Are we all the Same, or all Different?

Refining diversity.

There has been some confusion and convenient logic around diversity. Are we all the same? Conventional wisdom makes us legally the same, and the same in terms of rights, in an ever-expanding program of level playing fields- race, gender, gender preference, neurodiversity, etc. At the same time, conventional wisdom treasures diversity, inclusion, and difference. Educational conventional wisdom assumes all children are the same, and deserve the same investments and education, until some magic point when diversity flowers, and children pursue their individual dreams, applying to higher educational institutions, or not. But here again, selectiveness and merit are highly contested- should all ethnic groups be equally represented at universities, or are we diverse on that plane as well?

It is quite confusing, on the new political correctness program, to tell who is supposed to be the same and who different, and in what ways, and for what ends. Some acute social radar is called for to navigate this woke world and one can sympathize, though not too much, with those who are sick of it and want to go back to simpler times of shameless competition; black and white. 

The fundamental tension is that a society needs some degree of solidarity and cohesion to satisfy our social natures and to get anything complex done. At the same time, Darwinian and economic imperatives have us competing with each other at all levels- among nations, ethnicities, states, genders, families, work groups, individuals. We are wonderfully sensitive to infinitesimal differences, which form the soul of Darwinian selection. Woke efforts clearly try to separate differences that are essential and involuntary, (which should in principle be excluded from competition), from those that are not fixed, such as personal virtue and work ethic, thus forming the proper field of education and competition.

But that is awfully abstract. Reducing that vague principle to practice is highly fraught. Race, insofar as it can be defined at all, is clearly an essential trait. So race should not be a criterion for any competitive aspect of the society- job hunting, education, customer service. But what about "diversity" and what about affirmative action? Should the competition be weighted a little to make up for past wrongs? How about intelligence? Intelligence is heritable, but we can't call it essential, lest virtually every form of competition in our society be brought to a halt. Higher education and business, and the general business of life, is extremely competitive on the field of intelligence- who can con whom, who can come up with great ideas, write books, do the work, and manage others.

These impulses towards solidarity and competition define our fundamental political divides, with Republicans glorying in the unfairness of life, and the success of the rich. Democrats want everyone to get along, with care for unfortunate and oppressed. Our social schizophrenia over identity and empathy is expressed in the crazy politics of today. And Republicans reflect contemporary identity politics as well, just in their twisted, white-centric way. We are coming apart socially, and losing key cooperative capacity that puts our national project in jeopardy. We can grant that the narratives and archetypes that have glued the civic culture have been fantasies- that everyone is equal, or that the founding fathers were geniuses that selflessly wrought the perfect union. But at the same time, the new mantras of diversity have dangerous aspects as well.

Each side, in archetypal terms, is right and each is an essential element in making society work. Neither side's utopia is either practical or desirable. The Democratic dream is for everyone to get plenty of public services and equal treatment at every possible nexus of life, with morally-informed regulation of every social and economic harm, and unions helping to run every workplace. In the end, there would be little room for economic activity at all- for the competition that undergirds innovation and productivity, and we would find ourselves poverty-stricken, which was what led other socialist/communist states to drastic solutions that were not socially progressive at all.

On the other hand is a capitalist utopia where the winners take not just hundreds of billions of dollars, but everything else, such as the freedom of workers to organize or resist, and political power as well. The US would turn into a moneyed class system, just like the old "nobility" of Europe, with serfs. It is the Nietzschian, Randian ideal of total competition, enabling winners to oppress everyone else in perpetuity, and, into the bargain, write themselves into the history books as gods.

These are not (and were not, historically) appetizing prospects, and we need the tension of mature and civil political debate between them to find a middle ground that is both fertile and humane. Nature is, as in so many other things, an excellent guide. Cooperation is a big theme in evolution, from the assembly of the eukaryotic cell from prokaryotic precusors, to its wonderous elaboration into multicellular bodies and later into societies such as our own and those of the insects. Cooperation is the way to great accomplishments. Yet competition is the baseline that is equally essential. Diversity, yes, but it is competition and selection among that diversity and cooperative enterprise that turns the downward trajectory of entropy and decay (as dictated by physics and time) into flourishing progress.

• Identity, essentialism, and postmodernism.
• Family structure, ... or diversity?
• Earth in the far future.
• Electric or not, cars are still bad.
• Our non-political and totally not corrupt supreme court.
• The nightmare of building in California.

Why do we Put up with the Specter of Unemployment?

A post by Paul Krugman got me thinking... why do we allow unemployment at all?

Paul Krugman has been ruminating a lot about inflation- why it went up, and why it is back down. One insight is that, asssuming that interest rate increases are supposed to work by raising unemployment, they have not evidently accomplished anything, yet inflation is back down and has been at 2-3 % for the last year, on a month to month basis. Perhaps the rate increases operated through other channels, like dampening the real estate market or general confidence. Or perhaps the rate increases had as much inflationary as deflationary effect, which is to say none at all, and our current state is simply due to the working-out of all the supply chain disruptions, emergency federal spending, and opportunistic profit-making brought on by the pandemic. As was, incidentally, supposed by the MMT school from the start.

But why make workers the focus of inflation policy in the first place? And why use unemployment as the index of inflation-fighting effectiveness? Why have unemployment at all? Unemployment is a central and classic feature of capitalism, certainly not of our natural state. Chimpanzees never experience unemployment- there is always something to do. But when it comes to capitalism, once workers have bought into the labor-rental scheme, they are dependent on the specific employer for pay, and on the employer class as a whole for the existence of a labor market. While employers like nothing better than to "discipline" workers with the prospect of sleeping on the streets, we can do better.

The Phillips curve, of unemployment related to inflation (the non-accelerating inflation rate level of unemployment, or NAIRU). A somewhat mythical and protean concept that used to be taken as a "law" of economics, that low unemployment drives higher inflation, via hotter labor market and wage increases. Even the Fed doesn't take this seriously any more.

Capitalists manage to pay themselves pretty well, to the point that our whole economy and social life (and politics) has been deranged by whole new classes of super-rich and their lackeys. So an allergy to income is not generally the problem- merely parting with money to pay others fairly. It is clear from the recent minimum wage increases that paying the lower end more has very little inflationary effect- it is peanuts on top of peanuts. But is immensely meaningful for those on the receiving end.

Similarly, the provision of a job guarantee, (as previously posted), thereby eliminating involuntary unemployment, would help workers on the low end of the scale with much greater security. The government would be the employer of last resort, at a decent wage, offering a wide range of work, from street cleaning and park maintenance to non-profit collaborations and technical operations appropriate to whatever skills are on offer. Looking around the country, there is no end of work that needs doing. The Great Depression, which gave us so much innovative legislation, also gave us a model of public works and public jobs programs- something well worth learning from and using on a permanent basis.

Such a job guarantee would automatically provide a floor for the minimum wage, (and also a floor for work conditions, hours, and benefits), and replace most unemployment insurance and other benefit programs. If a person didn't want the jobs offered, they could take a lower basic welfare-type income. But the work would not be designed to either onerous or easy- the point is to get some useful work done for society, and take in the bottom level of the labor market as needed from fluctuations in the private market. It is an insurance system, just as we have for health, for property hazards, and, as embodied in the Federal Reserve, for the banks and US capitalism writ large. Such a guarantee of work is, I think, far superior to the current unemployment insurance system, which is grudgingly funded by employers, pays people to not work, which is morally perverse and heavily abused. Private employers would naturally be able to bid workers off the system with higher pay.

Such a system would have little effect on the Fed's interest rate policies, (assuming they are effective in the first place), since unemployment is really just an index of economic activity, not the point of interest rate increases. Economic slowing would be reflected in higher numbers of people thrown into the job guarantee, and presumably getting lower (but still decent) pay. (A pay scale that would, incidentally, be more anti-cyclical than current policies.) And would be reflected in a myriad of other slowdowns that would contribute, if needed, to inflation control. 

The irony is that welfare reform of the last few decades focused relentlessly on "work requirements", and of the decades prior to that on "job training". The latter was a boondoggle, and the former forced the poor into appalling, coercive, and low-paying jobs- the very bottom end of the capitalist system. Which was the design, no doubt. I can imagine that capitalists would yell "communism" about a program where governments give decent work with decent income and benefits to anyone willing to work. Well, if that is communism, we need more of it.

