Good date choice

I'm now glad I used September 26th as a future-prediction date as this Buttonwood Economist article has used the exact same date (for 2021) as a criticism of governments' willingness to ban short-selling to staunch losses due to share-markets falling.

Wrong, very wrong

As you can see from the graph, Townsville's fuel prices are nowhere near the dollar mark that I had predicted two years ago. Although oil is well down on its peak, and looks bearish overall, my thought that oil would be back down to around $70/brl and the Aus$ at around $0.85 US seem to be incompatible with the forces of doom holding financial markets.

Marconomic Policy wish-list

in no particular order.

Nation-wide water trading.

Early family payments for pregnancy registrations.

Easy Aus work visa/residency/citizenship pathway for all pacific island state residents including Hawaii.

Tradeable whale-hunting quotas.

Freaky

I was just booking a hotel over the internet, while watching the start of the news. As it happened there was a breaking news item of a hotel being bombed. I had just booked in to the Marriott hotel... It was a Marriott hotel was attacked. I just checked to make sure that it wasn't the same hotel before I confirmed. I don't believe in omens....

Electoral Math - US vs Australia

The esteemed Dr. Clam and I had discussed the differences between the electoral math between the US and Australia and Dr Clam came up with something I couldn't have said better myself:(context here)

Preferential voting and proportional voting in the senate makes minor and single-issue groups not associated with a major political party much more important and successful in Australia. Third parties can play a constructive role,not just act as spoilers to cause civil wars. If there had been just one Democrat candidate in 1860 , that extremist yokel would never have gotten in with 39.8% of the vote.(Australia wins!)

*On the other hand, compulsory voting reduces the importance of single-issue groups associated with major political parties, which are valued in the US because they can get out the voter base. This means single-issue groups have less influence on the policies of the major parties here, and the parties better reflect the mainstream. (Australia wins again!)

* Finally, the US has been comprehensively gerrymandered on the state and federal level so that there are very few marginal seats, and parties can concentrate their resources even more disproportionately. (Australia, once again, wins!)

Basically, the jist of point two is that candidates on the extreme ideological edge of the major parties are an asset in the US, while they would have absolutely no chance in Australia (and would have to try for minor placings in the senate)- the mainstream would eat them up for breakfast.
Thus Sarah Palin, by dint of her being more of a wing ideologically compared to the mainstream, appears to be a blunderous choice (as it would be, in Australia). Any political commentator with any nous for the US electoral mathematics would realise that the mainstream just has to not hate her enough to be bothered voting against her.
I've been meaning to add an entry in Principia Marconomica about electoral maths, as I have done for a few other tidbits of late, the jist of it being that it doesn't matter so much that elections give spurious results, but that in the long run the electoral system is self-adjusting and stable.

The advantage of being black...

.. in chess is that you get to see what the opponents move is before committing to a strategy. Thus when the Democrats selected Joe Biden for VP nomination, this opened up the current strategy of the Republicans to fill a vacant niche of "woman on a presidential ticket". I think the Republicans looked several moves ahead on this one, and the current Republican plan bears no resemblance to that which would have been the case had Hillary been the VP nominee (see p-K4 vs p-Q4).

Stringing another "West Wing" analogy, I think the best chance for Obama is for McCain to have been a well known supporter of [big oil] energy (don't know? is he?) - and for there to be a big [oil installation] scary incident at a crucial stage in the election campaign.

Sarah Palin

For months, I have had nothing interesting to say about the US election....Now suddenly I have so much I want to say that I can't keep up with my brain.

Having watched *All 7 Series* of "The West Wing", I am convinced that there is a serious case of Reality imitating art in the US at the moment. This article seeems to concur - eg.

One of The West Wing's team of writers, Eli Attie, admitted that the character of Congressman Santos was based on a young rising star of the Democrats, one Barack Obama.

On Sarah Palin, I don't even know where to start: Her *Fifth Child*, the fact that she's a dead ringer for Arnold Vinick's campaign manager (Sheila Brooks), her pro-life stance... her love of guns and hunting....

