Category Archives: Web Article Review

more on Philadelphia crime

The Philadelphia District Attorney has come under pressure for a drop in violent crime convictions. I generally support efforts to reduce arrests and trials for non-violent crimes, although a lot more tickets need to be written for speeding and reckless driving in the city – not doing this is killing people, both drivers and pedestrians, at alarming rates, and I don’t know how you can call this “non-violent”.

Nonetheless, the statistics on violent crime convictions do look somewhat bad, and the downward trend started before the 2020 pandemic so you can’t blame it on that alone. I like the data transparency that the District Attorney’s office provides. This, along with police data, could allow journalists to provide a lot more context on individual cases and short-term statistics than they do. I think they could do this without giving up the blood-soaked entertainment value that seems to be necessary to pay the bills in our messed up society.

a ship being built

It’s fun to watch construction cameras in fast forward. This is a ship being built at Philly Shipyard Inc. (and by way, you can argue whether it is lazy to use the abbreviation for Philadelphia and whether “ship yard” should be one word or two, but this is the actual name of the company.

Youtube

I learned from this (paywalled) Philadelphia Inquirer article that U.S. shipyards are not competitive in the market for international oceangoing cargo vessels. However, there is something called the Jones Act that requires domestic trade to be done on U.S.-built and U.S.-crewed ships. So this includes trade between the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and Guam for example. This seems a bit inefficient to me, but I can also see an argument to maintain the ability to build technology domestically with obvious military use. The shipyard also has military and government contracts which, and so sorry I just can’t resist the terrible pun, keep it afloat. I am a dad after all, and I have to keep my dad jokes at the ready.

Roubini on debt and inequality

Nouriel Roubini says the world is headed for a debt crisis. This kind of makes sense. Countries that have to repay their debts in U.S. dollars are in trouble as more of their currencies are required to buy a U.S. dollar. And everybody including the U.S. will be paying more in interest on their debts and this will cut into our budgets for other things.

Income and wealth inequality have been rising within countries for many reasons. Notable factors include trade and globalization, technological innovation (which is capital-intensive, skill-biased, and labor-saving), the self-reinforcing political power of economic and financial elites, the concentration of oligopolistic power in the corporate sector, and the declining power of labor and unions. Together, these factors have triggered a backlash against liberal democracy.

Project Syndicate

I’m with his logic up to that last sentence. Logically, the solution to these problems would seem to be more democracy rather than less. But we seem to be caught in a situation where the rich and powerful are able to influence the masses through propaganda to oppose policies that would help to address these very problems. Solutions would include (1) limits on the ability of wealthy people, institutions and corporations to pay for political campaigns that elect politicians who are then beholden to their interests, (2) value added taxes designed to raise revenue from the fruits of labor-saving technological innovation, which can then be spent on services to benefit the displaced laborers, and (3) anti-monopoly action, and (4) pro-union policies. I’m always a bit shaky on #4, because unions can serve as a break on innovation and efficiency, and they often benefit some workers at the expense of others, and they have a history of corruption. But they are undeniably a political counterweight to corporate power.

solar panels over parking lots in France

France is requiring solar panels over surface parking lots with 80 or more spaces. This makes sense for a lot of reasons. But not mentioned in the article is acting as a sort of tax on surface parking lots. I don’t know if it happens in France, but in the U.S. a land speculator can buy a property in the middle of a neighborhood, sit on it for years or decades waiting for a chance to flip it for a profit, and pave it over and make a few bucks on parking in the meantime. This makes neighborhood less walkable, hotter, and contributes to flooding and pollution. So I say make them give something back. Or they can use that land for something better (even a multi-story car garage if this is really needed). And in the meantime, you are producing energy from a renewable source that can even be used to charge the vehicles parked there.

Limits to Growth “data check”

In 2021, Gaya Herrington published a comparison of the World3 model’s (from Limits to Growth) predictions to date. She concluded that we are on a path either to collapse or to a sort of steady state where technology will blunt the worst consequences of pollution but further growth will not be possible.