Unemployment is currently used as a potent weapon- both by capitalists, given its dire consequences, and paradoxically by unions as well, which walk off the job and strike as a way to pressure employers who may find it inconvenient to hire scabs in a short time. A job guarantee could transform such conflict by taking the most dire consequences off the table. Everyone could maintain their livelihoods, and negotiations could proceed with less drama and coercion. And that is what our society should be about, promoting freedom and civility by removing forms of unjust and pernicious coercion, whether political, criminal, military, or economic.

• Bill Burns and Russia.
• Some statistics.
• When insurrection becomes policy.
• Think of the children...

Euthansia of the Rentier

It is bad enough when business models make people rich for destroying the planet. Do we have to enrich those who do nothing at all?

John Maynard Keynes had a famous quip in his central work, The General Theory.... which goes, slightly re-arranged:

"Interest today rewards no genuine sacrifice, any more than does the rent of land. The owner of capital can obtain interest because capital is scarce, just as the owner of land con obtain rent because land is scarce. But whilst there may be intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of land, there are not intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of capital. ... It would be possible for communal saving through the agency of the state to be maintained at a level which will allow the growth of capital up to the point where it ceases to be scarce. Now, while this state of affairs would be quite compatible with some measure of individualism, it would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity value of capital."

Keynes assumed that this day would naturally come as capitalism developed and piled up endless riches in the form of money. But recently Thomas Piketty came along and stated that this day will never come, because for some curious/mysterious reason, returns on capital are persistently higher than they have a right to be, and higher than the economic growth rate. That means that the rich keep getting richer, on a magic escalator, forever, and the only way to change this, historically, has been the horsemen of the apocalypse- war, pestilence and famine. Economic depressions can be pretty effective as well. Sadly, we have rendered all these mechanisms less effective than they have been in the past, so need to come up with something else for this modern age.

It is quite clear that advanced economies have plenty of capital. Companies routinely give money back to shareholders or buy back stock, for lack of anything better to do with their mountains of money. Interest rates tend to be low. The Federal Reserve has campaigned mightily over the last three decades to raise interest rates, to what they deem "normal" rates, which are roughly 5%. The Fed is heavily influenced by the private banking industry, which benefits (perhaps) from higher rates, as do rentiers. Each time, however, some catastrophe has intervened and sent rates back to zero. Whether the latest push turns out be the charm is not clear, but Paul Krugman expects rates to eventually return to very low levels. Japan has had near-zero rates for a couple of decades, with little harm to its domestic economy. So it seems as though the natural interest rate in this era, among stable, peaceful economies, seems actually to be very low, approximately equal to the inflation rate, and thus approximately zero.

History of US interest rates and Japanese interest rates. We keep flirting with zero rates.

This abundance of capital has sent investors to the stock market as a better bet for growth. This has sent stock valuations higher, with price/earning ratios coasting at much higher than historical levels. There is a metric called the "Buffet index", which relates stock valuations to total GDP, and this is also unusually high, twice what it has been historically. Whether all this reflects overall wealth, or the greater profitability of current corporations (due to monopolies, lack of regulation, repeated stock buy-backs, shortchanging workers, etc.), or the push of too many investors into this market, it is a worrisome situation over the long term, as returns may fail to justify expectations.

At any rate, the question is.. how to address inequality and particularly the basically unjust income of rentiers, and bring Keynes' prophecy to fruition? The recent tax changes by the Democratic congress, to impose a cost on stock buy-backs, is a tiny step in the right direction. The the fact that federal taxes on income from work (except when that work is done for hedge funds!) is twice that on investment is a clear bias, inherited from the Reagan era, that needs to be eliminated. Outright wealth taxes are also needed, as are programs against off-shore wealth hiding and abuse of trusts. There is a very long list of ways to reduce the ratchet of wealth, and especially inherited wealth, that fundamentally corrodes the basic equality on which our social and political system is (or should be) based.

The modern monetary theory community has long advocated for another policy that would address this problem, which is to end the issue of federal government bonds. They see these bonds as a relic of past times when we were on the gold standard, and really had to borrow money from the public to make ends meet. With a fiat currency, closely managed by the Federal Reserve, the federal government has no need to borrow at all. It can and does print as much money as needed ("print" being a metaphor for creating mostly electronic forms of money). State and local governments, on the other hand, are financially constrained, and need to put out bonds if they want money for large projects, beyond what taxes bring in. In 2022, the federal government spent 476 billion dollars on interest payments on the debt, which may increase drastically if inflation rises on a durable basis. 

Who holds US federal bond debt?

Whom do these interest payments go to? Well, the Fed itself and the Social Security Administration hold huge amounts- no real loss there. Foreign countries hold huge amounts- China, for example, has a trillion dollar's worth; so does Japan. But then come banks, pension funds, and mutual funds- rich investors who like these low but extremely reliable returns. The mainstream argument for bond issuance, in the absence of a gold standard, is that bonds drain demand from an economy, preventing inflation that would result were the government to not "balance" its spending with borrowing that brings that money back into its coffers. What MMT proponents point out is that those who invest in government bonds are already rich and don't need the money they are parting with. Bonds are not displacing effective demand in the economy, just productive (or unproductive) investment. Secondly, federal bonds are a fully liquid market- the money is not actually tied up in a way that prevents it from turning into economic demand.

These are the classic rentiers, whom we are collectively paying roughly half a trillion dollars a year that could be much, much better spent on other things. The last time that the federal bond market came into doubt, as the Clinton administration, under pressure from the deficit scolds, went into surplus and started paying back the "debt", who raised a hue and cry? The banks, of course, who could not imagine a world without this manna falling from heaven. Well, the fact of the matter is that the foreign countries, and the banks, and all the other rentiers, could just as well hold the fundamental debt instrument of the US government- the dollar, instead of bonds. We don't have to pay all these entities a premium to take dollars off our hands, if that is what they want.

What keeps us from ending these bond payments? It isn't economics, it is purely legislative fiction, the same kind of fiction that makes congress go through the absurdities of raising the "debt" ceiling. The US federal debt is the obverse of economic growth, for which more currency needs to be issued. The Fed and treasury issue new dollars into the economy, channeled through federal spending, and a notional debt is created. The current law just means that one debt (dollar bills) must be traded for rentier-paying debts (bonds) ... because ... we used to do so. But it is no different than the debt implied by every dollar bill: that the government, and the economy in total, stand behind each dollar bill as a manifestation of faith and credit (and good federal management). The debt does not need to be "paid off", it will not drag down future generations, and most of all, it shouldn't be compounded with interest payments to the least deserving recipients imaginable.

• Maybe some de-oligarchization is in order.
• Loneliness is a political risk.
• A curious conference just happened.
• After holding out the hope of carbon capture for decades, it is now not "deployable".
• Perhaps maturity is better than growth.
• How do you think?
• They should come up with something better than they.

Bukharin's Lesson in Communism

A review of "The ABC of Communism", by Nikokai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, 1920.

Nikokai Bukharin was one of the 1917 revolutionaries that brought communism to Russia. He was in New York (as was Leon Trotsky) in February 1917, as the news of the budding revolution spread around the world, and joined that revolution in May. He and Trotsky were penning a socialist newspaper at the time, and were particular fans of the New York public library- a great example of a public-private partnership, (not to mention free speech), which houses countless products of private enterprise, in a public facility. Back in Russia, they helped establish the world's first socialist and communist state, destroying the nascent parliamentary system of Karensky, and then the arrayed forces of the old aristocracy in the Russian civil war. They did this by promising something even better than parliamentary democracy- a proletarian state that would forever place workers in power, and end the power of capital and the aristocracy. 

A convenient document of the thinking behind all this is the "The ABC of Communism", by Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, put out in 1920 and republished long thereafter to provide a popular argument for communism and the soviet system. It encapsulates the economic and political theories that animated, at least at a conscious level, the new rulers. Bukharin was relatively young, regarded as a leading theoretician, and somewhat on the liberal side, not quite as ruthless as Stalin and Lenin. An autobiography and film about his wife tried to paint a positive image of him and of what things would have been like if Bukharin had managed to not get murdered by Stalin. So this work should present a relatively coherent and attractive case for communism.