Maybe I'll start with her fifth child: Expecting our own fifth child at the more advanced age of 38 - at the forefront of our mind, is the increasing risk of Down's with age. Even more prominently, having Googled "Fifth Child" just to see what would come up, came a novel by Doris Lessing about... a life shattered by the unexpected fifth pregnancy turning out a disabled child. This on top of the fact that the birth of a severely disabled child is a particular nightmarish fear for me. Sarah's acceptance of her fifth child having Downs syndrome is a poignant message to me. I am in awe that she would be going for VP.

Professor Ronald Laura

Googling Professor Ronald Laura again?

I am all for balanced upbringing of my children (and children in general), but I rail against the unbalanced philosophy that rails against usage of technology and formal/rote learning in education in general.

That got My Attention

The US election wasn't inspiring me much until Sarah Palin got the VP nomination for the republicans.

Veal of the sea?

Calf:






Veal:

Back to cold war style imperialism

It appears there is a resurgence in cold war strategy that is apparent in Georgia. Russia had always preferred bullying in the old "East Bloc" and "Soviet Union". These were not necessarily voluntary unions but ones that were enforced from time to time. The US tended to use money handles to get "client states" on side, and eventually, this proved to be the key to the breakdown of the soviet empire. Communism was an inferior economic model, and its lack of democracy meant it could not adjust appropriately through succession of leaders and failing economies. Thus it appears that although the borders have changed dramatically, the upgraded economics and transformed country altogether have allowed Russia to actively assert its geopolicy of old, which seems to only require a strong military, and complete control over its media. The only tactic that is plausibly optimal for the US is also the Cold war tactics of old - ie. money and military support for client states. There was a nash equilibrium for a long time throughout the cold war with the stalemate perpetuated by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The stalemate only ended when the USSR no longer had enough money to continue its strategies. Russia may yet again be vulnerable from say, a commodities bust economically, or a leadership succession issue politically, but these really cannot be counted on in the short term. Thus I foresee a solidification of the front line of the cold war in the Caucauses, and veiled threats of Great escalation as a way to manipulate policy in the future - virtually a return to MAD, in fact. China may well join the fray in imperialism of its own with its front lines of Taiwan etc.

What does Marconomics say about who is to blame for the war in Georgia?
Marconomics states that that is the wrong way to think (see principle 6). Blame in this case implies that there exists an impartial international court that can *both* judge and enforce its findings. Attempting to come to conclusions based on evidence as to who is to blame is putting the cart before the horse. The rules of the game in this case have as the highest court the UN security council. Thus if any of the veto-wielding members are part of the conflict, they cannot be effectively policed, except via threats by one of the other veto-wielding countries.

How did Russia "Win"
There are several strategic masterstrokes that Russia has made in the leadup to this conflict. Of course, in the long run, by the mere dint of the fact that they were "surprise" tactics which humiliated "the west" this will hurt Russia dearly (eventually).

One masterstroke was to give Russian citizenship to South Ossettians who wanted it. I have often thought that giving US citizenship easily to Iraqis (or Bosnians, Kosovars...)under occupation etc. could be easily turned to the US's strategic advantage.
Another smart move was to use the media cleverly to demonise Georgias leadership. As a "nominal" democracy, it is clear that the Russian population is right behind Putin, and think that the Georgian leader (Saakashvili) should be crushed like a bug because they believe him to be a tyrant. It wouldn't surprise me if in ten years, Russians rue the fact that they didn't go all the way and finish the job, much as the US rue the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't brought down back in Gulf War I.
The tactical masterstroke was to predict Saakashvili's moves, and swiftly orchestrate counter-moves which included extensive propaganda. Staged and prepared propaganda from media fully under your control will always play better than even "nominally" fair and free western style press. Nobody believes the media to be impartial anyway, so it is better to go the whole hog and be as brazenly biased as people can believe.

Given that "true" democracies with "free" press have such a strategic liability over a system like Russia's, does this mean that the political/media systems in Russia (and China) are better than the west's?

No. The long term adaptability of true democracies and the truth-seeking nature of private, free media are decisive in the long run, even given their short term strategic liabilities.

