David Brooks, "The Green Tech Solution": Ignoring the Elephant in the Room (Not the Republicans)

Tweet

"And next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children."

- President Obama, East Room of White House, November 24, 2015

A powerful rebuke to ISIS? The "gentlemen" of this terrorist organization give thought to the carbon footprint they leave when they sever heads and hang bodies out to dry on crucifixes? Sorry, but I am beginning to believe that America's president has grown delusional. Moreover, if he was truly serious about global warming, he should have insisted that all of the world's leaders arrive in Paris via commercial jet liners, or better yet, participate by way of conference call.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Green Tech Solution," David Brooks discusses with his hero Alexander Hamilton (no, Brooks is not delusional) "how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate change." Brooks writes:

"This week’s Paris conference, I observed, seems like a giant Weight Watchers meeting. A bunch of national leaders get together and make some resolutions to cut their carbon emissions over the next few decades. You hope some sort of peer pressure will kick in and they will actually follow through.

I’m afraid Hamilton snorted.

The co-author of the Federalist papers is the opposite of naïve about human nature. He said the conference is nothing like a Weight Watchers meeting. Unlike weight loss, the pain in reducing carbon emissions is individual but the good is only achieved collectively."

Ah yes, the "good" (as opposed to the "bad" and the "ugly") is only achieved collectively.

But more to the point, aren't Brooks and Obama paying insufficient attention to the elephant in the room (and I'm not referring to the Republicans)? As we learn from a March 14, 2015 Economist article entitled "Made in China?":

"BY MAKING things and selling them to foreigners, China has transformed itself—and the world economy with it. In 1990 it produced less than 3% of global manufacturing output by value; its share now is nearly a quarter. China produces about 80% of the world’s air-conditioners, 70% of its mobile phones and 60% of its shoes. The white heat of China’s ascent has forged supply chains that reach deep into South-East Asia. This 'Factory Asia' now makes almost half the world’s goods."

China's efforts to stop global warming? Brooks cites in his opinion piece a September 24, 2015 New York Times article by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Coral Davenport entitled "China to Announce Cap-and-Trade Program to Limit Emissions":

"President Xi Jinping of China will make a landmark commitment on Friday to start a national program in 2017 that will limit and put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, Obama administration officials said Thursday.

The move to create a so-called cap-and-trade system would be a substantial step by the world’s largest polluter to reduce emissions from major industries, including steel, cement, paper and electric power."

However, as reported in a June 30, 2015 Guardian article by Jennifer Duggan entitled "China makes carbon pledge ahead of Paris climate change summit":

"China will aim to cut its greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% from 2005 levels under a plan submitted to the United Nations ahead of crucial climate change talks in Paris later this year.

The pledge has been eagerly awaited as the country is the world’s largest carbon emitter.

China said it would increase the share of non-fossil fuels as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030, and peak emissions by around the same point, though it would 'work hard' to do so earlier."

China will "work hard" to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 (Will I live to see the day?), or, is China again blowing noxious smoke up our collective arses? Yup, I'm certain this statement of intentions preceding the Paris conference had those f*ckers from ISIS feeling thoroughly "rebuked" . . . not.

Fareed Zakaria, "Will Israel miss its moment?": There Are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Will Israel miss its moment?," Fareed Zakaria would have us know that "Israel faces an extraordinary strategic opportunity," inasmuch as "reality" has "changed dramatically in Israel’s favor." Zakaria's evidence of this transformation:

"First, there is the disappearance of the Arab threat. From its first day in existence, Israel has faced the danger of extinction by Arab armies. This is the threat against which the Jewish state has planned, armed and trained for most of its national life. Today, it’s gone."

This is pure nonsense. As reported by Marissa Newman in a September 2014 Times of Israel article entitled "Hezbollah could advance into Israel in next war, official warns":

"A senior IDF official warned Sunday that while Hezbollah has no immediate plan to attack Israel, a minor security incident could erupt into a full-fledged war on Israel’s northern front during which the terror organization would likely try to capture swaths of the Galilee.

. . . .

According to the assessment, Hezbollah could capture the Rosh Hanikra area, including a small Israeli town near the border with Lebanon, for several hours, if Israel does not strike the group preemptively.