The scenario that depicts the smallest declines, SW, is also the one that aligned least closely with empirical data. Furthermore, one of the best fit scenarios, BAU2, shows a collapse pattern. The other best fit scenario however, CT, shows only a moderate decline. Both scenarios show a slowdown in industrial and agricultural output. My research results at this point thus indicate that we can expect a halt in economic growth within the next two decades, whether we consider that a good thing or not. (Indeed, as the informed reader knows, economists and organizations like the IMF have been pointing out recently that we’re seeing a “synchronized slowdown in global growth“.) The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from my research therefore, is that humanity is on a path to having limits to growth imposed on itself rather than consciously choosing its own. However, my research results also leave open whether the subsequent declines in industrial and agricultural output will lead to sharp declines in population and welfare levels.

Club of Rome

what happened in Ukraine?

I’ve been puzzled by the seeming irrationality of the Russian invasion ever since it happened. We are being buffeted by propaganda from both sides, so it is hard to tell what is true, but we can probably assume the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes. I can’t independently verify the information in this Courthouse News Service (which I had never heard of before…) article, but it at least tells a story that passes the logic test for me. Here’s my attempt to summarize their story:

  • Ukraine had a really rough time in the 1990s and early 2000s following the end of the Soviet Union. It was ruled mostly by ex-Soviet cronies – the economy was in freefall, corruption and assassinations of politicians, journalists and activists were rampant, and they lost a big chunk of their population as many people who could move elsewhere in Europe or Russia chose to do so. Some people went so far as to call it a failed state.
  • There were major protests (the “Orange Revolution”) against corruption and political violence in 2004. Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian politician, was elected shortly afterward in an election widely believed by international observers to be rigged and interfered with by Russia. This is also when his opponent, pro-EU and anti-Russian Viktor Yushchenko, was poisoned, most likely by Russian or pro-Russian agents. Courts ordered a run-off election and Yushchenko was elected. [Part of the problem is these names sound very similar to western ears. Imagine a U.S. election where the candidates were named something like Thomas and Thompson.]
  • Russians and pro-Russian elements in Ukraine saw these events as U.S. interference in their political affairs, and feared that the same tactics could be tried in Russia itself. [I can’t argue pro or con, but the U.S. certainly doesn’t refrain from openly lobbying to try to influence other country’s elections, and we do know that the CIA has repeatedly tried to interfere in elections around the world in the past, typically in developing and middle income countries.]
  • Yushchenko turned out not to be all that anti-corruption or pro-western, at least not effectively so. In 2010, he ran against an even more anti-Russian and Ukrainian-nationalist politician, Yulia Tymoshenko. In this election, Yanukovych was re-elected in an election that international observers deemed fair.
  • The economy was extremely poor during this period, and Yanukovych accepted a bailout from Russia in exchange for abandoning plans to deepen trade and travel ties with the EU.
  • This caused public protests and street violence to break out again, with a neo-Nazi element in evidence. The presidential palace was stormed (this is sometimes called an “insurrection”), Yanukovych fled to Russia, and an anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalist element took over.
  • The Russian government (“Putin”, “the Kremlin”) saw this as a coup orchestrated by the U.S. They believed this justified a military takeover of Crimea, which the largely pro-Russian population of Crimea seemed to support. This was an invasion and occupation in all but name – un-uniformed Russian soldiers basically fanned out from their bases already in Crimea and took over the government more or less opposed unopposed. A referendum was held in which the people voted to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia.
  • Pro-Russian elements then launched an armed rebellion in other eastern provinces of Ukraine.
  • Partly because Crimea and rebel-held areas of Ukraine did not participate in elections, an anti-Russian president (Poroshenko) was elected next. Russia believed U.S. interference was involved again. Ugly communist and fascist symbols and language was used by both sides, such as “decommunization” and “denazification”.
  • Ugly warfare between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian eastern rebels continued. Russia may have believed U.S. and “western” forces were involved in this warfare and that Ukraine was becoming increasingly likely to join NATO and/or the EU. [and who knows? some or all of this may be true.]
  • The current president, Zelenskyy, was elected in 2019 on a platform of negotiating a peaceful agreement to end the fighting. He used to play the president on TV. [This is exactly why the U.S. Democrats should have run either Harrison Ford or that guy who played the President in the first couple seasons of 24.]
  • The “Minsk Accords” were an attempt to end the warfare with a political solution, most likely some form of partial autonomy for the eastern provinces while remaining part of Ukraine. This was not successful. Zelenskyy became more hard-line anti-Russia and pro-resistance as the conflict dragged on.
  • Russia chose to invade in 2022. In my view, this was still a sovereign UN member state choosing to invade another sovereign member state’s recognized international borders, with the intention to occupy it indefinitely. I do not think there is any excuse for this. I do however think it is a useful exercise to try to put myself in the Russian shoes and try to understand what the thought process may have been. And when I do that, I can see a plausible case that they thought the U.S. and NATO were actively interfering in Ukrainian elections and supporting the Ukrainian military in suppression and atrocities against ethnic Russian civilians. They may have also thought the loss of Ukraine to NATO and the EU was only a matter of time until the U.S. was able to get a compliant regime in place that would allow it.