Forget the Olympics. Who's winning the Geopolympics?

Unfortunately, it seems to be the "bad" guys :(.

Georgia (after being provoked by Russian interests within its borders) launched its military into an offensive and has provoked an even more disproportionate military attack from Russia. This has the unfortunate consequence of making Western-backed Georgia still look bad for "starting" it, while Russia gets a free hand due to tacit Chinese approval in the UN. A sheer reluctance from the "west" (US or anyone else) to fight a war on the Georgians behalf against Russia means that Georgians are pretty much dangerously exposed and isolated.

In China, its huge economic success of late, and the legitimacy it has gained just by staging the olympics, has resulted in fairly rampant nationalism, in which the population has started to believe that its political system is "better" than democracy. This may embolden it for otherwise unwise military adventures of its own.

The real ten-year plan

I must admit I was being a little tricksy with my previous ten-year plan entry. I had a ten year plan already and I was waiting for the right opportunity to mention it. I decided to have a "surprise" birthday party for myself. I planned the party - the guests (all close family) got the surprise. During grace I thanked God for birthdays and then told everyone I had talked K into having another baby. Being one that "Likes the rollercoaster" (Parenthood movie quote) I am delighted at this new adventure we are embarking on.

No cliches please - and if anyone mentions Doris Lessing Horror Fiction to K they're a dead man!

Hunting adventures in the 70's

I've started yet another miniblog for links to my fathers current project of pictures, film and book of his hunting adventures. Hunting in Zambia early 1970's is my link for it. If you are at all interested, place comments, ratings, etc. especially with the clips.

Brief background: Zambia in the early 1970's was a typically African country in which independence was quite recent, and the result was fairly chaotic. Trophy hunting and the ivory trade were already globally frowned upon, even while at the same time, some elephant reserves had over-populations which had denuded them of virtually all trees. The attitude, therefore of the casual well off resident (predominantly white) "adventure" hunter, was as follows:

1) Follow the letter of the law and hunt only under the "license" system.

2) Report poachers to relevant authorities.

3) Most game reserves were very near villages - Therefore enlist local villages to use every scrap of hide, bone, meat (dried as biltong) etc. as they were generally subsistence with little regular protein in their diet and few sources of income.

The illegal (or even legal) hunting for just the trophy with the abandonment of the carcass was anathema. Also, the "canned" hunt popular with mega-rich visitors who just wanted to tick another box in the "things to do before I die list".

Like whales, elephants live wild and free until the moment they are killed - chickens tend to live a short and miserable existence - and provide one thousandth of the meat that each elephant does.

This following clip has me in it! I'm the little kid that looks like a girl holding hands with my mum with the black long hair. I was probably one.

Like duh!

ANU Professor Dayal Wickramasinghe tells 666 presenter Ross Solly life could be everywhere in space.

Wish I could find the transcript

A new "Ten Year Plan"

Back in 1992 I was playing a round of golf with "The Groose" and Andrewww. I asked them where they wanted to be in ten years time. I can't remember what they said, but I knew that I wanted to be back in Townsville with a stable life with plenty of family support and perhaps an interest in the family business. When me & K decided to have kids, we had a secret pact to space our children about three years apart and to have a maximum of two boys. Once Z was born, our ten year plan was complete, and ever since, I have been struggling to have a vision of where I want to be in ten years time. The truth is, any ambitions I had as an individual are no longer relevant eg. - to become a great tennis/trumpet player. Ambitions I had vicariously for my children have come up against the barrier of their own free will being at odds with what I believe they *should* wish to strive for. I seem to have lost the steering wheel to my life and I'm just relying on accelerator, break, gears and momentum for any control at all. Any ideas?

Economist.comments.marcoparigi

Still doing more Comments on Economist.com than my usual blog sphere of reading.

Subjects of interest include:

China
Iraq
green taxes
superannuation
oil
carbon footprint
Australian immigration/guest workers

Minke Whale Meat - It's the beef of the sea!

In response to Dr.Clam's suggestion to eat more whaleThis should really be a real ad for the real product that ought to be offered in Australia.

