Mars ‘remains in embryonic state’ BBC
Student cracks ‘missing mass’ puzzle that baffled scientists for decades… in her summer break Daily Mail. And our Crocodile Chuck knows her father. I think we need to update the six degrees of separation. I bet thanks to the Internet it’s down to five or four.
Gundersen Gives Testimony to NRC ACRS Fairewinds (hat tip reader furzy mouse)
Views of WikiLeaks controversy vary depending on age, politics of the reporting media outlet, EMU student researchers conclude Eastern Michigan University
Anonymous and the Arab uprisings Aljazeera (hat tip reader furzy mouse)
Alwaleed Says Saudi Arabia Seeks Oil Price of $70-$80 a Barrel Bloomberg
Mysterious fund allows Congress to spend freely, despite earmark ban CNN (hat tip reader furzy mouse)
BlackRock attacks banks over ‘aggressive’ IPO fees Telegraph
Will there be a US “Double Dip”? Part One Steve Keen (hat tip reader John M)
Will Labor Costs Return to Trend? Tim Duy
Antidote du jour. Since the otters yesterday were so popular, Philip Pilkington sent us another:
39 comments
Comments are closed.
Hey, Mr. Otter, can you juggle more than one stone? Get back to me when you can.
My cat can juggle a tinfoil ball, and she can pop it up in the air, and whack it too — like a Irish hurler. She scores on me occasionally … when I’m not lookin.’
And I say to her when she does, “You got soooo lucky Maine Coon girl;” and then always, from somewhere, her jealous tramp-of-a-brother saunters in, and he plops in the middle of the playing field, and the game ends.
Clam Dreams…
No doubt Mr. ( Ms?) Otter can juggle more than one stone when the four-way hit of window pane wears off..
wisconsin wisconsin wisconsin
If this posts it’ll mean it’s not that word which keeps causing my comments to disappear, never to be seen again.
Anybody else having that problem worse than usual?
No attempter, I, for one, have yet to encounter trouble.
Do you copy your posts into Word or WordPad? That way, if a post gets eaten, you can rapid fire backups, until one makes it through.
I leaned to do that on the Yglesias blog — a place where, if suspicious things aren’t happening to a majority your posts, you get suspicious.
Thanks Max, I learned that years ago. I only needed to lose one long comment completely, and I was never so complacent again.
In fact, the one I tried to post today is now my newest blog post, since it’s about the the way we should look at austerity, and I did put some thought into it.
Laroguetrader, if you see this, go read it there, since it was a reply to your Hudson thread comment.
“Alwaleed Says Saudi Arabia Seeks Oil Price of $70-$80 a Barrel”
Seek all ye want, Prince Alwaleed, but you will NEVER, EVER, see oil that cheap again — unless there is another global financial meltdown and subsequent double-dip mass depression.
(Which means, lucky Prince, you are quite likely to see your sought after cheaper oil, very soon.)
Oh you have a crystal ball too?
So many common ‘taters here seem to have one…where can I get one?
And how much do they cost?
PS Oil was 10 $ a barrel in 2001.
have things really changed so much since then? really?
Average price of oil in 2001: $23.00. Yes,”things” have changed. Peak oil requires no crystal ball, wise guy; it’s an empirical fact that oil production has been essentially flat since 2005.
“Oh you have a crystal ball too?”
No, not at all, just pointing out that if you want lower oil prices, you’re going to need a depression; the deep recession the West is currently in, obviously isn’t cutting it.
And we know, from history, when adjusted oil prices are as high as they are now, the US economy, at some point, falls into recession. Now, if you’re in a deep recession, and you add a recession to it, what does that equal?
My math says, a deep recession + a recession = a deep depression.
peak oil : yes
de-re-cession when the global can cant be kicked down teh road anymore: yes
DollarLite(DL$) replaces the Dollar(US$): Yes
oil= DL$10/brrl: who knows? and but then isnt the absolute currency equivalence a rather arbitrary relative measurement
How much will fresh water cost?
“oil= DL$10/brrl: who knows? and but then isnt the absolute currency equivalence a rather arbitrary relative measurement”
Arbitrary it is. Money is funny business, always has been.
