The bimonthly open thread on climate solution discussions. Topics might focus on the incoming Biden administration, the five year anniversary of the Paris Accords, and the challenge of making post-covid plans sustainable. Climate science issues should be raised here.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-offshore-wind-and-energy-giants-are-chasing-off-grid-green-hydrogen
Europe is really pushing for substantial Green Hydrogen production.
A comment on German retail electricity costs. This is primary the result of how the Germans bankrolled the subsidization of the photovoltaic industry more than a decade ago. They choose to aggressively deploy solar by giving long term contracts at high enough prices to make it worthwhile for investors. So they built a lot of solar when panels cost ten or more times the current price. To make matters worse, to protect industrial competitiveness they sheltered industrial consumers from any price increases, so the residential sector had to absorb all of it. Rather than paying up front, they let consumers pay the cost over decades. One risk of this approach is that the backlash hit just a solar was becoming affordable, and the rate of solar uptake dropped precipitously just as the cost went down.
on modern monetary theory and inflation:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=10554
https://b-ok.cc/book/2460423/d4474f?dsource=recommend
You can easily look back at times when societies have mobilized to address a crisis and sensibly set aside worries about inflation in deference to resolving the crisis.
You can look at WWII and US expenditure as an example, or the 2009 MMT experiment to stop an economic collapse or 2020 MMT experiment to prop up society during a pandemic to buy time to develop a vaccine to resolve the pandemic if you need to see that too much focus on a single issue like inflation leaves you in the historic position of Herbert Hoover.
A couple (mainly) Bucky quotes:
“All the present bureaucracies of political governments, great religious organizations, and all big businesses find that physical success for all humanity would be devastating to the perpetuation of their ongoing activities. This is because all of them are founded on the premise of ameliorating individual cases while generally exploiting on behalf of their respective political, religious, or business organizations the condition of no-where-nearly-enough-life-support-for-all and its resultant great human suffering and discontent.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path
“We are powerfully imprisoned by the terms in which we have been conducted to think.”
― R. Buckminster Fuller
I learned that we can do anything, but we can’t do everything… at least not at the same time. So think of your priorities not in terms of what activities you do, but when you do them. Timing is everything.
– Dan Millman
Going with Millman’s concern about timing, maybe when we find that we have to do one thing (like addressing global warming, etc.) maybe we have to defer doing some other thing (maybe updating or nuclear arsenal) for an uncertain period of time.
To simply raise concern about inflation seems rather simple-minded to me.
But, if you really love the status quo and react badly to change, then inflation may look like a powerful argument against change.
Cheers
Mike
I think voodoo economics as a term is both racist and redundant. I tend to use the term woo woo for voodoo because it makes me think of Ronald and Nancy Reagan instead of raising the image of a black witch doctor. The woo woo term just works better for me.
Still end up at the same place woo woo economics looks redundant to me.
Cheers
Mike
J Doug Swallow @90, sure some countries are still building coal fired power, but the construction of coal fired plant has slowed dramatically in recent years as as below. Basically coal is on the way out. The big issue is wind and solar power are now lower cost than coal power in many places (according to Lazard international analysis) so market forces inevitably lead to more and more renewables being built. In America gas is the preferred option for backup power although storage is increasingly competitive. Sorry about that, but reality is reality.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to around 2,045 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. A further 200GW is being built and 300GW is planned.
More recently, 268GW has closed due to a wave of retirements across the EU and US. Combined with a rapid slowdown in the number of new plants being built, this means the number of coal units operating around the world fell for the first time in 2018, Carbon Brief analysis suggests.
Another 213GW is already set to retire and 19 of the world’s 80 coal-powered countries plan a complete phaseout of the fuel, including the UK and Germany.
Meanwhile, electricity generated from coal has plateaued since 2014, so the expanding fleet is running fewer hours. This erodes coal’s bottom line, as does competition from other fuels. It would now be cheaper to build new wind and solar than to keep running half of existing coal plants.
To shed light on this story, Carbon Brief has mapped the past, present and future of all the world’s coal-fired power stations. The interactive timeline map, above, shows the plants operating in each year between 2000 and 2019, as well as the location of planned new capacity.
J Doug Swallow @98 — In the upper left corner of this site is a button labeled “Start Here”. Start there.
J Doug Swallow @98
The article on how to talk to conservatives was packed full of facts, and obviously it was merely suggesting some possible methods. Nothing wrong with making some suggestions, and you havent provided any evidence they are bad suggestions.