*Update* I have it on good advice that Minke whale meat is WAY healthier than beef (and other common non-fish varieties)



And just for balance:

The coming oil price crash

There are numerous "experts" talking up the price of oil. Like at the end of the Dot.com boom, I believe this is a technique to give those in the know time to sell dud futures to those that aren't. As far as reality is concerned, supply and demand are nearing that elusive intersection. From the demand side:US demand has already slumed 10% on some figures

from this article.

On these figures, the US demand will drop much faster than it will pick up in China, in barrels per day terms.


On the supply side, there are several increases in capacity going on in Saudi Arabia, and Iraq production has stabilised and is likely to increase, if anything. oil saviour? perhaps.

Consumer committment to reducing petrol usage has finally started happen in several countries. For the layman this means that even if petrol prices suddenly drop, consumers are likely to keep to these committments, without the usual usage surge that happens with lower prices.

As far as when? goes, the US is stocking up on fuel for the summer driving season. When the oil companies realise few are driving this will reduce the price a little bit. China is stocking up big time for the Olympics and internal aid. Once the Olympics are done and there is spare, the oil price will plummet.

Yes I'm talking down the oil price, but does anyone listen? :) we'll see....

Narrative II

Clam's narrative in italics
Let us begin with the way the world was twenty-five years ago. It was in the last years of a titanic struggle between two great powers, and every single event that happened anywhere in the world was seen, and had to be seen, firstly and most importantly in relation to that titanic struggle. What opportunities did it afford for the advantage of our side? What opportunities for the other side? Who benefited in the long term, in the short term? It was an age of game theory in international relations, of conspiracy theories that were credible and even true, of brinksmanship and mind-numbing terror. Perhaps you do not remember it like that. This is my narrative, and I am saying how I remember things.

In that titanic struggle our side, the West, supported many unworthy allies; in a calculated fashion, because those allies were important in in the existential struggle. Hence Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, at certain times a certain Iraqi strongman.

In the milieu in which I lived, I breathed in a certain cynicism about this titanic stuggle. Sure, our side was ours, but we were not enthusiastic partisans. Our side had high ideals, and failed to live up to them; the other side, too, professed high ideals, and likewise failed to live up to them. They were two great grey colossi locked in an interminable struggle. We were weary unto death of their fighting and wanted something, anything, to make it end.

One day it ended. We had won.

Over the next few years- the next several years- it gradually dawned on me that my cynicism had been misplaced. The other side had been, in its essence, wrong and evil, and our side was, in its essence, right and good. The crimes that had been committed by our side had been committed, rightly or wrongly, as calculated moves in a struggle against a far greater evil. The crimes of the other side had been committed as calculated moves to still all voices of opposition and dehumanise mankind.

I realise this must sound breathtakingly naïve to many people. But I think there is no other plausible reading of the historical evidence. I am prepared to justify it at appalling length in subsequent posts.

Almost the last, but far from the least evil to spring from this titanic struggle happened in the first half of 1991. A tyrant who had made unprovoked war on most of his neighbours, who had caused the deaths of upward of a million people, who was a bad egg overall, had been brought to bay by a vast alliance of many nations. He could have been cast down, as all tyrants should be cast down, with relative ease. And yet he was not. President George Bush called upon the oppressed people of Iraq to rebel against their ruler, and did not aid them as they fought and died. The vast armies were dispersed and sent back to their homes. The tyrant remained in power. Why was this allowed to happen?

This was clear to me then as it is now. This was a judgement call. It was plausible then as now that things could have gone really badly even if he was thrown out. For the purposes of the narrative I will accept as an axiom that it was a mistake to leave him in power, and the interpretation of the Cold War as outlined above.

I remember the removal of Saddam from power being a bipartisan policy throughout the 1990s, once the habits of thought of the Cold War began to recede. I was angry about sanctions. I was angry about the bombings of 1998. I was angry then because these things because they impacted disproportionately on innocent civilians, and they had no hope of achieving what is most precious to God, in the words of Baha’ullah, which is justice. The invasion of Iraq was carried out to make amends for the shame of 1991 and bring this long overdue justice. It was obvious that it should be done, long before 2001.