He said the army was working on a plan to evacuate the northern residents if need be, but warned there would be casualties on the Israeli side."

And as reported by Stuart Winer in a Times of Israel article entitled "In future war, Hezbollah will fire 1,000 rockets a day, IDF predicts":

"Outgoing Home Front Command chief Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg said that a future war between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah group will include hundreds or even thousands of rockets raining down on the country every day.

. . . .

The citizens of Israel, he said, should be prepared for significant challenges. According to estimates by the Home Front Command conducted during Eisenberg’s tenure, Israel must be prepared for a 'blitz of attacks,' including 1,000-1,500 rockets falling on Israel’s home front every day."

Any such war will necessarily involve deep penetration by Israeli ground forces into Lebanon in order to stanch the firing of missiles at Israeli civilian targets. Hezbollah has received from Iran some 100,000 missiles, which can hit anywhere in Israel. Bottom line: Israel is facing a combined threat from Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran that is every bit as dire as that faced by Israel prior to the 1967 Six Day War.

Continuing to explain Israel's "extraordinary strategic opportunity," Zakaria writes:

"Second, Israel’s major enemies are under greater pressure than ever before. Iran and Hezbollah are committed to defending the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria — a daunting challenge, given that Assad represents the Alawites, who account for less than 15 percent of the country. Reports vary on how costly this support has been for Tehran — the Economist has cited a $15 billion figure, which would be the equivalent of about one year’s total defense budget for Iran. Hezbollah has become bogged down in Syria, with hundreds of its fighters having died there. The Syrian conflict will likely continue to occupy and drain Iran and Hezbollah for years, a crippling problem with the price of oil having fallen, and with it, Iran’s revenue."

Fascinating. The January 3, 2015 Economist article entitled "Death of a general," cited by Zakaria, tells us:

"Without Iranian aid Mr Assad might well have fallen; more than a thousand Shia militiamen have been killed in his defence since 2012. Iran has also lost at least three generals in Syria. Syrian opposition sources claim that Iran has also spent as much as $15 billion in aid, much of it in the form of fuel, to prop up the Syrian regime."

Indeed, Assad's survival hinges upon continued support from Iran, whose finances are stretched by sanctions and a significant decline in the price of oil. Or stated otherwise, Assad's fate depends upon whether or not Obama frees up some $50 billion of frozen Iranian bank accounts as a signing bonus to Khamenei for reaching a nuclear agreement with the P5+1 by the June 30 deadline.

Once Obama declared that use of chemical weapons by Assad was a "red line." Today, it seems increasing likely that Obama will become Assad's savior, notwithstanding Assad's past use of sarin and ongoing use of chlorine against civilians.

Zakaria goes on to say:

"Of course, there is Iran’s nuclear program, though it has significantly slowed for now. Whatever the outcome of nuclear negotiations, it is worth remembering that Israel has a powerful deterrent, by some accounts as many as 200 nuclear warheads, many of them on submarines. Similarly, it has built a wall that reduced terrorist attacks against Israel to virtually zero, and its Iron Dome defense system has blunted the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets."

Zakaria fails to ask whether a fanatical Iran might be willing to accept Israeli atomic retaliation, which will not destroy the whole of Iran, if it can hit Israel with one or two nuclear-tipped missiles, which will snuff out Israel's existence. Israel has "built a wall that reduced terrorist attacks"? Actually, the barrier is some 90 percent "fence." Of more importance, however, is the fact that Israel's limited number of Iron Dome batteries will be seriously challenged by a combined attack from Hamas and Hezbollah, particularly if Hezbollah begins by firing at Israel some 1,500 missiles per day.

Another outrageous claim in Zakaria's opinion piece? Zakaria states:

"So while it faces real dangers, Israel has policies to fight them with force and effectiveness. The danger for which it has no defense is that it continues to have control over Gaza and the West Bank, lands with 4.5 million people who have neither a country nor a vote."

Rubbish! In an August 14, 2014 WaPo opinion piece entitled "The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates," Fareed Zakaria wrote (my emphasis in red):

"In the Palestinian territories, Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is indeed a moderate. But notice that the Israeli government and the West have happily postponed elections in the West Bank year after year — because they know full well who would win. Moderates don’t do well in an atmosphere of despair and war."