I think that’s one reason why the US demands that the lifeblood of it’s economy, oil, trades in dollars only; it wishes to limit the dollar’s arbitrary nature.
And I also think that’s why, if your a middle-East oil despot, and you make attempts to trade your product in currencies other than the dollar, the US will attack you (Saddam, Mohammar), or will threaten to attack you (mullahs of Iran).
“How much will fresh water cost?”
In the future? An arm and a leg — and quite possibly the entire torso — is my guess.
Rex Tillerson is a guy who knows a bit about the global oil market. He recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee that oil should be $60-70 dollars a barrel based on supply and demand.
Tillerson could be right, or he could deflecting, or he could be committing outright perjury. Remember, we’re talking about Rex Tillerson, the traitorous wretch who told the US Senate, that if it even thinks about playing rough with him, he will “take his business elsewhere.”
I’m more inclined to listen to unbiased experts who study oil and energy issues for a living. Like Gregor MacDonald. MacDonald provides compelling evidence that oil at $100 per barrel, is actually, a bargain.
http://gregor.us/fossil-fuels/speculator-ghosts-in-the-oil-machine/
The Saudis are not trying hard enough.
Giving away some free oil ought to do the job, I think.
“The Saudis are not trying hard enough.”
The Saudis are trying pretty hard.
http://thecommongood.net/2011/05/facing-up-to-end-of-easy-oil/
To find more oil, not necessarily to get it to $70-$80 a barrel.
Well, if the Saudis want to see $70-$80 barrel oil in the future, they need to discover on their peninsula, another Saudi Arabia or two (not gonna happen; the Peak Oil Discovery in Saudi Arabia occurred in 1947).
As the article intimates, and as most Peak Oil students have long known, Saudi Arabia also moved beyond peak oil production years ago. And, to make matter worse, if you plug the reliable ExportLand Model into Saudi Arabia, what you find; even an oil exporting powerhouse like Saudi Arabia could well be forced to cease exporting oil, completely, by as early as 2025.
The point is: like everybody else, Saudi Arabia is nearly spent, and what we should to be focusing on, instead, is the entirety of our global economy. The neo-liberal economic model that drives the world will need to find the equivalent of many Saudi Arabias over the next fifteen years if doesn’t want to disintegrate (by having to pay $1,000 plus for a barrel for oil in the 2020s).
The way I see it; what our desperate world needs now, more than anything else, is an overarching global plan for smart and steady contraction, because we not going to find anywhere near the oil needed … to continue doing what we’re doing
(But in my opinion, the least likely thing to occur in this universe, is for a smart contraction plan to arise — overarching, or otherwise — on this market driven/profit driven planet Earth).
A good summation of Saudi Arabia’s role in the oil-shackled global economy, here:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/past-peak-oil-why-time-now-short/58360
Hey, Yves, this is one worth considering.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/8543964/Why-Christine-Lagarde-should-never-be-head-of-the-IMF.html
I don’t know. Halligan, an economist for what looks like a hedge fund for institutional investors, seems to be saying that the IMF is not extreme enough now and would not be extreme enough under Lagarde. Other than that he thinks that it should be run, not by a European kleptocrat but by one from the emerging markets.
Now that Otter has mastered the stone juggle he can move on to the Hacky Sack.
70-80 a barrel, they would love that price range. Low enough to increase demand enough to offset the drop in price even though its still a massive profit per barrel.
Friends;
Am I, denizen of the Deep South, the only one who can’t see Brother Philips’ Otter? And juggling his stones? I’m part Irish and so shall refrain from snide comment.
As to the ‘disapearing’ of comments; when it happens to me I usually ruefully admit to myself that it is probably due to a sudden and inexplicable attack of ‘good taste’ on the part of the Moderator. That’s one of the beauties of the Internet; it ‘Suffers Fools Gladly.’ So, I generally feel right at home.