Bukharin (center) in happier days, in Soviet leadership.

Well, I have to say that it is not very impressive as either economics or politics. While it provides insight into some capitalist dynamics, it fundamentally fails to understand the most basic drivers of economic systems, and obviously has not engaged with Adam Smith, who had written almost 150 years before. 

On the plus side, there is a lengthy treatment of the economies of scale, which rightly describes the advantages that large industrial enterprises have over smaller ones. The point of this, however, is mostly political, to show why anarchism, which was one of the many revolutionary threads still active at the time, made little sense. The Bolsheviks were besotted by industry and large-scale industrialization, which was at least one area where they put a lot of resources and accomplished a great deal, saving their skins in world war 2, later on.

"Consequently, THE LARGER THE UNDERTAKING, THE MORE PERFECT IS THE TECHNIQUE, THE MORE ECONOMICAL IS THE LABOUR, AND THE LOWER IS THE COST OF PRODUCTION."

Secondly, the author's treatment of cyclical crises in capitalism is not too far off the mark. They pin the problem on over-production, which then leads to workers getting laid off, loss of income and buying power, loss of credit, loss of ancillary business, and the downward spiral of depression. Whether lack of demand or over-supply, imbalances of this kind are indeed central to this kind of crisis. The author's solution? Better organization, in the form of state control over every aspect of the economy. They ceaselessly rail against the waste of capitalism- the competition with similar products, the disorganized manner of production by competing and cut-throat capitalists, the lack of overall harmonious coordination for the public good. But what of Adam Smith? It turns out that the chaos of capitalism has its beauties, and its efficiencies, squeezing every drop out of the environment, and out of workers, in its Darwinian competition.

Thirdly, they make a great deal out of the ambient excesses of capitalism, which were truly horrific, and were clear enough all over the world, leading to the communist's program of world-wide revolution by the working class. The monopolies, the strike-breaking, the child labor, the inhuman conditions, and the vast inequality- these were unquestionable evils, some of which remain endemic to capitalism, others of which have been ameliorated through reform in (relatively) democratic countries. As is typical, criticizing is easy, and there were, and remain, plenty of problems with capitalism and with democracy as well. The question is whether Bukharin plumbs the essential depths of economics sufficiently to come up with a better economic system, or of its associated politics to come up with a better form of the state.

And here the answer has to be, as history demonstrated, no. In their discussion of large scale enterprise, they go through a rather particular example to show the power of scale.

"How great is the advantage of this system was made manifest by some American researches instituted in the year 1898. Here are the results. The manufacture of 10 ploughs. By hand labour: 2 workers, performing 11 distinct operations, worked in all 1,180 hours, and received $54. By machine labour: 52 workers, performing 97 operations (the more numerous the workers, the more varied the operations), worked in all 37 hours and 28 minutes, and received $7.90. (We see that the time was enormously less and that the cost of labour was very much lower.) The manufacture of 100 sets of clock wheels. By hand labour: 14 workers, 453 operations, 341,866 hours, $80.82. By machine labour: 10 workers, 1,088 operations, 8343 hours, $1.80. The manufacture of 500 yards of cloth. Hand labour: 3 workers, 19 operations, 7,534 hours, $135.6. Machine labour: 252 workers, 43 operations, 84 hours, $6.81."

... "All these advantages attaching to large-scale enterprise explain why small scale production must invariably succumb in capitalist society. Large scale capital crushes the small producer, takes away his customers, and ruins him, so that he drops into the ranks of the proletariat or becomes a tramp. In many cases, of course, the small master continues to cling to life. He fights desperately, puts his own hand to the work, forces his workers and his family to labour with all their strength; but in the end he is compelled to give up his place to the great capitalist."

If we read this carefully, and do the math in the case of the ploughs:

$54 / 1180 hours = 4.58 cents per hour in wages

$5.40 per plough in cost

$7.90 / 37.5 hours = 21.1 cents per hour in wages

$0.79 per plough in cost

... we can see that not only is the plough almost ten-fold cheaper (some of which is presumably shared with the buyer in the market), but the workers were paid almost five-fold more per hour. How is this a bad reflection on capitalism? This is by way of telling why small scale production dies in a capitalist system ... it doesn't stand a chance. But the authors fail to mention that, in their own example, some of these gains are apparently shared with workers. So the gains in efficiency are shared quite widely- with customers, with workers, and also with the managers and capitalists, since this new form of work requires much greater contributions of management and capital equipment.

Bukharin and Preobrazhensky are "doctrinaire" communists, blind to a gem hidden in their own data that tells us how and why the capitalist system really works. Why did workers flock to the cities when there were agricultural jobs to be had? It was higher pay. Were the new capitalists holding workers as serfs against their will? Not at all. In the US likewise, whatever the horrors of capitalism, it did not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery.

More broadly, Bukharin and the communists generally had little appreciation for the difficulties and role of management. The surplus labor theory of Marxism leaves no room for management contributions of value to the final product- it is all excess labor stolen from the worker, to be restored in the idealized worker state/paradise. The capitalists are parasites:

"In communist society parasitism will likewise disappear. There will be no place for the parasites who do nothing and who live at others' cost."

Rentiers may be parasites, but managers are not. Theirs is the job to locate the resources, drum up the customers, to build the factories, to negotiate the wages, to run the work and fire the lazy. It is not an enviable or simple position to be in, rather is perhaps the most complex in the capitalist system, or any economic system. (And it is noteworthy that failures of management are endemic in government, of even the most enlightened kind, where crucial parts of this constricting set of incentives are often lacking.) It is the competitive forces pressuring on all sides- from customers, from workers, from government, from the financial markets, etc., that are integrated by the petty bourgeoisie / kulak class into a solvent enterprise, and are the soul of the capitalist system, for which they take a premium of profits off the top.

Bukharin and colleagues never pause to consider why capitalism is so dominant:

"Contemporary capitalism is world capitalism. All the countries are interconnected; they buy one from another. We cannot now find any country which is not under the heel of capitalism; we cannot find any country which produces for itself absolutely everything it needs."

Why is this? There was no shortage of experiments in the 1800's in socialistic styles of life, extending from the Shakers and the Owenites to the Tolstoyans. Few of them even survived very long, and none had a broader impact, let alone rising to the organic level of country-wide economic system. Religious monasteries are probably the only example of successful long-term socialistic organizations, though most are run on more or less totalitarian lines, with a whole separate set of emotional and personal committments. This starkly unsuccessful track record should have been a red flag- forgive the pun!- that while socialist utopianism is very popular, it is not practical.

This cavalier disregard of management and the elementary aspects of human economic demand (aka desire, aka greed) naturally came back to bite the communist Soviets, when, in the absence of a well-thought out way to run things in the wake of winning power on the back of their fantasy of a perfectly (and apparently easily, thanks to a mythical "statistical office") ordered and efficient economic system, they fell to the lowest device in the manager's toolbox- terror.

Bukharin on his way to execution, after having helped Stalin hound Trotsky to death.

Why the loose economics, fantastical pronouncements, and embarassing lack of realism? The reason becomes apparent as you read through "The ABC of Communism", which is that its main purpose is to inspire hate. It is a political tract that, as was current among communists then and since, seeks to frame an enemy, inspire hatred of that enemy, and support for the valiant vanguard that will vanquish that enemy. 

"What civil war can compare in its destructive effects with the brutal disorganization and devastation, with the loss of the accumulated wealth of mankind, that resulted from the imperialist war? MANIFESTLY IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT HUMANITY SHALL MAKE AN END OF CAPITALISM ONCE AND FOR ALL. WITH THIS GOAL IN VIEW, WE CAN ENDURE THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WARS, AND CAN PAVE THE WAY FOR COMMUNISM, WHICH WILL HEAL ALL OUR WOUNDS, AND WILL QUICKLY LEAD TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF HUMAN SOCIETY."