I immediately sent an email to WaPo's managing editor, Martin Baron, explaining that the Palestinian Authority had been responsible for postponing the elections. Within minutes, I had a reply from Mr. Baron, informing me that he had forwarded my email to his op-ed editor, Michael Larabee.

Michael Larabee subsequently sent me two responses. First, he told me that the matter was being checked. Later, he wrote to say that there would be a correction. Shortly thereafter, the following text appeared under the title of Zakaria's opinion piece:

An earlier version of this column erred in stating that “the Israeli government and the West have happily postponed elections in the West Bank.” The elections have been postponed by the Palestinian Authority.

Well, it now appears that Zakaria is suggesting that Israel is preventing elections in both the West Bank and Gaza. Gaza was evacuated by Israel in 2005 and is controlled by Hamas, which is entirely responsible for preventing elections there. In short, Zakaria is now attempting an end-run to again blame Israel for the absence of Palestinian elections.

Shameful! But then Zakaria knows no shame.

Paul Krugman, "Sweden Turns Japanese": What'chu talkin' 'bout, Paul?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Sweden Turns Japanese" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/opinion/krugman-sweden-turns-japanese.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Paul Krugman sounds an alarm regarding the Swedish economy. Krugman writes:

"Three years ago Sweden was widely regarded as a role model in how to deal with a global crisis. The nation’s exports were hit hard by slumping world trade but snapped back; its well-regulated banks rode out the financial storm; its strong social insurance programs supported consumer demand; and unlike much of Europe, it still had its own currency, giving it much-needed flexibility. By mid-2010 output was surging, and unemployment was falling fast. Sweden, declared The Washington Post, was 'the rock star of the recovery.'

Then the sadomonetarists moved in.

The story so far: In 2010 Sweden’s economy was doing much better than those of most other advanced countries. But unemployment was still high, and inflation was low. Nonetheless, the Riksbank — Sweden’s equivalent of the Federal Reserve — decided to start raising interest rates.

. . . .

Sure enough, Swedish unemployment stopped falling soon after the rate hikes began. Deflation took a little longer, but it eventually arrived. The rock star of the recovery has turned itself into Japan."

An economic disaster in Sweden? What'chu talkin' 'bout, Paul?

According to the European Commission (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-25/sweden-to-grow-fastest-in-nordic-region-eu-commission-says):

"Swedish gross domestic product will grow 2.5 percent this year and 3.3 percent in 2015, the commission said in a report published today. The 2015 expansion rate would be the fastest in the Nordic region and only surpassed in the European Union by the growth rates in the three Baltic states, according to the commission.

'The Swedish economy now follows a more robust growth track and economic activity is expected to gradually accelerate,' the Brussels-based commission said. 'Gross fixed capital formation is expected to rebound sharply in the coming years, adding a new engine to economic growth.'"

The unemployment rate in Sweden? Stable at 8.1% in February 2014, compared with 6.7% in the US, up from 6.6% in January 2014, notwithstanding rock bottom interest rates in America, which have not succeeded in fomenting employment, particularly among the long-term unemployed (see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01042014-AP/EN/3-01042014-AP-EN.PDF and http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/long-term-unemployed-struggle-to-find--and-keep--jobs/2014/04/18/134c48f6-c4ad-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html).

So why is unemployment higher in Sweden than in the US? Time to acknowledge what is often deemed politically incorrect: As reported in an Economist article entitled "The ins and the outs" (http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570836-immigration-and-growing-inequality-are-making-nordics-less-homogeneous-ins-and):

"In Sweden 26% of all prisoners, and 50% of prisoners serving more than five years, are foreigners. Some 46% of the jobless are non-Europeans, and 40% of non-Europeans are classified as poor, compared with only 10% of native Swedes."

These dismal numbers are not susceptible to meaningful improvement by tweaking interest rates downward, as suggested by Krugman.

Remarkably, a mere week ago, CNNMoney published an article entitled "Long-term unemployment: What the U.S. can learn from Sweden" (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us-long-term-unemployment-sweden/), suggesting that the US emulate Sweden's wage subsidy program.

An economic disaster in the making in Sweden? Sorry, Paul, not yet, and certainly not owing to higher interest rates.

