Meltdown

[Coopmv]

With so many folks who have dropped out of the workforce and are no longer counted, no wonder the unemployment rate has been drifting down.  Gee, it sounds like we have a blooming economy, doesn't it?  Sequestration is necessary to force some discipline on the free spending politicians ...

[snyprrr]

With so many folks who have dropped out of the workforce and are no longer counted, no wonder the unemployment rate has been drifting down.  Gee, it sounds like we have a blooming economy, doesn't it?  Sequestration is necessary to force some discipline on the free spending politicians ...

Yea, it's like we're living in NeverEverLand. I suppose those that are doing well ARE doing well!!!

[ibanezmonster]

Sequestration is necessary to force some discipline on the free spending politicians ...

It is good for that, but if it creates jobs (which more mean more tax revenue), I'd be surprised.

[ralfy]

The global financial crisis masks a more serious threat, which is peak oil, which in turn is connected to something even worse, which is global warming and environmental damage.

For more details, try this lecture:

"The Twin Sides of the Fossil Fuel Coin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM

[Parsifal]

The global financial crisis masks a more serious threat, which is peak oil, which in turn is connected to something even worse, which is global warming and environmental damage.

For more details, try this lecture:

"The Twin Sides of the Fossil Fuel Coin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM

Peak oil?   Peak oil is 20 years in the future, always has been, always will be.

Carbon is not going anywhere.  When we burn up all that is readily available in one form, we will find another form, including using vegetation to pull CO2 out of the air and making fuel out of it.  When energy becomes expensive there fill finally be an incentive to use it efficiently. 

Environmental degradation and climate change is a serious issue, and not just to the tinfoil hat crowd.

[Todd]

The global financial crisis masks a more serious threat, which is peak oil, which in turn is connected to something even worse, which is global warming and environmental damage.

The Western US alone has an estimated 2 trillion+ barrels of oil shale, and current technology could extract around half of that.  Some estimates of total global oil extraction since the discovery of oil in Titusville in 1859 hover around 1 trillion barrels.  Throw in conventional oil, deep sea oil, the massive Central Asian fields still under development, the massive field offshore in Brazil, and more efficient extraction from partly depleted existing fields, and the threat of peak oil is about as real as the same warnings that first appeared in the late 19th Century.  And that doesn't even include natural gas, which is abundant in may areas, or natural gas hydrates, which dwarf even conventional natural gas reserves.  There's plenty of carbon based energy still to be exploited.  (And then there's also burning "biomass" - largely wood - which is back in vogue in parts of Europe.)

With the recent news that the level of carbon in the atmosphere has passed 400 PPM - apparently some magical threshold - environmental concerns are indeed real, though it should be pointed out that average temperature readings taken over the last five years by real scientists at real universities (eg, the University of Reading) are below the levels that were predicted in models preferred by entities like the IPCC.  The future is uncertain, though an upward trend seems most probable.

I would say a more immediate concern is access to potable water.  Time to look into water treatment ETFs.

[Parsifal]

With so many folks who have dropped out of the workforce and are no longer counted, no wonder the unemployment rate has been drifting down.  Gee, it sounds like we have a blooming economy, doesn't it?  Sequestration is necessary to force some discipline on the free spending politicians ...

Different parties have their own motivations for portraying the US economy in a positive or negative light at different times.  But the one overriding fact was dramatically represented in a cover story in the Economist a few years ago.   Between 2000 and 2010, the net job creation in the US was zero.  The ~11 million jobs lost in the 2008 crisis wiped out a decade of job creation.  Since then meager job gains have barely kept up with population increase and the employment situation is not substantially better now than it was at the depth of the crisis.  Many have given up hope of finding a job and many others have replaced middle-class jobs with jobs paying poverty level wages and/or part time work.

However, I find the suggestion that sequestration is beneficial to be absurd.  The US needs to resolve its budget problem, but if sequestration stands the US will fall into an economic pit from which it will never emerge. 

[Todd]

. . . but if sequestration stands the US will fall into an economic pit from which it will never emerge.