“A great scientific fact that the alarmist could present to cause me to believe them would be to present the empirical experiment, that is repeatable, that demonstrates that the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, that makes up only between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, CO₂, has the ability to change the Earth’s climate. Please submit the links that show that this experiment has occurred.”
Its impossible to do such an experiment because you cannot simulate all the conditions in a lab, and you cannot put the entire planet in a laboratory and experiment with it. This should be obvious to anyone. Instead laboratory experiments have shown CO2 absorbs heat (to put it simply) and you use that in climate models, which simulate the situation for the world as a whole. These models date back to the work of Arrhenius in 1895, and have proven to have good accuracy in predicting numerous climate trends.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Very small quantities and small changes in quantities can have profound effects on how systems operate. School students are taught this in chemistry class and its easily googled. Have a look at how poisons, catalytic convertors, and semi conductors work, for example.
Basically its going to be a waste of time talking to denialists like you so Im stopping right there.
Mike @103
“You can easily look back at times when societies have mobilized to address a crisis and sensibly set aside worries about inflation in deference to resolving the crisis.You can look at WWII and US expenditure as an example, or the 2009 MMT experiment to stop an economic collapse or 2020 MMT experiment to prop up society during a pandemic to buy time to develop a vaccine to resolve the pandemic if you need to see that too much focus on a single issue like inflation leaves you in the historic position of Herbert Hoover.”
Fair comment. But bear in mind the discussion about MMT was about its use in a general sense as a new system, to be permanently used. Obviously in times of crisis like a war some controlled level of money printing may be justified as a temporary thing, and you accept some inflation, although Im pretty sure America funded almost all its war spending from taxes. But wars always tend to be inflationary andsometimes wage and price freezes are used to control that inflation.
But you dont want to be printing vast amounts of money and having wage and price freezes as a permanent thing, because it causes all kinds of problems. New Zealand experienced this around 1980. And while I agree QE has been very useful after the GFC and during this awful covid pandemic, it does cause asset price bubbles so you dont want to be doing it more than necessary.
In fact right now countries like America have almost zero inflation and spare capacity in the economy, so printing money would be fine and would be unlikely to cause inflation. Its when the economy is booming and unemployment is very low and resources limited that you tend to get inflation. So right now is a fortuitous time for spending money on climate change mitigation. It would also help soak up some unemployment caused by the covid thing.
#94 18 Dec 2020 at 12:33 PM Piotr says: “Brave words, coming from _you_,Mr. Swallow, for your post suggests that you were denied this blessing. Let’s see:
J Doug Swallow (40) Pumped storage hydroelectricity generation is negative because most pumped storage electricity generation facilities use more electricity than they produce on an annual basis.
See? First, you treat the readers of RC as morons, who have to have explained to them the tautology the “STORAGE”, by its definition, HAS to use more energy than it puts back into the system”.
It is amazing how Piotr could find so much to write about trying to degrade my comment about ‘pumped storage electricity generation facilities’ when he should have come to understand that the information came from this site;
Pumped storage hydroelectricity generation is negative because most pumped storage electricity generation facilities use more electricity than they produce on an annual basis. Most pumped storage systems use fossil fuels or nuclear energy for pumping water to the storage component of the system.
Last updated: February 27, 2020
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Piotr says, correctly, that; “And if there were any doubts – you prop yourself with scientificky looking abstract in which word … “storage” does not appear, because the abstract is about … “energy SOURCES (old and new)”; but, I’m sure he does not care to deal this that was said in the abstract.
“Since 2010, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has been publishing annual Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports. According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder”.
Piotr would rather ramble on about the meaning of ‘pumped storage’ than acknowledge that the money being spent on renewables, like wind and solar, is not producing the electrical energy required to operate a developed nation’s requirements.
“Overall, fossil fuels fell from an 88 percent share in 1988 to 85 percent today, suggesting a floor of 80 percent going into the next years if not decades”.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/fossil-fuels-vs-climate-politics-two-graphs/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/?fbclid=IwAR00Z3hDWjN65bcesFXkmU0nWLAR6dGk1yAAwcp-yhQnWqR-SRSLWClCTaY
JDS 98: A great scientific fact that the alarmist could present to cause me to believe them would be to present the empirical experiment, that is repeatable, that demonstrates that the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, that makes up only between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, CO₂, has the ability to change the Earth’s climate.