... "We are thus confronted by two alternatives, and two only. There must either be complete disintegration, hell broth, further brutalization and disorder, absolute chaos, or else communism."

Millions of people all over the world were thoughtless enough to accept this poisoned chalice, and went down the road of economic brutalization, famine, mass terror, and the gulag. Communism turned out to be a power play, not an economic Oz. It was a bright and shiny political lie. We are in the US becoming familiar with the power of such lies- their use of the basest and most powerful instincts- hate, and hope. Their ability to cut straight through any rational and empathetic analysis, and their ability to make seemingly reasonable people believe the flimsiest absurdities.

• China is looking at some serious problems.
• Utopias should be strictly for thinking, not doing.
• Wait, I can't live in an exclusive neighborhood?
• Is it OK for lawyers to engage in insurrection?

Profiles in Pusillanimity

China, its communist party, and our free speech. Review of America 2nd, by Isaac Stone Fish.

Why are there always spoilers on the international scene? Some country is always unhappy with the way things are, and does its best to shake up the system. That shaking can be as detrimental to itself as to any other nation, but greed and ambition are always with us. After the Cold War, Russia descended into criminal chaos, with little real help from the West, and, once it had finally pulled itself together, turned around with veangence on its mind to refashion its imperial / security sphere. Russia could have been a nice country, tied into the European cultural and defense system. But no, the nostalgia for satellites and empire were just too strong. Putin spent a decade and more pulling Ukraine into the Russian orbit, only to be finally rebuffed in a people-powered revolution. Now he is trying to do it the hard way, and will take and keep whatever he can grab, little though that may be.

All that is peanuts compared with the game brewing between us and China. While Russia is playing for its neighborhood, the stakes in this next game are the whole world. That is, who runs the "international system", such as it is, and who plays the dominant role over the next century. The US has spent the last couple of decades trying to pull China into the existing trade and security system, in hopes that it would change into a "nice" country, aligning with the US, Europe and our developed allies all over the world in a quest for peace and lawful security. That has not happened. Even less so than with Russia, which at least has a long strand of pro-European sentiment, China learned its lessons from the Russian debacle, and its own Tienanmen square brush with democracy, and resolutely stayed in the Leninist camp- of absolute and unapologetic party power. It was hardly even tempted by European values.

In his book "America 2nd", Isaac Fish is eloquent about how deep China's resentments vs the West go. China suffered a century or more of humiliating vassalage over the 19th century, mired in poverty, opium, and weakness vs colonial powers. Then it suffered again at the hands of imperial Japan, and then several decades on its own account under Mao enduring the Western ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Maybe the last part is projected on the West as well, I am not sure. But China has plenty of ground to make up, and the last few decades of managed capitalism have been, as all can see, completely transformative.

China has already attained number one status in pollution, in population, (though later overtaken by India), and will soon attain that status in GDP. China is busy projecting its power and values via foreign aid, "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy, their takeover of the South China sea, propaganda, intelligence, and hard-ball economic warfare. The question Fish asks is- why are we supporting this policy and the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?

Recall the quaint old days of "linkage", when the US considered using some points of leverage with Russia to influence Soviet policies we didn't like? China has no such qualms. Everything is linked, and particularly, China's great economic engine is linked with CCP propaganda. US companies that say anything the CCP does not like lose business and IP. The NBA went through a humiliating episode when Darryl Morey of the Houston Rockets criticized CCP repression in Hong Kong. The CCP promptly cancelled NBA air time and business in China, until the NBA comprehensively groveled back into its good graces, and has ever since kept its mouth shut. Black lives may matter, but Tibetan lives, Uyghur lives, Hong Kong lives... not so much, when a totalitarian power waves its big stick.

China can make its own jingoistic media as well. This is Wolf Warrior 2, whose tag line runs: "Anyone who offends China, no matter how remote, must be exterminated."

Far more damaging is the capitulation of Hollywood. After dabbling with tailoring films for the Chinese market, it turned out that it was easier, and not at all influenced by CCP pressure to project a positive world wide image, for Hollywood studios to get fully on board with CCP censorship for all releases, not portraying China or Chinese in a negative way. So, after a brief and now thoroughly repressed few years of agitation on behalf of Tibet a couple of decades ago, the film industry, one of the premiere arms of American soft power, has been turned and cowed, into a lapdog of the CCP. Not a peep about Tibet any more, indeed DreamWorks brought out a thoroughly whitewashed Tibet-adjacent feature in 2019 that suggests everything there is perfectly fine, thanks to Han characters who protect the region.

Capitulation has been the rule across the business world, as each business faces the brutal choice of playing with the CCP, or being barred from Chinese markets, and even hobbled in other ways as China gains power abroad. But this has not been enough. China has been busily corrupting the US government itself, masterfully using former officials to press its case for Western acquiescence. Henry Kissinger is the pioneer in this effort, but former presidents and many other officials have spared no effort in setting up post-career "consultancies" that assiduously advise any and all comers that resistance is futile- China will rule the world and we must accommodate ourselves to that fact. 

"There are plenty of antagonists in this story, some Chinese, some not. For those upset with Beijing's influence in America, understand this: by helping normalize corruption among our former diplomats and warping American perception of China over the last four decades, Henry Kissinger has done more harm to American interests than every ethnically Chinese businessman, hacker, spy, whether they hold American or Chinese citizenship."

It is ironic, with all the current complaints about cancel culture, free speech for fascists, woke restrictions, etc. that we are actually being policed in our speech by our geopolitical opponent, China, and do not seem to think anything amiss about that.

The ancient Art of War recommends winning by shaping the battlefield and the minds of the opponents- whereby not a shot needs to be fired. Fish emphasises the United Front operations of the CCP and its propaganda arms, which seek influence in many ways, not just media. The seduction of foreign officials and fixers comes under this area of government work, for instance, as does the pressuring of speech and behavior by foreign corporations. Everything is linked, as is proper under a totalitarian system, and every oar pulls in the same direction of keeping the CCP in power and gaining influence across the world.

The CCP has a great deal to answer for, both historically, and in its brutal approach to its current rule, even given its huge successes in economic growth and allowing the modernization of China. A democratic and free China would look very different, and could flourish just as well. We should not be taken in by the propaganda of identity between the CCP and China, or the permanence of CCP rule. We need to be able to think and speak freely, and facilitate the freedom of others. And this should start with Taiwan, whose freedom is in the crosshairs of the CCP. We should not acquiesce to the narrative that Taiwan must/will be assimilated into China, or that it is not, in fact, an independent nation with every right to self-determination. The CCP's track record of cultural genocide in Tibet, actual concentration camps and genocide in Xinjiang, and the decapitation of Hong Kong shows clearly enough what would be in store for Taiwan, and for the rest of us, were China to gain even more leverage.

• More of the same, and Maurice Greenberg is always at hand to support China.
• India is only marginally better.
• Should we end the drug war?
• Maybe we should just leave nature alone.
• Fascism is coming.
• But Scientology is ... aready here.

Portents of Overpopulation

The many ways we can tell humans have overrun the planet.

I was reading a slight book on the history of my county, built around photos from our local historical society. What struck me was how bucolic it used to be, more agrarian and slow paced, yet at the same time socially vibrant. A scarcity of people makes everyone more positive about meeting and being with other people. Now the region is much more built-up, with more amenities, but less open space and seemingly less social mixing. All this got me thinking about the social indices of overpopulation.

There are many ways to evaluate human overpopulation. Famine and starvation is perhaps the simplest, a specter that was thought to be imminent in the 1970's, with "The Population Bomb". Lately we have become aware of more subtle problems that the planet has due to our numbers, like pervasive plastic pollution, deranged nitrogen and other chemical cycles, and climate heating. There has been a constant descent down ladders of resource quality, from the mastodons that were hunted out thousands of years ago, then fisheries destroyed, then ranges overgrazed, to the point that we are making hamburgers out of peas and soy beans now. Minerals follow the same course, as we go farther afield to exploit poorer ores of the critical elements like copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, helium, etc. 

Sustainability is not just a word or a woke mantra. It is a specter that hangs over our future. Will humans be able to exist at our current technological level in a few hundred years? A thousand? Ten thousand? There is no way that will be possible with our current practices. So those practices unquestionably have to change. 