A bit of melodrama?  The sequestration "cuts" aren't big enough to do anything of the sort.  First of all, they are only 2% cuts to most, but not all, "discretionary" programs, and when one looks at the decade long projections of the budget impact, it only really slows the growth of the spending.  It's impossible to get from those projections to "an economic pit", whatever that is.  Second, Congress has until October of this year to bring overall budget levels back up to normal for the affected programs by either reinstating old budgets or passing special appropriations (like with the FAA).  Perhaps that was part of the political calculus all along.

[snyprrr]

DOOM ON!: Amazon has raised their Shipping $1!!!!!

[Parsifal]

A bit of melodrama?  The sequestration "cuts" aren't big enough to do anything of the sort.  First of all, they are only 2% cuts to most, but not all, "discretionary" programs, and when one looks at the decade long projections of the budget impact, it only really slows the growth of the spending.  It's impossible to get from those projections to "an economic pit", whatever that is.  Second, Congress has until October of this year to bring overall budget levels back up to normal for the affected programs by either reinstating old budgets or passing special appropriations (like with the FAA).  Perhaps that was part of the political calculus all along.

In the last decade federal support for basic science and technology research in the US has decreased as a fraction of GDP while it has increased in virtually every other developed or developing country.  Total research and development (including the private sector) has also fallen.  Americans seem to think that we are so far ahead he can afford to let up a bit, but it is not so.  We have already fallen behind and our competitors are increasing their lead.  That's the real reason for economic growth in the US which is effectively zero.

Sequestration adds an 8% cut to federal support of science and technology.  One in 12 science jobs in the US disappears this year.  Scientists who are well established will be able to maintain their positions, but scientists trying to establish their careers have two choices, give up on science or abandon the US.  Most of the students earning science and technology PhDs are not US citizens, and increasingly they are finding that they have better career options if they leave the US.  The world changing science/technology discoveries of the future will be made by this generation of scientists, and they won't be doing it here.

Here is an interesting interview with Elias Zerhouni, the previous director of the NIH.  As he describes it, the 8% sequestration cut will reduce finding of new science almost to zero and create a generational gap in US science.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/21/former-nih-director-the-sequester-will-set-back-medical-science-for-a-generation/

This is also pleasant, inspirational reading

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/the-coming-rd-crash/

[Todd]

Total research and development (including the private sector) has also fallen.

Not according to the National Science Foundation.  Total R&D has increased very slightly as a percentage of GDP, though the allocation has changed to be more reliant on the private sector.  (This was covered previously in this thread.)  So now government data is at odds with a blog.  Hmm.

R&D spending is one factor in economic growth, which, incidentally, is not zero.  Growth is positive, if too sluggish to boost employment sufficiently.  Further, there is mounting evidence that the US is, unfortunately, experiencing an expansion of "underground" economic activity (ie, under the table work, in addition to more traditional black market activity), which makes understanding the true economic picture harder, and of course hits government revenue, among other things. 

As to Mr Zerhouni's prognostication of doom – a generational gap will result if our funding is cut! – well, that's to be expected.  Any good bureaucrat, current or former, can come up with convincing reasons why his or her program really is more important than anything else, and why it spells disaster if budgets decline.  I have no problem with publicly funded research, or with sensible immigration policy to encourage foreign PhDs and so on to stay in the US, but the consequences of reduced public R&D in the US must be weighed against other concerns and the risks ought not to be overblown.

And, economic nationalism, national pride, and so on aside, what is the special benefit of the US maintaining a large lead in R&D?  If basic research in England or Germany or South Korea or even China yields some whiz-bang breakthrough in X, and it is widely published, and everyone can benefit from spillover benefits, where is the harm exactly?  How is the Average Joe in the US (or anywhere else) being hurt?  Is it that the US must be number one?  (U! S! A!  U! S! A!, etc)  Does it truly threaten future economic growth?  Does it compromise national security?  One thing the blog gets right is the mention of the alarmist view.  Oh well.