BPL: Start here:
Philipona, R., B. Du”rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. “Radiative Forcing–Measured at Earth’s Surface–Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
“…Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm 2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm 2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm 2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m 3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Feldman, D.R.; Collins, W.D.; Gero, P.J.; Torn, M.S.; Mlawer, E.J.; Shippert, T.R. 2015. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature 519, 339-343.
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from preindustrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annualmean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m-2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of wellmixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clearsky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m-2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m-2 per decade and ±0.07 W m-2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m-2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.” 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Table 2: Measured Greenhouse Fluxes at the Earth’s Surface
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Band (cm-1)
Measured Flux (W/m2)
Simulated Flux (W/m2)
CFC11 830 – 860 0.14 0.12
CFC12 900 – 940 0.12 0.11
CFC12 all bands 0.28 0.26
CFC11 & 12 all bands 0.42 0.38
CCl4 786 – 806 0.046 0.039
CFC113 800 – 830 NA 0.033
HCFC22 780 – 830 NA 0.031
HNO3 850 – 920 0.085 0.060
N2O all bands 1.06 0.99
CH4 1200 – 1400 0.85 0.80
CO 2000 – 2200 0.032 0.033
CO2 all bands 26.0 24.8
O3 950 – 1100 3.26 3.20
Trop. O3 950 – 1100 0.61 0.58
Table 4: Comparison of Measured and Model
Increases in Downward Surface Flux
Greenhouse Gas
Measured Flux Increase (W/m2)
Model Flux Increase (W/m2)
CO2 2.10 1.30
CH4 0.38 0.33
N2O 0.15 0.13
Trop. O3 0.40 0.40
CFC11 0.14 0.14
CFC12 0.28 0.28
CFC113 0.00 0.033
HCFC22 0.031 0.031
CCl4 0.046 0.046
Total 3.52 2.55 (-3.1)
M 103: To simply raise concern about inflation seems rather simple-minded to me.
BPL: And to simply ignore it seems irresponsible and stupid to me. Your turn.
Re. “you will be rightly regarded with disdain by the very people you are trying to convince.”
He’s (they, actually) aren’t trying to “convince” anyone. He (they) pretty obviously likes “pwning” those “libs” who engage in science. Nelson Muntz is his (they’re) role model as he (they) giggle in their basements, not Feynman, et. al. as he (they) so often claim.
In the last few years, I’ve got used to skipping over the folks (on all threads) who contribute 1000s of words, schoolyard taunts, and repetitious meandering. Seems as if lately there’s an increase in classic trolling: complaints about models (with no notice of where the best predictions have come from, namely mainstream models), scoffing at “trace” gases, citations of random local cold events, demands for repeatable experiments with whole Earths, and ad hom arguments aimed at a certain somewhat rotund former US vice president.
Is this like one of those days at the ballpark when they wear the throwback uniforms and sell hot dogs for a dime? If only we could roll back the trace gas to where it was in my youth.
104 mike: I think voodoo economics as a term is both racist and redundant. I tend to use the term woo woo for voodoo because it makes me think of Ronald and Nancy Reagan instead of raising the image of a black witch doctor. The woo woo term just works better for me.
Still end up at the same place woo woo economics looks redundant to me.
Cheers
Mike
Voodoo asa racial epithet is a bit of a stretch, and as the father of a bi-cultural (race doesn’t exist, so…) child, I am fairly sensitive to issues of racism. A search brought up only century-old use of voodoo in racial contexts and some academic analyses that treat fear of voodoo in literature and arts a, essentially, systemic rqacism. I have lived in the South and in Detroit for a total 9 years and have never personally experienced it used in this way and it had literally never occurred to me to consider anything connected to voodoo as indicating racism.
It is, however, nonsense, thus entirely fitting as a label for mainstream economics. I mean, how far do we take this? No Black Friday? No “Red” Light districts? I don’t know… I see no issue here. Voodoo is, after all, an actual religion, not a race of people.
But, hey, if you prefer we call it Christian Economics or some such, fine by me. Both religions are equally nonsensical as far as I’m concerned, and so is Economics.
Nigel at 108 says “Im pretty sure America funded almost all its war spending from taxes.”
Let’s check that, shall we?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/cost-wars-iraq-afghanistan/499007/
Per this article, Nigel is correct that the US/America has traditionally funded wars in real time by managing taxes and budgets, but the article says that is not true for the wars waged in the past 15 years.