I was wondering if my computer had some sort of glitch, because I can’t see the juggling otter either… so glad to see i’m not the only one. That inspired me to search for it…
http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/this-otter-really-knows-how-to-juggle.html
It’s fascinating to consider how much nuclear fuel is at Daiichi — 3,000 tons total (core and spent), or roughly the equivalent of 2,000 atom bombs with 500 kiloton yield.
A 500 kilotoner is a fairly big weapon. Obviously, it’s not “big” like the Soviet’s Tzar Bomb was big — Tzar was a 50 megaton weapon, but the 500 kilotoner is considerably bigger, than say, Hiroshima’s Little Boy (15 kilotons), or Nagasaki’s Fat Man (20 kilotons).
Now, back when I was kid (70s), when we were still allowed to discuss scary things, there was general consensus, I seem to recall, that it would only take only one or two thousand nuclear detonations to create a “Nuclear Winter,” and Nuclear Winter would produce such negative planetary conditions that all living things would die ( save the indestructible cockroach; the tank-like insect, would in fact, for some reason I can’t remember, prosper).
Those one or two thousand nukes, when deployed on targets, would have produced lots of different yields ( the Soviets and the Americans both had richly varied arsenals — and still do), but I think it’s safe to say that the yield average of the employed warheads would’ve in the vicinity of eight to ten megatons.
So (and this to put fears to rest that seem to spreading like wildfire across the internet), Daiichi cannot create anything like a Nuclear Winter. First, if Daiichi was a bomb, it would explode with the equivalent of — roughly — a 1,000 megaton warhead, or too little explosive punch to create the proper effect; for that, as we previously calculated, we would need a bomb (or bombs) with the equivalent of somewhere around eight to twenty thousand megatons of yield.
Second, Daiichi is not a bomb, far from it, Daiichi is leaker (and a leacher), and Nuclear Winter requires more than just leaked doses of radiation, massive or otherwise; NW also requires the dust and particles created by multiple nuclear detonations. So Daiichi, if it was volcano, let’s say, would be more like one of those gentle Hawaiian lava spewers, and not like the uber-violent, erupter-killer, Krakatoa.
But, all this said, I must admit, if I lived on the island Honshu, I would be thinking very seriously about getting off. The fact of the matter is, the equivalent of 2,000 atom boms with a 500 kiloton yield are melting into my island, which is not good, and to make matters worse, just six clicks away — and easily within the officially agreed upon human “Kill Zone” — lies another Daiichi-like site, that may or may not be doing something, very similar.
And I think that site — which no one seems knows anything about — is called Daini.
KeenTV — I like it.
Glad to see he’s on the US = new Japan bandwagon too — although he really should expand it to the rest of the world too.
Think he’s a little off-mark on deficit spending though. If I understand him correctly he’s advocating debt-forgiveness. That’s a bit of a mind-boggler. I would have thought, if you wanted to go this route, it would be better for the government to wipe out household debt by crediting their accounts.
Anyway, these measures could never be implemented. The effect debt-forgiveness would have on people’s attitude toward private debt would be incredible. And the banks? If you thought the bailouts were a perverse incentive… just wait.
Keen should look at how well Japan have kept up their living-standards rather than how fast they are growing.
If I understand him correctly he’s advocating debt-forgiveness. That’s a bit of a mind-boggler. I would have thought, if you wanted to go this route, it would be better for the government to wipe out household debt by crediting their accounts. Philip Pilkington
Yes, since the banking system cheats savers too, an equal bailout of the entire population including savers is much more just.
Anyway, these measures could never be implemented. The effect debt-forgiveness would have on people’s attitude toward private debt would be incredible. Philip Pilkington
Yes, it would wake them up to the pernicious nature of our money system. And when the economy recovered many Austerians would have egg on their face.
And the banks? If you thought the bailouts were a perverse incentive… just wait. Philip Pilkington
Leverage restrictions should be combined with the bailout so as to offset the new money.
Still no mention of Zelaya’s return to Honduras — tut, tut, what kind of a filthy Pinko are you Yves?
