to the ever-loosening restrictions on gambling, sports betting, sub-prime lending, and the like, one more way to separate the poor from their money, via financial chicanery, aka engineering. It was a policy gradually developed over several Social Security reforms, from 1961 onward, and may have seemed a fair way to offer the option of earlier benefits to workers, to meet what can be rather urgent needs. But the psychology of it is very problematic and has produced what is described above- bad decisions by most people.

Some alternative models, accentuating their progressivity. Current Social Security is shown in red. A simple pay-in/payout plan is show in dashed lines, with no progressive aspect at all. And the solid line shows a flat payout scheme, where everyone is paid the same benefit. This was done by the Social Security administration in 2009, and notes that "... the program's progressivity has declined in recent decades."

How could all this be improved? There are innumerable ways to cut this cake, but the one I see as most promising is to go back to basics. Make the retirement age 65, and make the payout the same for everyone, across the board, at whatever level retains system viability. Then perhaps a special request board could be set up to offer earlier retirement, in cases of hardship or disability, related to the SSDI system already in place. This would be a way to reduce the complexity of the existing system, reduce the bad incentives, and make it more progressive at the same time. It would also strongly increase the incentive, at the lower end of the income distribution, to attain the needed work credits to participate in the system, which amounts to ten years of work that pays Social Security taxes. Death makes us all equal in the end anyhow, so a retirement system that brings that fundamental equality forward by a few years seems not just reasonable, but even a little poetic.

• Morality is a battle.
• Liz Trussification?
• Who's a democracy?
• Jesus is Black.

Hubris, Terror, and Disaster in Afghanistan

Review of "The American War in Afghanistan", by Carter Malkasian.

This book is a nightmare to read. It records one bad decision after the next, through two decades of a slow-moving debacle. Should we have invaded at all? Should we have set up a puppet government? Should we have let the mission expand to incredible society-changing scope? Should we have built a sustainable Afghan military? Could any government have stood up to the Taliban? A million questions and pointed fingers follow such a comprehensive loss. Each of the four Presidents who presided over the war made grievous errors, and tried to muddle through the resulting quagmire, until Biden finally threw in the towel.

In the end, even Mullah Omar reportedly considered whether it had been wise to refuse the US demand to turn over or turn against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It is a poignant coda to a national tragedy. But what could we have done differently? I will divide this question into several areas, including mission creep, Islam and the Taliban, the Afghan army, and the Afghan government. At the very outset there was a sad narcissistic paradox, in the "war on terror". War is terrorism, pure and simple. The idea that others are terrorists, and that we are not when we drop bombs on them, is a curious, but typical bit of American exceptionalism. Our whole adventure in Afghanistan was colored by the vast gulf in how we saw ourselves (righteous, moral, good), and how Afghans saw us (depraved infidels who violated every norm of civilized behavior).

Mission Creep

It is startling to look back at the progression of our goals in Afghanistan. First, we asked them to give up Al Qaeda. Then we overthrew the Taliban government and installed a new one. Then we sought to establish a democracy. Then we sought to hunt down not just Al Qaeda, but also the Taliban- the former government and a significant cultural and Islamic movement. Then we sought to advance women's rights, fight corruption, and set up a competent government and army. All these things were desirable, but replicated what we could not accomplish in either Vietnam or in Iraq, working with similarly bad partners. Contrast this with our occupations of Germany and Japan, where we put a few of the former leaders on trial, policed with a pretty light touch, kept political development local at first, and concentrated on economic reconstruction. While the cultural alignments were obviously much closer, that should have moderated our ambitions in Afghanistan, not, as it happened, stimulated them progressively to "civilize" the Afghans. This is especially true when the national will and funding to deal with Afghanistan was so impaired by the Bush administration's adventure in Iraq, and later by the tortured path of Afghanistan itself. It is somewhat reminiscent of the defeat the Democrats experienced in the recent elections- a party that got a little overextended in its missions to affirm every virtue, identity and interest group, far beyond the core issues.