“… for 15 years now, the United States has been putting … wars on a credit card. Past U.S. wars were largely “pay as you go” affairs for which the government raised taxes, slashed non-military spending, borrowed money from the American public by selling war bonds, or chose some combination of these and other options, according to Neta Crawford, the author of the study and a political scientist at Boston University. The George W. Bush administration, by contrast, cut taxes in 2003, engaged in deficit spending after using up a budget surplus that it inherited from the Clinton administration, and sold only a small number of war bonds.”
So, it looks like MMT essentially has been the US system for the past 15 years with regard to war costs and tax cuts. I support raising taxes in a manner that would reduce the GINI index number in the US. That would be a way of balancing MMT expenditures with some traditional fiscal restraints.
Cheers
Mike
At K at 114. yes voodoo is a bit of a stretch, but I just like to be careful about the use of language and it’s shadows. I won’t use the term “rule of thumb” either. That term may have many meanings and derivations, but one of them is covered here and I want to keep my distance from charges that I think this particular “rule of thumb” ever made any sense or had validity.
ya follow? I just like to be careful with language whenever possible.
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/domestic-violence/rule-of-thumb/
Cheers,
Mike
J Doug Swallow @109
“It is amazing how Piotr could find so much to write about trying to degrade my comment about ‘pumped storage electricity generation facilities’ when he should have come to understand that the information came from this site;….Pumped storage hydroelectricity generation is negative because most pumped storage electricity generation facilities use more electricity than they produce on an annual basis. Most pumped storage systems use fossil fuels or nuclear energy for pumping water to the storage component of the system.”
It is amazing how you just dont seem to get the point. Of course pumped hydro is negative and it DOESNT MATTER because the point of these instillations is they are used sometimes in conventional fossil fuel or nuclear power grids to use generation when demand is low to store energy for peak load periods (load balancing). Its an alternative to gas fired plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Australia has pumped hydro schemes like this. They would not have built them if there were cheaper alternatives:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustralianElectricityOptionsPumpedHydro#:~:text=Australia%20already%20has%20river%2Dbased,about%20175%20hours%20of%20storage.
Now you can also use pumped hydro power as a storage medium applied to intermittent renewables like wind or solar power. Ideally the renewables will be used for pumping the water when they arent needed for generating actual power so the fact the pumped hydro is negative just doesnt matter at all. The power would otherwise be wasted.
The real issue is the economics of pumped hydro compared to other storage mediums like batteries. It probably comes down to local resources and some places suit pumped hydro better than others. Australia are building pumped hydro for renewables storage applications as well as in the previous link.
I think I was correct to say America funded almost all its war spending out of taxation. America has been involved in a large number of wars as below and it appears only Iraq and Afghanistan were funded by printing money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
J Doug Swallow (109) “It is amazing how Piotr could find so much to write about trying to degrade my comment ”
Sure, I enjoy pinching a bloated ego now and then, but you are doing an amazing job degrading yourself – yourself: see JDS (40), and (84).
And the FAQ from EPA for the lay people may be a revelation for you – but HERE, on RC, is not – I don’t recall ANYBODY EVER claiming that hydro STORAGE would “ produce more electricity than they use“. All we were saying to you is that you CAN’T dismiss energy STORAGE by saying that it uses more energy than it gives back, no more that you could dismiss Tesla’s car battery by saying that it does not give out as much energy as it got. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO, genius, so you can’t hold it against it.
But please, do lecture others on their inability to “ to read and understand [even] the obvious “, for you are obviously an expert on that.
JDS: Piotr would rather ramble on about the meaning of ‘pumped storage’ than acknowledge that the money being spent on renewables, like wind and solar
It was you, J Doug Swallow, who tried to disqualify “pumped storage” for not being (net) “generation”. BPL and I merely responded to YOUR post on pumped storage and the logical fallacy of YOUR argument on pumped storage.
But if you are here to share your feelings on how terrible wind and solar are – then stick to your talking points, and don’t degrade yourself by treating others like morons who without you would not know that “storage” is not net “generation”.
My answer hasn’t showed up so here is another try:
Al Bundy (44) Piotr, I was taking EP’s many posts all together. It would be beyond unwieldy for someone to repeat everything every time they post. EP has consistently spoken about seasonal deficits. If he didn’t use that phrase this time anybody who was trying to understand and learn would mentally plug it in. You didn’t. Instead you used an insulting phrase directed at me: “your EP”.
let’s get our definition straight:
– my saying about the guy you defended as “your EP” is an INSULT,
– you dismissing my argument which based on quotes from EP as “ Spouting obviously false insults” – NOT an insult. Good to know.