Thomas Friedman, "Revenge of the Mistresses": Friedman's "Long March"

Over the course of an agonizingly long journey much akin to Mao's "Long March," Thomas Friedman continues to wake up to the fact that China is not only about bullet trains and ultramodern airports (see, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html), but also about pervasive corruption and suppressed masses, deprived of basic human freedoms.

Concerned by "a stable diversification of [China's] low-wage, high-export, state-led command economy," Friedman writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Revenge of the Mistresses" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/opinion/friedman-revenge-of-the-mistresses.html?_r=0):

"The world can ill afford a chaotic transition in China. With America stuck in slow growth, Europe mired in stagnation and the Arab world imploding, China has been a vital economic engine for the global economy. If China’s sagging growth and employment rates meet rising discontent with corruption by officials — trying to get their own while the getting is still good — we will not have a stable transition in China. And if one-sixth of humanity starts going through an unstable and uncertain political/economic transition, it will shake the world."

What doesn't Friedman say concerning China's woes?

Friedman doesn't tell us about China's demographic time bomb. As reported by The Economist in an article entitled "China’s Achilles heel" (http://www.economist.com/node/21553056):

"Between 2010 and 2050 China's workforce will shrink as a share of the population by 11 percentage points, from 72% to 61%—a huge contraction, even allowing for the fact that the workforce share is exceptionally large now. That means China's old-age dependency ratio (which compares the number of people over 65 with those aged 15 to 64) will soar. At the moment the ratio is 11—roughly half America's level of 20. But by 2050, China's old-age ratio will have risen fourfold to 42, surpassing America's. Even more strikingly, by 2050, the number of people coming towards the end of their working lives (ie, those in their 50s) will have risen by more than 10%. The number of those just setting out (those in their early 20s, who are usually the best educated and most productive members of society) will have halved.

The shift spells the end of China as the world's factory. The apparently endless stream of cheap labour is starting to run dry. Despite pools of underemployed country-dwellers, China already faces shortages of manual workers."

"Make your money and get out"? Those Chinese officials know far better than Friedman what they're talking about.

Paul Krugman, "Hitting China’s Wall": The Perfect Economic Storm

Will China soon be on the ropes?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hitting China’s Wall" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/opinion/krugman-hitting-chinas-wall.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman warns that China's "lopsided balance between consumption and investment" threatens future economic chaos. Specifically, regarding the effect of this ineluctable debacle on the West, Krugman writes:

"How big a deal is this for the rest of us? At market values — which is what matters for the global outlook — China’s economy is still only modestly bigger than Japan’s; it’s around half the size of either the U.S. or the European Union. So it’s big but not huge, and, in ordinary times, the world could probably take China’s troubles in stride.

Unfortunately, these aren’t ordinary times: China is hitting its Lewis point at the same time that Western economies are going through their 'Minsky moment,' the point when overextended private borrowers all try to pull back at the same time, and in so doing provoke a general slump. China’s new woes are the last thing the rest of us needed."

What doesn't Krugman say concerning China's woes?

Krugman doesn't tell us about China's demographic time bomb. As reported by The Economist in an article entitled "China’s Achilles heel" (http://www.economist.com/node/21553056):

"Between 2010 and 2050 China's workforce will shrink as a share of the population by 11 percentage points, from 72% to 61%—a huge contraction, even allowing for the fact that the workforce share is exceptionally large now. That means China's old-age dependency ratio (which compares the number of people over 65 with those aged 15 to 64) will soar. At the moment the ratio is 11—roughly half America's level of 20. But by 2050, China's old-age ratio will have risen fourfold to 42, surpassing America's. Even more strikingly, by 2050, the number of people coming towards the end of their working lives (ie, those in their 50s) will have risen by more than 10%. The number of those just setting out (those in their early 20s, who are usually the best educated and most productive members of society) will have halved.

The shift spells the end of China as the world's factory. The apparently endless stream of cheap labour is starting to run dry. Despite pools of underemployed country-dwellers, China already faces shortages of manual workers."

The effect on the West, specifically the United States?  Remarkably, there is no mention by Krugman that China owns more than $1.2 trillion in US bills, notes and bonds, or some eight percent of US debt. What would happen if China were hurriedly to demand repayment of these funds from the US? You don't want to know.