Islam

That Afghanistan is an Islamic country is and was no mystery, but that did not seem to get through to those setting up our progressively more invasive policies, or the new government. Poll after poll found that the Taliban had continuing support, and if not support, at least respect, because they were seen as truly Islamic, while the government we installed was not. Malkasian points out that as religious scholars, the Taliban tended to not be infected by the fissiparous tribal conflicts of Afghanistan, which Hamid Karzai, in contrast, tended to encourage. This also led the Taliban to nurture a very strong hierarchical structure, (patterned on madrassa practices), also unusual elsewhere in Afghan society. These three properties gave them incredible morale and sway with the population, even as they were terrorizing them with night letters, assassinations, suicide bombings, and other mayhem. As long as the government represented the infidel, and however well-intentioned that infidel was, the population, including the police and army, would be reluctant supporters.

The only way around all this would have been to allow one of the Northern Alliance leaders to take control of the country after they helped defeat the Taliban, and then get the hell out. But this would have invited another civil war, continuing the awful civil war Afghanistan suffered through before the Taliban rose to power. The deep conflict between the Pashtuns and the northern Tajiks, Uzbeks and other groups would never have allowed a stable government to be established under these fluid conditions, not under the Tajiks. So we came up with the magic solution, to appoint a Pashtun as president, over a nominally democratic system, but with US support that, instead of tapering off over time, rose and rose, until we got to the surge, a decade into our occupation, with over a 100,000 US soldiers.

That was never going to win any popularity contests, even if it did put the Taliban on the back foot militarily. Why was the government never seen as truly Islamic? Malkasian does not explain this in detail, but in Afghan eyes, more tuned to the US as foreign infidels than to the formal conditions of Islamic jurisprudence, the question answers itself. Democracy is not inherently un-Islamic. Consultative bodies that advise the leadership are explicitly provided. Whether they promote women's rights, or accept foreign soldiers, night raids, and legal immunity of foreigners is quite a different matter, however. Whatever the form of the government, its obvious dependence on the US, as painfully illustrated by Karzai's incessant and futile complaints about US military transgressions, was the only evidence needed that the Afghan government was, in popular terms, un-Islamic. It was the same conundrum we experienced in Vietnam- how to be a dominant military partner to a government that had at best a tenuous hold on the affections of the populace, which were in turn poisoned by that very dependence? It is an impossible dilemma, unless the occupying power is ruthless enough to terrorize everyone into submission- not our style, at least not after our dalliance in the Philippines.

The Armed Forces

Because the government never managed to get true popular support, its armed forces were hobbled by low morale and corruption. Armies and police forces are only expressions of the political landscape. Afghans are, as the Taliban shows, perfectly capable of fighting, of organizing themselves, and of knowing which way the wind blows. The army dissolved when faced with its true test. The most powerful solution would clearly have been to have a more effective and popular government that either included or sidelined the Taliban. But could there have technical solutions as well?

The air force was emblematic. The US experience in Afghanistan from start to finish showed the immense power of air attacks, when combined with ground forces. So we planned for an Afghan air force. But we seem to have planned for a force that could not maintain its own equipment, relying in perpetuity on Western contractors. Nor was the selection of assets well-organized. The Afghans mostly needed close air support craft, like attack helicopters and A10 gunships. They should have focused on a very few models that they could fully sustain, with financial and parts support from the US. But that assumes that the US, and the Afghan government, had more thoughtful long-range planning than actually existed.

Always a difficult relationship

The Government

Apart from being seen as a puppet and un-Islamic, the government was riven with tribal and regional conflicts. Karzai spent most of his time managing and trying to win tribal contests. Malkasian repeatedly shows how major decisions and mental energy went into these issues, to the exclusion of attention to the armed forces, or the resurgent Taliban, or resolving corruption, among much else. 

Overall, however, the main issue was that the US installed a top-down quasi-democracy without giving the people true power. Unlike the local political reconstruction in the post-WW2 occupations, let alone our own system, the new Afghan government was explicitly centralized, with provincial and district heads appointed by Karzai. Karzai was really the new king of Afghanistan, more or less foisted on the country, though he had a significant amount of national credibility. There was a great deal of effort to sell this to the people as democracy, and foster "communication" and collaboration, and buy-in, but the people were never allowed into a true federal system with full electoral control of their local districts. Perhaps this was done for good reason, both from the monarchical Afghan tradition, and in light of the strong tribal tensions frequently at work. But it sapped the mutual support / accountability between the people and their government.