It seems like a move toward some form of autonomy for the eastern provinces and Crimea is the logical outcome here, under nominal Ukrainian rule within its original borders except that some big chunk of Crimea can just be considered a big Russian military base (like Guantanomo Bay). It could be demilitarized with a beefy UN peacekeeping force for an agreed period of time, and Ukraine could agree not to be eligible even for consideration to join the EU or NATO for some agreed period of time.

messing with asteroid orbits

This Nautilus article points out that the same technology that could be used to divert a dangerous asteroid from Earth’s path could be used to divert one into Earth’s path. That could happen either accidentally, say by an asteroid mining company, or in theory it could be done intentionally (secretly?) and pretty precisely.

If, as I have suspected all along, Elon Musk really is a Bond villain, this could be his end game.

Living Planet Report 2022

WWF’s Living Planet Report is out. They mean this at least in part as a report card on the UN’s “Decade on Biodiversity”, and the grade is a failing one. A few things caught my eye:

  • They have a discussion of “connectivity conservation”, which is intended to reduce fragmentation by connecting protected areas.
  • They determined there is an average 69% global decline in abundance of monitored vertebrate populations between 1970 and 2018. The situation in the tropics is much worse than this average.
  • Populations of corals and sharks in particular are crashing.
  • The “Amazon as we know it” may cease to exist in less than a decade.
  • They give an update on the global ecological footprint from the “National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, 2022 edition”. Maybe I’ll have a more detailed look at this another day. The value they give is in hectares per person and I find it hard to interpret given that the population is not constant. They seem most interested in showing that people in more developed countries are using more than their fair share of the planet’s “biocapacity”. Previously, I understood the unit to be the number of planet Earths needed to sustain humanity’s current level of consumption and waste production long-term. A value less than 1 would be sustainable long term, while a value greater than 1 indicates a drawdown of natural capital, creating a debt that will eventually come due.

IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2022

Here is what the IMF has to say, when we are in this weird time when pretty much anybody who wants a job can get one (in the U.S.), growth as measured by GDP is low or negative in the US and elsewhere, reported inflation is high but the shock has sort of worn off, and I can predict with total confidence that we may or may not be teetering on the edge of a recession, which if it happens might be either mild or severe and either short or long.

  • “Global growth is forecast to slow from 6.0 percent in 2021 to 3.2 percent in 2022 and 2.7 percent in 2023.”
  • “Global inflation is forecast to rise from 4.7 percent in 2021 to 8.8 percent in 2022 but to decline to 6.5 percent in 2023 and to 4.1 percent by 2024.”
  • If this forecast is wrong, it will probably be wrong on the “downside”. The long list of risks includes monetary policy not working, US dollar appreciation disrupting trade, energy and food price shocks, emerging market debt distress, natural gas supply shocks in Europe caused by the Russia-Ukraine war, a continuation of the last pandemic and/or a new pandemic, a bursting of the real estate bubble leading to a financial crisis in China, and “geopolitical fragmentation could impede trade and capital flows, further hindering climate policy cooperation”.
  • “successful multilateral cooperation will prevent fragmentation that could reverse the gains in economic well-being from 30 years of economic integration.”

I emphasized the word “will” above. Is that “will” like we think successful cooperation will happen, or “will” like if successful cooperation could somehow happen, then this positive outcome will happen. It’s hard to be optimistic these days. About the most optimistic thing I can say is that when almost everybody in the world is feeling pessimistic, maybe we have hit bottom and can start clawing our way back up.