![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"I hope the Lord blesses our nation in a way that is measurable."
Yeah, about eight inches, I reckon. Bend over, America.
Yeah, about eight inches, I reckon. Bend over, America.
Jul. 29th, 2011
Who benefits from a downgrade?
Jul. 29th, 2011 08:56 amMy take on the debt limit drama: Nowadays, the biggest problem for people with significant net worth is low interest rates. With rates so low, it's kind of hard to take wads of cash and turn it into more cash. Investment accounts are returning fractions of a percent interest. This is a big drain on the cash flow of wealthy individuals, who are used to their wealth generating 6-10% a year.
Provoking a crisis that downgrades the fed's credit rating will most likely raise interest rates. Possibly into double-digit territory. This would shift hundreds of billions, possibly as much as a trillion dollars, out of the pockets of people who have debt and into the pockets of people who have lots of assets. In particular, it would be a gigantic give-away to the Chinese, who are probably not happy with the low yield they get from their treasury bonds these days. In the event that the government's bills can't all be paid, reports of the Treasury "sending money overseas" while Americans go unpaid would be used to bludgeon the Obama administration, while ignoring the fact that the government is constitutionally bound to prioritize treasury bond payments over everything else.
It seems likely that the wealthiest Americans have already positioned themselves to financially benefit from the crisis. I can't think of any other good explanation for the behavior of the tea partiers in Congress.
Provoking a crisis that downgrades the fed's credit rating will most likely raise interest rates. Possibly into double-digit territory. This would shift hundreds of billions, possibly as much as a trillion dollars, out of the pockets of people who have debt and into the pockets of people who have lots of assets. In particular, it would be a gigantic give-away to the Chinese, who are probably not happy with the low yield they get from their treasury bonds these days. In the event that the government's bills can't all be paid, reports of the Treasury "sending money overseas" while Americans go unpaid would be used to bludgeon the Obama administration, while ignoring the fact that the government is constitutionally bound to prioritize treasury bond payments over everything else.
It seems likely that the wealthiest Americans have already positioned themselves to financially benefit from the crisis. I can't think of any other good explanation for the behavior of the tea partiers in Congress.
Fox News lost in space
Jul. 29th, 2011 12:47 pmA paper published in a second-tier, online-only journal is, once again, receiving grossly disproportionate attention because it reaches a conclusion attractive to global-warming denialists:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/
I'm familiar with the author's work - for starters, he's a creationist, which raises a big red flag right off the bat. He has a long history of questionable assertions on the subject of climate sensitivity. He is among the small number of legitimate climate scientists who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the 97% who have concluded that anthropogenic global warming is happening.
Spencer is one of the few "climate skeptics" that have real engagement with climate science - he does actual analysis of actual data. For the rest of the skeptics, who are desperate for any shred of scientific authority, this is quite exciting. However, that's a long way from saying his theory is correct.
His work, suggesting that the earth is radiating more heat than climate models predict, contradicts numerous studies using multiple approaches that are, even on an individual basis, much more direct and more relevant to the global warming question. It is only from total ignorance of existing research that you could suggest that current models have "collapsed".
Individual scientists working within the academic community do have the (unfortunate) ability to promote truly crazy ideas and get them published - witness Peter Duesberg, a Ph.D. molecular biologist who still denies that HIV causes AIDS. This is the nature of academic freedom. What is really discouraging, though, is for a "fair and balanced" news organization to ignore hundreds of satellite-based studies that have clearly established the earth's ongoing heat accumulation in favor of one analysis that contradicts it. Just another sign that there is no accountability left in journalism.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/
I'm familiar with the author's work - for starters, he's a creationist, which raises a big red flag right off the bat. He has a long history of questionable assertions on the subject of climate sensitivity. He is among the small number of legitimate climate scientists who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the 97% who have concluded that anthropogenic global warming is happening.
Spencer is one of the few "climate skeptics" that have real engagement with climate science - he does actual analysis of actual data. For the rest of the skeptics, who are desperate for any shred of scientific authority, this is quite exciting. However, that's a long way from saying his theory is correct.
His work, suggesting that the earth is radiating more heat than climate models predict, contradicts numerous studies using multiple approaches that are, even on an individual basis, much more direct and more relevant to the global warming question. It is only from total ignorance of existing research that you could suggest that current models have "collapsed".
Individual scientists working within the academic community do have the (unfortunate) ability to promote truly crazy ideas and get them published - witness Peter Duesberg, a Ph.D. molecular biologist who still denies that HIV causes AIDS. This is the nature of academic freedom. What is really discouraging, though, is for a "fair and balanced" news organization to ignore hundreds of satellite-based studies that have clearly established the earth's ongoing heat accumulation in favor of one analysis that contradicts it. Just another sign that there is no accountability left in journalism.