By way of Yves Smith’s excellent blog Naked Capitalism is this piece in yesterday’s The Independent about the power that protest still hold in today’s society.

The Independent – Johann Hari: Protest works. Just look at the proof

There is a ripple of rage spreading across Britain. It is clearer every day that the people of this country have been colossally scammed. The bankers who crashed the economy are richer and fatter than ever, on our cash. The Prime Minister who promised us before the election “we’re not talking about swingeing cuts” just imposed the worst cuts since the 1920s, condemning another million people to the dole queue.

Yet the rage is matched by a flailing sense of impotence. We are furious, but we feel there is nothing we can do. There’s a mood that we have been stitched up by forces more powerful and devious than us, and all we can do is sit back and be shafted.

This mood is wrong. It doesn’t have to be this way – if enough of us act to stop it.

[Let's] look at a group of protesters who thought they had failed. The protests within the United States against the Vietnam War couldn’t prevent it killing three million Vietnamese and 80,000 Americans. But even in the years it was “failing”, it was achieving more than the protestors could possibly have known. In 1966, the specialists at the Pentagon went to US President Lyndon Johnson – a thug prone to threatening to “crush” entire elected governments – with a plan to end the Vietnam War: nuke the country. They “proved”, using their computer modeling, that a nuclear attack would “save lives.”

It was a plan that might well have appealed to him. But Johnson pointed out the window, towards the hoardes of protesters, and said: “I have one more problem for your computer. Will you feed into it how long it will take 500,000 angry Americans to climb the White House wall out there and lynch their President?” He knew that there would be a cost – in protest and democratic revolt – that made that cruelty too great.

(more…)

The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.

National Review Online: Willi Schlamm, Apr. 20, 2005

The Economist – The rising power of the Chinese worker

Cheap labour has built China’s economic miracle. Its manufacturing workers toil for a small fraction of the cost of their American or German competitors. At the bottom of the heap, a “floating population” of about 130m migrants work in China’s boomtowns, taking home 1,348 yuan a month on average last year.

That is a mere $197, little more than one-twentieth of the average monthly wage in America. But it is 17% more than the year before. As China’s economy has bounced back, wages have followed suit. On the coasts, where its exporting factories are clustered, bosses are short of workers, and workers short of patience. A spate of strikes has thrown a spanner into the workshop of the world.

The hands of China’s workers have been strengthened by a new labour law, introduced in 2008, and by the more fundamental laws of demand and supply (see article). Workers are becoming harder to find and to keep. The country’s villages still contain perhaps 70m potential migrants. Other rural folk might be willing to work closer to home in the growing number of factories moving inland.

But the supply of strong backs and nimble fingers is not infinite, even in China. The number of 15- to 29-year-olds will fall sharply from next year. And although their wages are increasing, their aspirations are rising even faster. They seem less willing to “eat bitterness”, as the Chinese put it, without complaint.

(more…)

TIME Magazine’s excellent finance-focused blog The Curious Capitalist pointed me the way of this interactive Wall Street Journal graphic on what’s found inside the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. I highly recommend giving it a read.

I’m not a fan of Ms. Kay, but I couldn’t agree more with this statement.

Full Comment Forum

Even the best-organized plans can be derailed by bad weather or glitches nobody can have foreseen, but whether the incidents or gaffes blow over quickly, or whether they become legendary tipping points has a lot to do with impressions that have already been formed subliminally in the public perception about the leader’s internal authenticity and confidence.

When leaders have self-confidence — the real kind, that comes from within and glows in the dark, or rather glows in luggage-losing interludes — they can fumble the ball and shrug it off. If Trudeau had fumbled a football, he would have made it seem as though it were the football’s fault for being such a stupid shape. Barack Obama has all kinds of blippy things happen to him — the Rev Wright fiasco would have sunk a less confident man – but he never loses his cool because, say what you will about his leadership, he is supremely confident inside with an unshakeable sense of his greater destiny. That can go a long way to cover up gaffes. Clinton has it. JFK had it.

Just putting this on here for the sake of remembering how downtown “looked” during this once in a lifetime summit here in Toronto. All hysteria aside, not much is really going on in the city. A couple of police cars were torched at Bay & King. Have yet to see a police officer utter a single word to a protestor.

Barack Obama’s rant against technology: Don’t shoot the messenger

“WITH iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations—none of which I know how to work—information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment.”

In a speech to students at Hampton University on May 9th, Mr Obama did not just name-check some big brands; he also joined a long tradition of grumbling about new technologies and new forms of media.

Socrates’s bugbear was the spread of the biggest-ever innovation in communications—writing. He feared that relying on written texts, rather than the oral tradition, would “create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls…they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.”

Enos Hitchcock voiced a widespread concern about the latest publishing fad in 1790. “The free access which many young people have to romances, novels and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth.” (There was a related worry that sofas, introduced at the same time, encouraged young people to drift off into fantasy worlds.)

Cinema was denounced as “an evil pure and simple” in 1910; comic books were said to lead children into delinquency in 1954; rock’n’roll was accused of turning the young into “devil worshippers” in 1956; Hillary Clinton attacked video games for “stealing the innocence of our children” in 2005.

(more…)

Bill Gates just retweeted an article on The Economist along with the statement that it “does a good job of summarizing the scientific discussion on global warming”. Surely enough, the once-richest man in the world had it right.

The Economist – The science of climate change: The clouds of unknowing

For a planet at a constant temperature, the amount of energy absorbed as sunlight and the amount emitted back to space in the longer wavelengths of the infra-red must be the same. In the case of the Earth, the amount of sunlight absorbed is 239 watts per square metre. According to the laws of thermodynamics, a simple body emitting energy at that rate should have a temperature of about –18ºC.

You do not need a comprehensive set of surface-temperature data to notice that this is not the average temperature at which humanity goes about its business. The discrepancy is due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which absorb and re-emit infra-red radiation, and thus keep the lower atmosphere, and the surface, warm (see the diagram below). The radiation that gets out to the cosmos comes mostly from above the bulk of the greenhouse gases, where the air temperature is indeed around –18ºC.

(more…)

Graphs care of The Economist. Not being an American taxpayer myself, I blame my ignorance of the staggering implications of the Bush-era tax cuts on the “need to know” rule.

This is something Barack Obama has been at pains to point out, as Republicans have attacked him as a profligate spender and runner of deficits. Most of today’s borrowing, he has said, is attributable to factors beyond his control. He is essentially pointing people to charts like the one at right.

That’s a damning chart. It implicates a lot of people, including some of the same Congressional Democrats who are now joining Republicans in assailing the president for budgeted deficits, but who voted for the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politically, this is a pretty important chart.

That said, these most recent contributions to the federal debt appear to be irrelevant when looking at the long term:

That massive increase there at the end is due to two things: growth in spending on Medicare and Medicaid, and growth in interest payments on the debt. But the real problem is Medicare and Medicaid. By about 2070, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will outstrip revenues.

In the end, who caused what deficits when isn’t important. What is important is finding some way to avoid that spike. And both parties seem to be a long way away from having anything like a serious discussion about that challenge.

From the Canada West Foundation’s discussion paper Look Before You Leap comes a rather compelling reason why Canadians should consider “the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Canadian economy [and to take] into account when debating how to address greenhouse emissions in Canada.”