[Florestan]

Any good bureaucrat, current or former, can come up with convincing reasons why his or her program really is more important than anything else, and why it spells disaster if budgets decline.

So true! That's why the world won't get any better until it gets rid of all bureaucrats, good or bad alike! 

And, economic nationalism, national pride, and so on aside, what is the special benefit of the US maintaining a large lead in R&D?  If basic research in England or Germany or South Korea or even China yields some whiz-bang breakthrough in X, and it is widely published, and everyone can benefit from spillover benefits, where is the harm exactly?  How is the Average Joe in the US (or anywhere else) being hurt?  Is it that the US must be number one?  (U! S! A!  U! S! A!, etc)  Does it truly threaten future economic growth?  Does it compromise national security?  One thing the blog gets right is the mention of the alarmist view.  Oh well.

Who cares about Average Joe? He is nothing and means nothing - damn his insignificant life and his petty interests! Long live the race, the nation, the State, the party, the class, the whatever community (real or imaginary) who has the numerical power to impose its will!... 

[Parsifal]

So true! That's why the world won't get any better until it gets rid of all bureaucrats, good or bad alike! 

I see we are at the level of discussion where the viewpoint of Dr. Zerhouni,  who at the age of 51 has been a medical doctor, a Professor of Medicine, a Dean of Johns Hopkins University, the founder and chief scientist of several successful companies, as well as the head of the National Institutes of Health, can be dismissed by labeling him "a bureaucrat."   Too bad he doesn't post on internet forums, then at least we'd have some reason to take his viewpoint seriously.

[Florestan]

I see we are at the level of discussion where the viewpoint of Dr. Zerhouni,  who at the age of 51 has been a medical doctor, a Professor of Medicine, a Dean of Johns Hopkins University, the founder and chief scientist of several successful companies, as well as the head of the National Institutes of Health, can be dismissed by labeling him "a bureaucrat."   Too bad he doesn't post on internet forums, then at least we'd have some reason to take his viewpoint seriously.

With such credentials he must surely be on Twitter. 

[Todd]

I see we are at the level of discussion where the viewpoint of Dr. Zerhouni,  who at the age of 51 has been a medical doctor, a Professor of Medicine, a Dean of Johns Hopkins University, the founder and chief scientist of several successful companies, as well as the head of the National Institutes of Health, can be dismissed by labeling him "a bureaucrat."

I'm not sure who questioned his credentials.  However, it's impossible not to see self-serving aspects to what he writes, especially when it includes alarmist proclamations about generational this or that. 

Hey, wait, he worked for the government, in a very important position.  He must be correct.  And unbiased.  Better just fund what he says at the levels he says.  Same goes for all other very important government leaders – former, current, and future.  And when such leaders decide their favored programs need less funding, I'm certain they'll say so.  Honest assessments of budgetary requirements are common for bureaucrats.

[Florestan]

Hey, wait, he worked for the government, in a very important position.  He must be correct.  And unbiased.  Better just fund what he says at the levels he says.  Same goes for all other very important government leaders – former, current, and future.  And when such leaders decide their favored programs need less funding, I'm certain they'll say so.  Honest assessments of budgetary requirements are common for bureaucrats.

[Karl Henning]

You can't make this stuff up:

Nutella demands immediate cancellation of World Nutella Day

[snyprrr]

Barry on TV right now basically doing the most jaw dropping Buish Sr. impersonation I've ever seen. Absolutely Shocking Moment in History!!!!

This is going to make the most incredible hi-lite tape.

There are so many zingers here,... I'm in shock,... shock...

[snyprrr]

Barry on TV right now basically doing the most jaw dropping Buish Sr. impersonation I've ever seen. Absolutely Shocking Moment in History!!!!

This is going to make the most incredible hi-lite tape.

There are so many zingers here,... I'm in shock,... shock...

On facial expressions alone! ???WOW!!!

Feel safer anyone?

[snyprrr]

On facial expressions alone! ???WOW!!!

Feel safer anyone?

msnbc Alex Wagner summarizes: "I know it sounds Orwellian, but trust us!"