But apart from the resource constraints that overpopulation presents, I have been struck by the sociological factors that point in the same direction, and are spontaneous responses to what is evident in the environment. In my community and the state of California, there is a vocal debate about housing. Localities have settled into a comfortable stasis, where no new housing is zoned for, existing housing values go up, and existing residents are happy. But the population of the state continues to go up, housing becomes increasingly unaffordable, and the homeless lie all over the streets and parks. There seems to be a psychological state where most current residents see the current situation as sufficiently dense- they are not interested in more growth, (We don't want to become LA!). They instinctively sense that we have collectively reached some kind of limit, given our technological setting and psychology.

Declining birth rates across the developed world point in the same direction. Perhaps the expense of raising a child into the current lifestyle is too high, but there may be something more basic going on. Likewise the broad acceptance of gay / LGBTQ lives, where previously the emphasis was on "natural" and fertile growth of the human population, without any consciousness of limits. People seem less social, less likely to go out from their cocoons and streaming pods. Political divisiveness may also be traceable to this sociological turning point, since if growth is off the table, the pie is static, and political and economic competition is increasingly zero-sum instead of collective and growth-oriented. Public works fall into this trap as well, with public agencies increasingly sclerotic, unable to plow through conflicting entrenched interests, and unable to grow, or even maintain, our infrastructure. One could invoke a general anti-immigrant sentiment as another sign, although anti-immigrant campaigns have featured periodically throughout US history, usually mixed, as now, with racial selectivity and animus.

Imaginatively, dystopias seem to rule over the science fiction universe, as Hollywood seems to take for granted a grim future of some kind, whether inflicted by aliens or AI, or by ourselves. Heroes may fight against it, but we do not seem to get many happy endings. The future just looks too bleak, if one is looking far enough ahead. It is hard to generate the optimism we once had, given the failure of the technological deliverances of the twentieth century (fossil fuels, nuclear power, fusion power) to provide a truly sustainable future. Everyone can sense, at an intuitive level, that we are stuck, and may not get a technological fix to get us out of this jam. Solar power is great, but it is not yet clear that the triumvirate of wind, solar, and batteries are truly enough to feed our need for power, let alone the growing appetites of the not-yet-fully developed world. And if it is? Human populations will doubtless grow to the point that those technologies become untenable in turn, with a hat-tip to Thomas Malthus. 

We should be proud of the many great things that this period of prosperity has allowed us to accomplish. But we should grieve, as well, for the costs incurred- the vast environmental degradation which at the current pace is accelerating and compounding through many forms. Humans are not going to go extinct from these self-induced crises, but we will have to face up to the absolute necessity of sustainability over the long term, or else "the environment" will do so for us, by reducing our populations to more sustainable levels.

• Similarly in China...
• A turning point in Chinese attitudes.
• The Gym Industrial Complex.

What's Inflation For?

Why do we have, and want, inflation?

I recently watched some of a documentary- "The Monopoly of Violence"- an attack on the state from a libertarian perspective. It is the kind of thing Elon Musk and fellow Ayn Randians love to go on about- how jackbooted and totalitarian the evil state is, over the little people and wonderful entrepreneurs of our sadly oppressed Western countries. How compulsory taxation, schooling, and legal responsibility is an affront to the natural rights of man. Maybe it is better somewhere else less governed, like maybe Haiti, or Mars! The absurdity of it is grating, as they rant from comfortable chairs, protected by the innumerable services of the state.

One such service is management of the monetary system. Back in the wonderful days of unregulated money, anyone could found a bank, and any bank could issue money. Sounds nuts, right? Well it was nuts, and led to numerous booms and busts in the 1800's, and countless smaller bank failures, lost fortunes, swindles, etc. Early Mormon history gives us just one small example, where Joseph Smith set up the Kirtland Bank on a fraudulent basis, issued an ocean of notes, and collapsed less than a year after founding. As the old saying has it, man is wolf to man. And anarchy, while sometimes conducive to self-organization and initiative, is more often the province of con men, swindlers, gangs- criminals of all kinds.

The recent inflation scare brought the topic of inflation front and center in the news again, after a couple of decades in remission. The Fed has a target of two percent, which seems arbitrary. Why not something else? Why not zero? If you read lots of history or Victorian novels, it becomes apparent that this idea of having, even wanting, ongoing inflation, is a modern idea. Economies used to run on a gold standard, on the pound sterling, or the Roman denarius, which were stable in value (barring debasements in the coinage) for centuries. What happened?

Modern economics happened, along with heightened trust in government institutions such as the Federal Reserve. Where we once relied on the perceived and relatively constant value of rare minerals like gold and silver for money, we have spent the last century getting off that standard and graduating to a standard simply of trust in collective insitutions to issue, manage, and account for .. notional (fiat) money such as the dollar. With that transition, we now have far more flexible ways to manage the value of this money, both preventing large swings during crises, (such as crises of balance of payment, or lack of gold mines, or episodic depressions in the business cycle), and seeking that inflation rate mentioned at the top.

John Maynard Keynes played a large role in this change, explaining why the gold standard was a barbaric relic, and that the central banks failed to mentally leave the gold standard world behind in their mismanagement of the Great Depression. He helped design the post-war Bretton Woods arrangement of exchange rates, which gradually helped wean the world off the gold standard fully, to where we are today, with fully floating exchange rates and fully fiat government issued currencies, unbacked by crystals, metals, coconuts, or anything else. 

Lots of inflation is, naturally, bad.

But why do these issuers seek inflation? Under mismanagement, inflation can easily run rampant, as the government creates money for itself to spend, beyond the economy's capacity to absorb, and beyond what its taxation policies bring back in. It is exceedingly tempting, but in the US, the citizenry and media are quite negatively inclined towards inflation, limiting our government's profligacy in that direction. But low inflation, that is a different story entirely. The Fed's two percent target is founded on several beneficial consequences:

• Low and consistent inflation encourages investment, as opposed to hoarding cash. If cash loses value continually, then savers need to find places to put their money where it can grow and that means investing in hopefully productive pursuits like stocks, bonds, businesses, real estate, etc... things that make our economy go around.
• Low and consistent inflation takes money from workers, silently. It is a subtle way to sink the general wage scale, lowering pay for non-innovative sectors and increasing (relative) productivity, as more dynamic sectors engage in more active wage negotiations and give higher pay. This effect is mitigated by union negotiations that seek to make up for inflation losses, and sometimes exceed them, thus accelerating inflation.
• Low and consistent inflation guards against deflation, giving the central bank more scope to lower interest rates in a crisis. At two percent inflation, interest rates may be at four percent, so setting rates at zero in a crisis would have a stimulatory effect, which would not be possible if inflation were already at zero. Granted, the Fed and the Federal government has plenty of other tools to prevent deflation, but deflation is also far more dangerous than inflation, thus a preference for low inflation as a consistent policy target.
• Low and consisten inflation creates a psychological impression of growth, as the monetary value of things goes inexorably up. Real estate is most obvious, but everything is worth "more" over time, and, like the wage theft argument, people think generally in nominal (monetary) values, giving a subjective impression of gains in wealth. Values like this can be baked into the language, in terms like "millionaire".

So, while it is weird to live in a world where the value of money goes continually down and the monetary value of things continually goes up, there are positive aspects to it. At two percent, values double every 35 years and go up ten-fold every 115 years. So someday, the dollar will either become a notional, almost valueless currency, or we will want to rebase it by a couple of orders of magnitude. At any rate, monetary consistency is the gift that the state brings us, deploying its many powers to keep the monetary system stable, and thus a critical support for a flourishing society where people do not have to think too much about fluctuations in the value of their money.

• Was it monopoly power and greedflation?
• No getting away from our masters and servants.
• Is nuclear the only answer?
• Breaking news... homelessness tied to high housing costs.

Haiti is Desperate

Let's help Haiti, and try to do nation building right this time.