Karzai himself broached the idea of bringing Taliban into the system early on, but was rebuffed by the US. We went on to lump the Taliban in with the other "terrorists", and they, like Ho Chi Minh, used their natural legitimacy (with enormous helpings of terror, suicide bombings, and other guerilla tactics .. yes, terrorism again!) to eventually get the upper hand. How much better it would have been to have drawn a relatively generous line against allowing the former Taliban top echelon into official capacities, suppress militias and all forms of political violence, and let the rest re-integrate and participate in a truly ground-up federal system? It was those excluded from the system who holed up in Pakistan, seethed with resentment, and organized the return to power that started in earnest in 2005/2006. The Taliban may have been a bad government and in bed with Al Qaeda and the rest of it. They were not particularly popular with people in many areas of the country. But they were also very nationalistic, highly Islamic, and made up a fair slice of Afghanistan's educated demographic. 

A common theme through all these issues is American hubris, and lack of listening / empathy / respect for / understanding of local conditions. We insisted on making the Taliban the enemy, then insisted on rooting them out through night raids, Guantanamo imprisonment, exile to Pakistan, and other degradations. And were frequently getting fraudulent intelligence to base it all on. We thought that more military power, and more money, would get what we wanted. But what we wanted was Afghans to want to work on behalf of their own country in a free, stable, and prosperous system. How could that system be built on our money and blood? It couldn't. I had to be built by the Afghans, in their own way.

• Global leadership is in play.
• Private jets are abominable. Gas taxes, anyone?
• The planet simply can not take it.
• Meritocracy... good or bad? I would offer that is a lot better than the alternative. But can it be improved?
• Drilling for the climate: geothermal power is coming along, at large scale.

Who Needs the Fed?

Project 2025 promotes "free" banking, which is to say, no pesky regulations or backstopping from the Federal Reserve. What could go wrong?

Policy wonks can't help themselves- they need to write down their plans so that all the world can see how brilliant they are, and how real they could be, if only others recognized their brilliance. In that way, the project 2025 plans from the Heritage Foundation have been a gold mine, at least for Democrats. And since the Republican Party couldn't be bothered to write down a platform, other than "anything Trump wants", this project serves as the functional platform of the current Republican campaign, written as it was by scores of officials from the first Trump administration, plus many others itching to be appointed to a second. And it is crazy- more like a project 1825 than anything we would want to look forward to.

One of its less publicized planks is its approach to banking. It heaps criticism on the Federal Reserve, and recommends, as the most effective solution, its abolition and a return to "free banking". Which means a world where no regulator controls the banks, and no federal reserve backs it up against panics and crises. And just to complete the return to barbarism, it recommends a return to the gold standard as well.

"In free banking, neither interest rates nor the supply of money is controlled by the government. The Federal Reserve is effectively abolished, and the Department of the Treasury largely limits itself to handling the government’s money. Regions of the U.S. actually had a similar system, known as the “Suffolk System,” from 1824 until the 1850s, and it minimized both inflation and economic disruption while allowing lending to flourish." - From Chapter 4

Needless to say, US history is littered with banking panics, runs, and depressions, usually due to the unregulated nature of this "free" banking and to monetary gold backing. It is hard to express just how absurd and damaging it would be to return to such a world. The Federal Reserve was conjured up after a long history of the establishment of the first national bank, then its destruction by Andrew Jackson, a century of economic instability with particularly damaging panics in 1893 and 1907. By 1913, the US finally had had enough, and set up an updated national bank in the form of the Federal Reserve, to regulate and backstop the banking system. 

Illustration from 1873, portraying "Panic" on Wall Street.

Unfortunately, until the advent of Keynesian economics, it didn't really know what it was doing, and was particularly ineffective during the Great Depression, making things worse instead of better. Even now, it amounts to a cabal of bankers who are more interested in jacking up interest rates than in national prosperity. MMT economists tend to think that interest rates should be kept low, and the functions of the Federal Reserve folded into the Treasury Department, with greater political oversight. The use of interest rates- which are such a blunt tool of economic policy- could then be de-emphasized, in favor of more dynamic fiscal policy to manage inflation and monetary conditions. It is worth noting that over the last eighty years, the Fed has routinely over-shot its mark in raising interest rates, ending up with recessions, and rapid, belated retreats to lower rates. It is only with the current cycle that it has achieved, at least so far, the dream of a soft landing, taming inflation while avoiding recession.

Recessions (gray) have regularly followed interest raising campaigns by the Fed, and not always intentionally.