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6840
Mark Weisbrot ran an excellent article in The Guardian the other day arguing that the Honduran incident has marked a watershed in the US’s meddling — sorry, intervention — in the region. It’s a great piece and if he wasn’t such a good economist I’d suggest that Weisbrot become a foreign policy analyst:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/28/honduras-usforeignpolicy
Did anyone believe the ban on earmarks would make any difference? ‘Pork, it’s whats for dinner!’ Clearly the pork addiction is resistant to ‘change.’
Mysterious fund allows Congress to spend freely, despite earmark ban http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/28/mysterious.fund/index.html
Hello Yves,
A link worth considering: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/okay-enough-stop-feeling-sorry-for-misha-khodorkovsky-20110524
How can we expect our journalists to report on law breaking when even the ones considered liberal sympathize with Russian oligarchs.
How? Try protecting them from being killed when they say anything else. It’s not as hard as you think.
Because the political mindset to frame choices as A or B only. No discussion of shades of gray… no possibility of being both strong militarily and providing a social safety net. Both are forms of protection any country needs to survive and be successful and stable. Not having a strong enough social safety net leads to “instability” which has not-so-hidden costs of it’s own and is on reason why China focuses on ‘social stability’.
The Gates Farewell Warning – America can be a superpower or a welfare state, but not both http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074273918974778.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Note: Generally one can get to WSJ articles via Google News, so the above link should work… but if brings you to the firewall, try that. On the other hand, the title says it all and it contains nothing but shopworn political polemic.
Blackrock complaining about IPO underwriting … is this the market regulating itself? Reminds me of Quattrone and CSFB – summarized so well by Partnoy in Infectious GReed. The stories diverge but the indication is that the something continues to be rotten in Denmark.
Dear Yves
I wish I were in a position to subscribe to your blog, but I am one of the victims of this fraud generated and perpetuated depression. Thus, I have been forced to take an early SS retirement at a paltry sum. That said, I would like to commend you on your excellent site. I read it religiously every day and have gone from a person totally ignorant of the dynamic of the financial chicanery to a person who is, at least, modestly informed about the basics. I find your selection of topics to be very relevant to the current situation we face, and I so much appreciate your earnest endeavor to keep the public informed.
You are like a voice in the wilderness where so many of the spokespersons have been corrupted and co-opted by the very institutions of money and power that have brought our country to its knees and the world economy to the brink of implosion. I cannot thank you enough for, not only the content of your site, but for the spirit of freedom and transparency that it represents. I hold you in the highest esteem.
Warmest regards
Ron
Well said Ron, and seconded.
Too right Ron;
Lurking around Mz Smiths site is Americas answer to Englands Open University. A real education too. A well rounded polity makes for a well tempered policy.
Hey Yves,
I don’t know if you have already posted this, but here is a really good piece on higher education and student loans.
http://nplusonemag.com/bad-education
Otter looks like Obama juggling Elizabeth Warren’s appointment, wondering how on earth to be rid of it.
Please read this short piece by Andrew Bacevich on soldiers and war and America, these days.
Is it possible that some of the largesse showered on U.S. forces trying to pacify Kandahar could be better put to use in helping to rebuild Cleveland? Given the existing terms of the civil-military relationship, even to pose such questions is unseemly. For politicians sending soldiers into battle, generals presiding over long, drawn-out, inconclusive campaigns, and contractors reaping large profits as a consequence, this war-comes-first mentality is exceedingly agreeable.
….
Present-day Americans, few of them directly affected by events in Iraq or Afghanistan, find war tolerable. They accept it. Since 9/11, war has become normalcy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-28/memorial-day-how-america-screws-its-soldiers/
On second thought, I’m uncomfortable with quoting from Mr. Bacevich’s work. Here it is complete.
Riders on Boston subways and trolleys are accustomed to seeing placards that advertise research being conducted at the city’s many teaching hospitals. One that recently caught my eye, announcing an experimental “behavioral treatment,” posed this question to potential subjects: “Are you in the U.S. military or a veteran disturbed by terrible things you have experienced?”
Just below the question, someone had scrawled this riposte in blue ink: “Thank God for these Men and Women. USA all the way.”