We have a desperate situation on our doorstep, in Haiti. Governance has broken down, and anarchy is rampant, with the usual sad story of gangs, kidnapping, killing, looting, and mayhem. While the US has no formal obligation to help, and we have a long history of trying to help (as well as harm) Haiti, it is hard to stand idly by. The US has a frought history with "nation-building". We started in the nation-destroying business, laying waste to one Native American nation after another. Then we had a turn at destroying our own nation in the Civil War. After that came the quasi-imperial ambitions in the Philippines, the United Fruit Empire of Central America, including Panama and the Canal. The high point was our reconstruction of both German and Japanese societies after the second world war, though these societies were definitely not reduced to anarchy, only to temporary leaderless-ness and penury after the defeats of their somewhat abberrant fascist governments. Our more recent attempts to run countries like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been thoroughgoing disasters, ending in various degrees of embarrassment. Why ask for more?

Notable US activities in Haiti:

• Sided with Whites in Haiti's war for independence (i.e. the slave revolt) ~ 1800
• Waited ~60 years to recognize the resulting Haitian government.
• Occupied Haiti 1915-34.
• Colonial-style trade with France and the US continued to immiserate Haiti, ongoing.
• Occupied Haiti 1994-97 to prop up elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. 
• Aristide was later ousted in a coup by the Haitian military, which had been extensively supported by the US.

One reason for all this failure is that our nation-building work has never been very conscious. We were faced with weak allies or vanquished enemies, and wanted little more than to have military access for our jihad du jur, and to get out as soon as possible. The social and the long-term was, perhaps with the exception of the post-WW2 reconstructions, always secondary to military objectives. But as we learn, the military is always ultimately political and social as well. As a super-power, we have a naturally narcissistic mind-set, caring little about the dynamics of other countries and having little patience with their deep histories and un-American ways. This has been particularly evident in our building of other nation's militaries, those in Vietnam and Afghanistan being made in our image and promptly failing in our absence.

But another thing that has been evident through all these adventures is that nation-building is very, very important. Our own revolutionary experiment fed us a civic myth of tremendous power and durability. Our many failures, bottoming out with Donald Rumsfeld's scorn of nation-building in Iraq as it melted down in flaming anarchy, should have taught us by now that attending to nation-building is a top priority in any military relationship, and in most international relationships generally. There is no military effectiveness without a national moral and civic ethos behind it. 

That leads to the question of whether any nation can "nation-build" for others. Like teenage development, nations develop typically in opposition to others, via revolutions, wars, conquest. "Help" is rarely relevant, and mostly harmful. But hope springs eternal, and sometimes desperate situations call out for a special effort.

What is the situation in Haiti? I am far from an expert, but it is mostly one of collapse of institutions (never competent to start with), amid repeated natural disasters, (indeed, eco-cide on a large scale), huge inequality and corruption, extreme poverty- even starvation, and a custom of right-wing military coups and meddling. We can not expect democracy to be the immediate solution, given the depth and long history of the dysfunction. Some kind of stabilization and gradual re-introduction of governance and civic society needs to be envisioned.

Gang-based governance is not working well in Haiti.

So, contrary to our last few nation-building projects, the one in Haiti needs to be a partnership between a minimal military or police presence and extensive social, civic, economic, and especially governmental / political support. The current administration has announced a very low-key plan of aid and consultation, but no prospect of fixing the underlying dysfunctions. Indeed, food aid and similar kinds of aid are notorious for degrading indigenous agriculture and other non-dependent economic activities. Current development aid is necessarily channeled through the existing structures of the target society, and this tends to increase the divisions and inequality of those societies, introduce corruption, and foist foreign ideas that are sometimes quite harmful. The US project in Afghanistan was certainly well-meaning in its focus on the rights and position of women in the society. But harping on this theme was immensely destructive with respect to any influence we were seeking in conservative areas. In the end, cosmopolitan Kabul collapsed pathetically in the face of traditional values. Engaging Haitians and people with knowledge of Haiti, and willingness to keep an open mind and an ear to the ground, would be essential as we navigate this process. 

I would envision a high level commission, of mixed composisiton, with people like Barack Obama, leading Haitians from various sectors, and knowledgeable Biden administration officials, dedicated to going to Haiti and spending a half year or year doing a bottom to top assessment of needs and prospects for reform, principally in government and the economy. It might be a bit reminiscent of the peace process in Northern Ireland that we participated in. The group would issue a recommendation / plan, covering constitutional changes, civic development, security, educational development, and economic development. They also might recommend some sort of conservatorship over higher levels of the government, run through the UN, or the US itself, including peace-keepers, hopefully not carrying cholera, or other temporary security help. At this point, some pressure might have to be brought to bear to force some of the changes and personnel into implementation. 

Democracy can't be the first order of business, as conditions and civic culture are so dire. So perhaps a program of progressive democratic development, from local institutions at the start, to progressively higher level elections and political development, could be envisioned, as security and civic conditions improve. A "foster" system might be a bit like the Chinese communist system, where democracy is not front and center(!), but competence is, and the higher levels spend a lot of time figuring out who is effective at lower levels of governance, including aspects such as managerial competence, lack of corruption, people skills, ability to work in an established legal system, economic vision, among much else. 

In Haiti, economic reconstruction would not be based on huge influxes of outside aid, but a be concerted effort, as part of the more general governance project, to determine and build the infrastructure for a sustainable indiginous economic basis, perhaps in light industry and agriculture- something like the relationship the US has with Mexico, minus the drugs and immigration. Subsistence agriculture is very popular in Haiti, and presents a fundamental choice for the nation. While the independence and simplicity it represents are understandably attractive, (indeed, consonant with a lot of red state rhetoric from the US), subsistence agriculture can not support an advanced economy. It can not support imports that are obviously desired, and may not even support Haiti's current population with the best security and governance. But whatever the economic choices Haiti makes, better governance would improve its people's conditions and happiness.

One long-term focus would be education. Education in Haiti is run almost entirely on a private basis, at best, via international NGOs. That would not change very soon, but clearly universal, compulsory, and free education is important for improving Haiti's future. General literacy is hardly above 50%. Education stands at the root of Haiti's problems- its lack of economic development as much as its tragic governance. There are many other issues, such as the proliferation of NGOs with private agendas and lack of cooperation with the government, and the way food aid from the US has destroyed native agriculture. Governance is not the only issue, in this extremely poor, ill-educated, and traumatized country, but it is a function that must be fixed if any other aspect of the society is to progress.

Lastly, there is the perennial problem of whom to trust. Foreigners coming into a country, however good-willed, do more harm than good if they do not have good information. Our occupation of Afghanistan was notorious for repeatedly killing the wrong people, because we got information from those who had private grudges or competing interests. Without adopting a state of surveillance and/or terror, how are we to sift wheat from chaff? This is where expertise comes into play, and why sending the military in to run things tends to go haywire, with illusions of power. So we need people who know the language, and something about Haiti. There are a lot of emigre Haitians in the US who could be helpful in that regard.

If we took such a project seriously as a long-term and cooperative venture, we could do a great deal of good in Haiti, which would be positive not only for Haiti, but for the US and our wider interests. Our relations throughout the hemisphere have been strained for decades, ridden with excessive militarism, condescention, colonialism, and the US-sponsored spread of drugs, gangs, and guns. We have a lot to answer for, and should make a greater effort to bring positive change to our friends in this hemisphere.

• Jamaica is another country with slow development.
• In the coming cold war, we need all the friends and skills we can get.
• Fake science is coming for the children.
• Santa does get some people worked up.
• Is big tech going to do us all in?

Eco-Economics

Adrienne Buller on greenwashing, high finance, and the failures of capitalism viz the environment, in "The Value of a Whale".