But note that the word "depression" is no longer in our lexicon. For all its faults, the Fed has kept the economy on a much more even keel than was possible under the wild-west free banking era, when monetary conditions were hostage to whatever Yosemite Sam dug up in the Yukon, or how wildly bankers over-extended their issuance of notes. Banks built impressive buildings to foster the illusion of stability in an environment where stability was impossible, lacking the infinite backstop that the Federal Reserve can now bring to bear during a crisis. Both individual depositors and the population as a whole benefit. It is a classic example of the people of the US coming together to create an institution that makes our lives better, so that we can worry about other things than the next banking panic. 

This economic craziness is just one small example of the fevered imaginations of the right wing in current US politics, which seems to have crawled out from the former fringes of Lyndon Larouche and the Birchers to take over an entire half of our political system. And this is fundamentally thanks to the air given them by an appalling right wing media that cares nothing for truth or civility, rather making its money from button pushing, whining grievance, and reflexive anti-state propaganda. And people complain about social media! Just how long ostensibly reasonable and decent (even Christian(!)) people will wallow in this environment is anyone's guess, but our common, rational, and beneficial institutions will in the mean time be in constant danger.

• Luddites of today.
• We need to win this war.
• Profile in courage.

Correction- The Republican convention did actually come up with a platform.

Wherever Did the Pandemic Go?

Covid has attenuated. But is that from its own evolution, or from our immune reactions to it?

Looking at recent gatherings such as the political conventions and the Olympics, it is evident that the pandemic is over. A graph from the CDC says that mortality from Covid-19 is now similar to influenza- not great, but not catastrophic either, running at roughly a thousand deaths a week, and this with negligible public precautions.

Overall mortality of Covid-19 in the US.

A fundamental scientific and policy question about this is why: did the virus evolve to a less virulent state, or have we evolved (or engineered) enough immunity to fend off the worst? Even after the intense focus on this virus and all the research that has been done, this is a difficult question to answer. There has been a parade of variants, one supposedly more virulent and dangerous than the last, except that we are less affected and increasingly able to ignore them. The scientific community is evidently divided on this causal question, with no good ways to test these basic hypotheses.

I am personally very much in the viral evolution camp, believing that this virus has on its own evolved to be less virulent, even as it gained in transmissibility and ability to evade our immune systems. Surveillance of the virus shows quite high levels this summer, even while its effects are minor, overall. The logic is that this kind of virus does not gain from people shutting themselves up at home and being miserable, let alone dying. Much better for us to be surreptitiously infected and infectious, and able to go about our business, at work and play. We recall that Covid was markedly more lethal at the very outset of the pandemic, before the first set of variants developed. Other cold-type viruses seem to have followed a similar path, and the many zoonotic infections we have picked up (including this one) come from other organisms which carry these pathogens without much difficulty, doubtless after a long evolutionary standoff.

But the graph above makes a different argument, since the vaccines came online around the spring of 2021, reached about fifty percent of the population in late 2021, which is followed by the dramatic drop in covid mortality in spring of 2022. Some researchers point to the lack of attenuation of other pathogens, like HIV, tuberculosis, and smallpox, to say that the evolutionary argument does not hold water. After a pathogen has replicated and spread, (in the case of Covid, in the first week of infection, roughly), it doesn't care what happens to the host- literally whether it lives or dies. They would say that it was the immunization campaign that saved us, and continued infection leading to herd immunity that has created a population increasingly resistant to Covid mortality.

Testing these hypotheses would require Covid-naive populations, which would be ideally split into two study sets, one with vaccination followed by infection, and the other infected directly. This kind of thing may happen as a natural experiment somewhere, and perhaps the closest we can come is the release of Covid restrictions in China. In late 2022/early 2023, China switched abruptly from a zero-tolerance policy of social contact and infection, to a zero-tolerance policy towards bad publicity and accurate mortality reporting, while relaxing anti-Covid restrictions. The result was a surge in death rates, to levels estimated to be higher than those elsewhere, including in the US. This argues that during the restrictive period, the virus had not significantly attenuated via its natural evolution, though then the subsequent mass infection and inoculation did eventually lead in China, as it has elsewhere, to the lower mortality rates seen around the world. 