Here on a 30 x 36 inch piece of cardboard was the distilled essence of the present-day relationship between the American people and their military. In the eyes of citizens, the American soldier has a dual identity: as hero but also as victim. As victims—Wounded Warriors —soldiers deserve the best care money can buy; hence, the emphasis being paid to issues like PTSD. As heroes, those who serve and sacrifice embody the virtues that underwrite American greatness. They therefore merit unstinting admiration.
Whatever practical meaning the slogan “support the troops” may possess, it lays here: in praise expressed for those choosing to wear the uniform, and in assistance made available to those who suffer as a consequence of that choice.
From the perspective of the American people, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it entails no real obligations or responsibilities. Face it: It costs us nothing yet enables us to feel good about ourselves. In an unmerited act of self-forgiveness, we thereby expunge the sin of the Vietnam era when opposition to an unpopular war found at least some Americans venting their unhappiness on the soldiers sent to fight it. The homeward-bound G.I. spat upon by spoiled and impudent student activists may be an urban legend, but the fiction persists and has long since trumped reality.
Today such egregious misbehavior has become unimaginable. Even if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not especially popular or successful, no one blames the troops. Instead we cheer them, pray for them, and let them go to the front of the line when passing through airport security. And we take considerable satisfaction in doing so.
From the perspective of those who engineer America’s wars, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it obviates any need for accountability. For nearly a decade now, popular willingness to “support the troops” has provided unlimited drawing rights on the United States Treasury.
Since 9/11, in waging its various campaigns, overt and covert, the United States military has expended hundreds of billions of (mostly borrowed) dollars. By the time the last invoice gets paid, the total will be in the trillions. Is the money being well spent? Are we getting good value? Is it possible that some of the largesse showered on U.S. forces trying to pacify Kandahar could be better put to use in helping to rebuild Cleveland? Given the existing terms of the civil-military relationship, even to pose such questions is unseemly. For politicians sending soldiers into battle, generals presiding over long, drawn-out, inconclusive campaigns, and contractors reaping large profits as a consequence, this war-comes-first mentality is exceedingly agreeable.
One wonders how many of those serving in the ranks are taken in by this fraud. The relationship between American people and their military—we love you; do whatever you want—seems to work for everyone. Everyone, that is, except soldiers themselves. They face the prospect of war without foreseeable end.
Americans once believed war to be a great evil. Whenever possible, war was to be avoided. When circumstances made war unavoidable, Americans wanted peace swiftly restored.
Present-day Americans, few of them directly affected by events in Iraq or Afghanistan, find war tolerable. They accept it. Since 9/11, war has become normalcy. Peace has become an entirely theoretical construct. A report of G.I.s getting shot at, maimed, or killed is no longer something the average American gets exercised about. Rest assured that no such reports will interfere with plans for the long weekend that Memorial Day makes possible.
Members of the civil-military-corporate elite find war more than tolerable. Within its ranks, as Chris Hedges has noted, war imparts meaning and excitement to life. It serves as a medium through which ambitions are fulfilled and power is accrued and exercised. In Washington, the benefits offered by war’s continuation easily outweigh any benefits to be gained by ending war. So why bother to try?
As the 10th anniversary of what Americans once called their Global War on Terror approaches, a plausible, realistic blueprint for bringing that enterprise to a conclusion does not exist. Those who might once have felt some responsibility for articulating such a plan—the president, his chief lieutenants, senior military leaders—no longer feel any obligation to do so. As a practical matter, they devote themselves to war’s perpetuation, closing one front while opening another. More strikingly still, we the people allow our leaders to evade this basic responsibility to articulate a plan for peace. By implication, we endorse the unspoken assumption that peace has become implausible.
Here at last we come to the dirty little secret that underlines all the chatter about “supporting the troops.” The people in charge don’t really believe that the burdens borne by our soldiers will ever end and they are not really looking for ways to do so. As for the rest of us, well, we’re OK with that.
”
obviates any need for accountability. For nearly a decade now, popular willingness to “support the troops” has provided unlimited drawing rights on the United States Treasury.
”
Congress lives high on the hog-fat but GI can never find parts for his vehicles. We are getting robbed somewhere in there.