The New World Order TM as I saw it had developed to the extent that a large chunk of the society deemed that the UN was, for good or ill, the only arbiter of such interventions. This worked acceptably in the break-up of ex-Yugoslavia. Iraq was different in as much as Saddam had a grudge against the US in particular. For the US, Iraq was unfinished business. Saddam took delight in defiance, in particular, defiance the US. In short, it was personal. There was umpteen other tyrants that did equally bad things over the 25 years. I could argue that many of these were equivalently evil and ripe for intervention. I would personally argue that it is a greater shame that Mugabe has avoided being toppled, for instance.

* It seemed quite clear from the pronouncements of George Bush et al that the goal of the invasion was what I have said above, to crush a wicked despot like a weevil.

The goals were more multi-faceted than that. I have argued that leaving armies go completely idle means that when they are needed, they will be almost useless (as most of those in Europe are). As I said, with Iraq, it was a little more personal. Saddam was so cocky he thought he could keep Kuwait. Taunting the western world by continuing to preside over a once great country that was becoming a failed state. Essentially again, invading was a judgement call. Crushing Saddam was a primary goal, but to see it as being completely unselfish in terms of what was judged to be good for the US or even for its president's legacy is quite partisan.

* In a move stupid in retrospect, George Bush et al sought to obtain an imprimatur from the United Nations for the invasion. This brought the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue to the forefront, because the UN resolutions that Iraq had flouted were concernd with these.

Again, one way or another this was a judgement call. Perhaps George wanted to give Saddam the false impression that he may yet avoid invasion. Perhaps he wanted to be sure there *wasn't* any mass destructive weapons before invasion. The New World Order TM works better if there is some sort of UN rubber stamp. In terms of TNWOTM the outcome of the war was that it is completely on hold as far as removing tyrants is concerned, and more to the point, removing tyrants is so burdensome for the US that it will only happen when it gets personal or close to home for the US.

* Because Iraq had not complied with these resolutions, a murderous regime of sanctions was daily punishing the Iraqi people.

Saddam had set it up such that invasion would punish them way more than even sanctions.

* Everyone was agreed that the Despot had Weapons of Mass Destruction: the French, the Russians, Uncle Tom Cobbley, etc. If anyone had good evidence to the contrary, they sat on it.


There was so much bluff and double bluff, exaggeration and downplay over this, that everyone in every party could reasonably be accused of being a liar.

Lying is a great handle for launching partisan attacks, and like children overboard it is milked for all it's worth well after it has been acted on as if true when the lie was being told. Lying should not be considered as part of a narrative, but as a springboard for launching partisan attacks.

So my narrative is that motivation for war (Gulf War I and II) is 90% American values("Blooding" the military, revenge for 9/11 related riks, unfinished business from Gulf War I) and only 10% Aslan values. Despots can do anything they like to people in their own country without risk of invasion(see Darfur, Zimbabwe), but if you make it personal for Americans and their president, you will be taken to task, and *Americans will be happy to risk lives in the struggle and the aftermath*. Serbia may well be a counterpoint to this narrative because it wasn't personal. However, it was personal for NATO as a whole. For the Americans it was rather a cowardly but militarily effective testing ground for new smart weapons. It took all of two *Accidental* helicopter US deaths to put a whole ground offensive to a halt for months. Serbia was just a much easier judgement call than Iraq or say Serbia when Bosnia was being throttled. There was talk even then of the US attacking them, but without the cover of a UN mandate, was geopolitically unwise.

So in conclusion, I want more Aslan values and less American values in nation-building excercises. I will protest the war inasmuch that if they open the door by saying it is about justice, then accept criticism about the way it is delivered. If you open the door by saying it is about WMD, then accept that this action is outside of the bounds of The New World Order TM, and other countries or the UN do not have the responsibility in the aftermath. Above all note that all breaches of Aslan style behaviour in this and any conflict will make it harder to pursue future acts of justice outside of The New World Order TM.