So, despite the rapidity of viral evolution, one has to conclude that over the short term, the immune hypothesis appears superior to the viral evolution hypothesis, as an explanation of general attenuation of Covid mortality. (Robert Kennedy may disagree, of course!) The evolution of virulence is closely related to the whole lifecycle of a pathogen, especially the way it spreads, making comparisons with other pathogens hazardous. Respiratory pathogens have the opportunity to spread without damaging the host too much, and that seems, in principle, like an advantageous evolutionary path. So I would still hypothesize that over the long term, Covid will settle into a less virulent form that triggers less immune activation (the most lethal aspect of Covid infection), in favor of high transmission and co-existence with our immune systems. Other viruses seem to have followed a similar path. How it interacts with further naive populations would be dispositive, though there may not be any left at this point.

• Updated vaccines are out.
• The race to fusion.
• But solar is the real fusion power.

Hungary for Power

Hungary has become a one-party, authoritarian state, not a democracy.

Victor Orban recently paid a visit to Donald Trump in Florida, with glowing photos and pledges of goodwill. Republicans in the US have nurtured a deep fascination and alliance with Orban and his government, holding several CPAC conventions in Hungary, and hosting Orban and his lieutenants at US events. It is clear that they view Hungary as a shining example and template of where they could take the US. Not the shining city on a hill of Reagan's democratic and anti-authoritarian dreams, but a whole other kind of city, one that never will fall into Democratic hands again.

So it is worth looking in detail at what has happened in Hungary, to observe the ideals of our current Republicans and what is in store for the rest of us from a second Trump term. I was, incidentally, beaten to the punch of this analysis by a recent story in the Atlantic. Orban's party, Fidesz, is very similar to the GOP in its mix of business right-wingery and rural values. Its strength is handing out the red meat of traditional, anti-cosmopolitan values to the rural base, along with helpful economic subsidies. In the pivotal 2018 election, it won all the rural districts, even though the opposition bowed to the logic of re-written (winner-take-all) electoral system and tried to join into a unified party. 

Fidesz came to power originally on an anti-socialist platform, vowing to get rid of the remnant bits of the prior communist system, which had settled into the same kind of semi-kleptocratic mode as in most of the former Soviet states and its satellites. That they did, but not to bring an end to corruption, let alone authoritarianism, but rather to partake themselves instead. After coming into power, Fidesz rewrote the constitution, in ways large and small to entrench their own power, and has since continued a campaign of extremely effective, gradual, and often surreptitious legislation to cement its advantages. Gerrymandering is now standard procedure, which when combined with the winner-take-all districts creates the opportunity to win overwhelming majorities in parliament founded on very thin electoral pluralities. Small parties can not win any more, but are also prohibited from combining with other small parties into election list coalitions.

The courts were remade by putting them under the control of a political appointee- the president of the National Judicial Office. This president is appointed by parliament, and in turn appoints, promotes, and runs the operations and budget of the whole judicial system. Needless to say, it is heavily influenced by the now Fidesz-controlled parliament and executive.

The media has been remade by gradual pressure on independent media owners to sell to Fidesz-friendly interests, which now control 90% of the country's media. Government advertising buys were strategically placed with friendly outlets, and government run media was put under direct political control. A Russian inspired "security" law was passed to outlaw ill-defined criticism of the state, public morality, or "imbalance" of coverage, answerable naturally to a parliamentary-appointed body, rather than the courts. Imagine if in the second Trump administration, PBS and NPR were put under political control and given a "FOX" makeover. 

Hungary is now effectively a one-party authoritarian state with managed elections. We are not far off. To see the battle of titanic interests and billionaires now openly showering money on favored candidates, and extending their tentacles down to the school board level, is sickening. The Republican party has partnered with Heritage foundation to offer an openly Orbanist plan for the second Trump administration. The court system has already re-written our constitution in extensive ways over the last four years, without an amendment being passed, or even proposed. The antics of Judge Eileen Cannon show that very little may remain of the rule of law if it is left in the hands of partisan extremists.

And our media is in even more perilous condition, with the relentless lying of FOX, Sinclair, and their ecosystem. The Republican convention just past was a pageant of lies and grift, betokening the criminal enterprise that party has turned into. Headed by their adored, and now divine, leader who is not just a felon and business fraud, but rapist and insurrectionist as well. But no matter. With enough money, and enough shamelessness, anything is possible.

• Everything is fine!
• Scandals erupt out of a corrupted system.
• The new GOP.
• Which is a blue collar party, right?
• Tom Tomorrow, on last week.
• Historical note on the great California land grab, and the fate of "free" land generally.
• Notes from the early days of life.