This is a very earnest book by what seems to be an environmental activist about the mistaken notion that capitalism gives a fig about climate change. Buller goes through the painstaking economic rationales by which economists attempt to value or really, discount the value of, future generations. And how poorly carbon taxes have performed. And how feckless corporations are about their climate pledges, carbon offsets, and general greenwashing. And how unlikely it is that "socially conscious" investing will change anything. It is a frustrated, head-banging exercise in deflating illusions of economic theory and corporate responsibility. Skimming through it is perhaps the best approach. Here is a sample quote from Buller's conclusion:

Given this entrenched perspective, it is unsurprising that resistance to the kinds of bold change we need to secure a habitable planetary future for all and a safe present for many tend to focus on what we stand to lose. Undeniably, available evidence suggests that 'addressing environmental breakdown may require direct downscaling of economic production and consumption in wealthier countries'. This is an uncomfortable idea to grapple with, but as philosopher Kate Soper writes: 'If we have cosmopolitan care for the well-being of the poor of the world, and a concern about the quality of life for future generations, then we have to campaign for a change of attitudes to work, consumption, pleasure, and self-realization in affluent communities.' There is a sense that this future is necessarily austerian, anti-progress, and defined by lack. Indeed, the same media study cited above found discussion of economies defined by the absence of growth to focus on bleakness and stagnation. Comparatively little attention is directed at what we stand to gain - but there is much to be gained. Understanding what requires us to ask what the existing system currently fails to provide, from universal access to health case and education, to basic material security, to free time. It certainly does not offer a secure planetary future, let alone one in which all life can thrive. And it does not offer genuine democracy, justice or freedom for most. Absent these, what purpose is 'the economy' meant to serve?

Unfortunately, the book is not very economically literate either, making its illusions something of a village of straw men. Who ever thought that Royal Dutch Shell was going to solve climate change? Who ever thought that a $5 dollar per ton tax on CO2 emissions was going to accomplish anything? And who ever thought that the only reason to address climate heating was to save ourselves a dollar in 2098? All these premises and ideas are absurd, hardly the stuff of serious economic or social analysis. 

But then, nothing about our approach to climate heating is serious. It is a psychodrama of capitalism in denial, composed of cossetted capitalist people in the five stages of grief over our glorious carbon-hogging culture. Trucks, guns, and drive-through hamburgers, please! Outright denial is only slowly ebbing away, as we sidle into the anger phase. The conservative Right, which mixes an apocalyptically destructive anti-conservative environmental attitude with a futile cultural conservatism, is angry now about everything. The idea that the environment itself is changing, and requires fundamental cultural and economic change, is an affront. The eco-conscious left is happy to peddle nostrums that nothing really has to change, if we just put up enough solar panels and fund enough green jobs. 

Objectively, given the heating we are already experiencing and the much worse heating that lies ahead, we are not facing up to this challenge. It is understandable to not want to face change, especially limits to our wealth, freedoms, and profligacy. But we shouldn't blame corporations for it. The capitalist system exists to reflect our desires and fulfill them. If we want to binge-watch horror TV, it gives us that. If we want to gamble in Las Vegas, it gives us that. If we want to drive all around the country, it makes that possible. Capitalism transmutes whatever resources are lying around (immigrant labor, publically funded research, buried minerals and carbon, etc.) to furnish things we want. We can't blame that system for fouling up the environment when we knew exactly what was going on and wanted those things it gave us, every step of the way.

No, there is another mechanism to address big problems like climate heating, and that is government. That is where we can express far-sighted desires. Not the desire for faster internet or more entertaining TV, but deep and far-reaching desires for a livable future world, filled with at least some of the animals that we grew up with, and maybe not filled with plastic. It is through our enlightened government that we make the rules that run the capitalist system. Which system is totally dependent on, and subservient to, our collective wisdom as expressed through government. 

So the problem is not that capitalism is maliciously ruining our climate, but that our government, representative as it is of our desires, has not fully faced up to the climate issue either. Because we, as a culture, are, despite the blaring warnings coming from the weather, and from scientists, don't want to hear it. There is also the problem that we have allowed the capitalists of our culture far too much say in the media and in government- a nexus that is fundamentally corrupt and distorts the proper hierarchy of powers we deserve as citizens.

The US games out in 2012 how various carbon taxes will affect emissions, given by electricity production. These are modest levels of taxation, and have modest effects. To actually address the climate crisis, a whole other magnitude of taxation and other tools need to be brought to bear. The actual trajectory came out to more renewables, no growth for nuclear power, and we are still burning coal.

Let me touch on just one topic from the book- carbon taxes. This is classic case of squeemish policy-making. While it is not always obvious that carbon pricing would be a more fair or effective approach than direct regulation of the most offensive industries and practices, it is obvious that putting a price on carbon emissions can be an effective policy tool for reducing overall emissions. The question is- how high should that price be to have the effect we want? Well, due to the universal economic consensus that carbon pricing would be a good thing, many jurisdictions have set up such pricing or capping schemes. But very few are effective, because, lo and behold, they did not want to actually have a strong effect. That is, they did not want to disrupt the current way of doing things, but only make themselves (and ourselves) feel good, with a slight inducement to moderate future change. Thus they typically exempt the most polluting industries outright, and set the caps high and the prices low, so as not to upset anyone. And then Adrienne Buller wonders why these schemes are so universally ineffective.

Carbon prices in California are currently around $30 per ton CO2, and this has, according to those studying the system, motivated one third of the state's overall carbon reductions over the current decade. That is not terrible, but clearly insufficient, even for a forward-thinking state, since we need to wring carbon out of our systems at a faster pace. Raising that price would be the most direct way for us as a society to do that. But do we want to? At that point, we need to look in the mirror and ask whether the point of our policies should be addressing climate heating in the most effective way possible, or to avoid pain and change to our current systems. Right now, we are on a sort of optimal trajectory to avoid most of the economic and social pain of truly addressing climate change, (by using gradualist and incremental policies), but at the cost of not getting there soon enough and thus incurring increasing levels of pain from climate heating itself- now, and in a future that is measured, not in years, but in centuries. 

The second big point to make about this book and similar discussions is that it largely frames the problem as an economic one for humanity. How much cost do we bear in 2100 and 2200, compared with the cost we are willing to pay today? Well, that really ignores a great deal, for there are other species on the planet than ourselves. And there are other values we have as humans, than economic ones. This means that any cost accounting that gets translated into a carbon price needs to be amplified several fold to truly address the vast array of harms we are foisting on the biosphere. Coral reefs are breaking down, tropical forests are losing their regenerative capability, and the arctic is rapidly turning temperate. These are huge changes and harms, which no accounting from an economic perspective "internalizes". 

So, we need to psychologically progress, skipping a few steps to the facing-it part of the process, which then will naturally lead us towards truly effective solutions to get to carbon neutrality rapidly. Will it cost a lot? Absolutely. Will we suffer imbalances and loss of comforts? Absolutely. But once America faces up to a problem, we tend to do a good job accepting those tradeoffs and figuring out how to get the results we want. 

• An earth systems perspective.
• I hope you are appreciating this free-range, hand-made, artisanal prose.
• Loneliness.
• Plastic is a thing too.
• Natural gas and the future of Europe.
• Maybe having cars parked everywhere isn't the best idea.
• Thoughts on the drug war.

Founders, Schmounders

Elie Mystal rakes constitutional originalism over the coals, in "A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution".

I was raised to revere the founders and the elegant, almost scriptural document they constructed to rule our society. But suppose I was a black person, knowing that these founders were the rich white guys of their time, owners and abusers of slaves? I might think that while their aspirations were rhetorically high, their constitution was rather more utilitarian in its denial of true democracy to most people living in the colonies, its indirect and unjust approach to the democracy it did allow, and its euphemistically stated, but absolute, denial of freedom to "other persons". I would have experienced the US legal and cultural system as one of systematic oppression, dedicated to the proposition that while white, rich, men might be equal in some way and enjoy a rules-based system, the larger point of the system was to maintain power in their hands, and deny it to all others.

At least that is the sense one gets from Mystal's book, which, along with a lot of colorful language and wry jokes, assembles a trenchant rebuke of the American constitution, of conservatives, of Republicans, and especially of the originalist ideology of jurisprudence. Every hot button topic gets its due, and every amendment its contrarian interpretation. The second amendment is easy- it is about a regulated militia, after all, not about some commandment handed down from Charlton Heston to the ammosexuals of the nation to stock up on AR-15s and have a mass shooting if they are feeling a little antsy. 

Police brutality, prejudice, impunity, and immunity from accountabiliy is another easy, if painful, target. Mystal describes how he has been profiled and roughed up, for no other reason than being black. The legal system seems to have driven a semi through the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches when it comes to vehicles owned by black people, for one thing. And the fifth amendment comes into play as well- why do we allow police to play cat and mouse with suspects, trying to trip them up and get them to confess, cutting corners and playing games with their Miranda rights? Mystal makes a strong case for doing away with this whole theater of intimidation, with its slippery slope to fraud and torture, by barring police from eliciting or transmitting confessions at all, period. He notes that anyone with even a glancing acquaintance with the legal profession has learned to say nothing to police without a lawyer by her side.

Mystal's approach to abortion, however, is where this book really shines. Was Roe "wrongly decided"? Hardly. In the first place, Mystal provides an interesting discussion of "substantive" due process, (fifth amendment, and fourteenth), meaning that the rights and protections of the constitution are not to be taken merely literally or trifled with by twisting their meanings. They must be afforded by realistic means and set in a legal / civil system that supports their spirit. And that means that the right to privacy is a thing. While its poetic origin may be in the "penumbras" of the constitution, it is integral to the very idea of much of it- the concept unreasonable searches, of rights against self-incrimination, of any sort of rights of the individual vs the state. This is not to mention the ninth amendment, which asserts that just because the constitution and bill of rights mentions some rights explicitly, that others by their ommission are not covered. Privacy would, in general terms, clearly fall in this category.

But where else could a right to abortion be found? Plenty of places. One is the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Mystal, and many others, note that this should be taken as applying to women, making the whole equal rights amendment (ERA) unnecessary, given a modicum of enlightened interpretation. It could also be taken to afford men and women equal protections regarding reproduction, meaning that the penalty for a roll in the hay should not be grossly unequal, as it is when abortion is banned. Mystal goes on to suggest that the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment could be invoked as well. If men were faced, as a penalty for sex, months of mental and physical torment, and then the excruciating labor of birth, one could be sure that no court would consider banning abortion for a nanosecond. And how much more cruel and vindictive is it be if that pregnancy arose from rape? There is also, after all, the thirteen amendment against involuntary servitude/labor.

Originalists brazenly throw their so-called principles out the window when it comes to abortion. Unenumerated rights? Never heard of them. Keeping the state out of the most sacred precincts of our private lives? No comment. Colonial attitudes towards abortion were very loose, nothing like the personhood-at-conception garbage we get today from the right/Catholic wing. It just goes to show that a little knowledge (here, of biology) can be a dangerous thing.

It is really originalism and conservatism, however, that is the overarching and corrosive topic Mystal takes on. The founders were people of their time, and that was a white supremacy kind of time. They wrote a constitution with hopeful ideals and judicious language which insulated it somewhat (though hardly enough!) from the prejudices of their day. To say that our current interpretation of their words should be confined to whatever psychoanalysis we can make of their meanings at the time would lock our whole political and legal system into those same prejudices that they were trying to overcome. To take the second amendment, Mystal argues (I am not sure how successfully) that its "militias" were most keenly understood to mean bands of Southern planters gathering together to prevent or put down slave revolts. Southerners did not want to be dependent on Federal sympathy and arms, and thus insisted that a right to raise their own militias for their own peculiar needs should be enshrined in the constitution. Well, if we were to restrict outselves to such an interpretation, that would have significant effects on our practice of the second amendment. Gun control would be allowed in the North, just not in the South, allowing guns to white males with certain property qualifications, perhaps, and certain mental proclivities.

Even the civil war amendments would be infected with originalism, since very few people at that time envisioned the full social equality of black citizens. It is remarkable to consider the flurry of anti-miscegenation laws passed during the Jim Crow era, after the Southern slave owners had spent a century or two conducting forced miscegenation. Whence the squeemishness? Anyhow, consistent originalism would never have struck down such laws, or abetted the civil rights movement for blacks, let alone gays. Mystal imagines the nettlesome questioning of a prospective conservative justice going like: "Do you believe that Loving v. Virgina was rightly decided?" This case was about the social system of the South, which Mystal tries to separate from the legal and political aspects, and clearly on originalist principles could not be decided as it was. And much more so on Obergefell, which draws on the fourteenth amendment's due process concept to free personal choices (of gay people) from government intrusion, again doubtless totally in contradiction to the social vision and intention of any of its authors.

Instead of fixating on the past so much, in constitutional interpretation, we might think about the future more.

So originalism, for all its rhetorical seductiveness, (after one has been properly indoctrinated in the divine virtues of the founding fathers), is an absurdity for a country with even the tiniest ambition towards social progress, or change of any kind. It amounts to extreme conservatism, pure and simple. Mystal is relentlessly dismissive of the conservative mindset, tied as it is (ever more explicitly in our polarized moment) to regressive, even violent, racial anti-minority politics. 

What is the deal with conservatives? I think there is another unenumerated right that undergirds all these tensions, which is the right to win, and win by inheriting what our forebears wrought- physically, monetarily, politically, socially. America is a highly competitive country- we compete in making money, in politics, in sports, in war. In any society there is an inherent tension between the cohesiveness required to build common structures, like a constitution, or a military, and the the competitiveness that, if channeled properly, can also build great things, but if let loose, can tear down everything. The right to succeed in business, and to bequeath those gains to one's children- that is a widely shared dream. Our founders saw that there had to be limits to this dream, however. The creaky aristocracies of Europe fed on centuries of priviledge and inheritance. America was fundamentally opposed to noble privileges, but in their slaveholding and other businesses, the founders were far from averse to hereditary privileges in general.

It was the whites who won all this- won the American continent from its native inhabitants, won the slaves from their native hearths, invented the technologies like the cotton gin, devised the capitalist system, etc., etc. Who has a right to inherit all these winnings? Conservatives subscribe to a fundamentally competitive system. That is why Trump won the hearts of a rabid base. Lying isn't a bug, it is a feature, an intrinsic part of winning in a duplicitous cultural competition- and winning is everything. To conservatives, social justice is a fundamental affront. Who said the world was fair? Not us! Constitutional originalism is way of expressing this denial of social progress and justice in concrete, and superficially palatable, terms. For as Mystal reiterates, the justices are not calling balls and strikes- constitutional interpretation runs rather freely, as we can see from second amendment jurisprudence. That is why capture of the supreme court has been such a existential project of the right for decades.

Counterpoised to the conservative conception of (lack of) justice in America is that of the left, perhaps best exemplified by the California Reparations task force. If one looks back and considers the losses of enslaved and oppressed Americans, one quickly reaches astronomical levels of reparations that would be required in a just world. How to make up for death and torture? How to make up for the bulldozing of entire communities? How to make up for centuries of economic, social, political, and legal disadvantage? There is simply no way to make up what has been lost, and to do so would open up many other claims, especially by Native Americans, all inhabitants of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, not to mention countless other victims of historical processes going back centuries and ranging world-wide. Justice is a massive can of worms, if looking back in time. But how about something simple, like affirmative action, giving formerly oppressed people a small leg up in the current system? Conservatives can't stand that either, and cry anti-white racism. 

It frankly boggles the mind, how greedy some people can be. But I think the problem of inheritance remains a central touchstone. In each generation, does everyone share equally in the inheritances from the past, or does one race inherit more, do children of the rich inherit more, do the well-connected send their children into the halls of power? The only way to insure a fresh and fair start for each generation is to, not only demolish the idea of inherited nobility as our founders did, (and which we are edging back toward with extreme economic inequality), but go a little beyond that to end other forms of inheritance ... of money and power. The meritocratic systems of higher education did a great deal in the twentieth century to advance this ideal, allowing students from all backgrounds to aspire to, and achieve, all kinds of success. This made the US incredibly powerful and the envy of the world. Liberals should continue this tradition by attacking all forms of entrenched and inherited power, from private schools to the shameful lack of inheritance taxation. The better way to make reparations is to pay it forward, with more just future world.

• Entering blackness.
• "Private jets are on average 10 times more carbon intensive than commercial flights"
• The perils of ransomware.
• The incredible and thoughtless craven-ness of Republicans.
• Our problem with futile medicine.
• Wow- lots of papers (in bad science journals) are duplicated, plagiarized, or fake ... the paper mills.