And one must feel for our poor E-P – if even his defenders take umbrage on being associated with him (“your EP”)- “insulting”… ;-)
=====
AB (earlier): EP is talking about seasonal shifts.
Piotr: And he has done so by comparing hydro output to … “ average US electric consumption”???
AB(44): Of course. Are you maintaining that there are wild seasonal swings in energy use?
No, I maintain that E-P when talking about “[annual] average electric consumption” is not “talking about seasonal shifts,/i>”, because the process of annual averaging REMOVES all seasonal fluctuations.
And E-P did not misspeak once – he dismissed the BACKUP potential of hydro by comparing it against annual BASELOAD – not once, but on at least 3 separate occasions:
===
earlier: Piotr “ Most of the Canadian hydro is used for a _base_ load, NOT as a backup.”
E-P: “ It’s enough to serve the locals, but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000.”
E-P “ Quebec’s hydro is adequate for its 8.4 million, but grossly inadequate for N. America’s 350+ million”
* Piotr: “Huh? This discussion is about the BACKUP for renewables, NOT about providing BASE LOAD (to which giving population numbers apply to).”
===
To which E-P did not admit that he meant …. something completely different, nor did he provide numbers for such “different” arguments. Quite to the contrary, he saw no problem with his arguments, and advised me to “GFY” (“Go Fuck Yourself”). And THEN he repeated THE SAME dismissal of hydro storage by comparing with AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION in the USA:
E-P: “ Pumping the entire volume of Lake Erie to a height 53 meters higher would store about 69 TWh, just 150 hours of average US electric consumption .”
I judge people on what they said, and not on my guesses on what they could have said but didn’t. I back up my opinions of others with their words, so anybody can challenge my opinion by proving that I misread the quotes. You didn’t prove it. Instead you portrayed my arguments and quotes as: “ Spouting obviously false insults”. Which does prove something, but not about me ….
thinking more about MMT and war financing and I think that the US has not funded its war on taxes since the Korean War.
Here is a link that goes over this stuff:
https://www.debt.org/blog/war-debt-america/
Vietnam War was funded with taxes and inflation – so the US straddled the fence on that one and that calculation suggests that concern about inflation and MMT has some basis.
Not a big deal, and not particularly conclusive of anything, but for the record, it appears that the US has not funded its wars from taxes for the past sixty years. The funding model of choice has shifted from War Taxes to debt for that time period.
It’s almost impossible to pass tax increases in the US these days thanks to Grover Norquist and his ilk. Given that, I think it is safe to assume that a MMT/debt/inflation approach to any real crisis like global warming is the only way to get US participation. We may wake up in the US and raise taxes on the 1% eventually and address the slide in wealth and income inequality, but I am not certain that will happen.
I think it is a very safe bet that the republicans who have been spending like drunken sailors for Trump will suddenly become deficit hawks when Biden proposes a budget with his modest/centrist priorities. The budget and financing questions are mired in the partisan swamp imo. That makes MMT questions look pretty theoretical.
woo-woo economics and politics, that’s the american way.
Cheers
Mike
nigelj: I was correct to say America funded almost all its war spending out of taxation.
AB: Through “the greatest generation”. Then we got tired of hearing about them (both the generation and paying for war). By Vietnam “war” was obviously a political crime/joke and the participants were spat on (even conscripts!). Paying for that hot mess wasn’t something any majority of politicians could brave asking, so a precedent was kinda backed into. Like the guy who pays a couple of child support payments, then real life happens.
Then the GOPpers grabbed MMT for punitive purposes with the gusto of a Texas rancher who’s pumping oil as fast as possible so as to prevent his neighbor from getting any when its their time to govern. That could lead to (excuse the French) “socialism”.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the USA tried productive, as opposed to punitive MMT?
And how quaint Pacific Islanders are. It does make sense, though, to consider trivia from a long-forgotten age in the fabled America when one’s communications are still via drums and smoke signals. :-)
______
Piotr: I don’t recall ANYBODY EVER claiming that hydro STORAGE would “ produce more electricity than they use“.
AB: Rain. Lots of rain.
116 mike: I want to keep my distance from charges that I think this particular “rule of thumb” ever made any sense or had validity.
ya follow? I just like to be careful with language whenever possible.
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/domestic-violence/rule-of-thumb/
Cheers,
Mike
Fair enough.
mike @121
Good points, but I also want to mention a couple of things:
“thinking more about MMT and war financing and I think that the US has not funded its war on taxes since the Korean War.”
Ok, but the vast majority of Americas wars were funded by taxation including WW2. Did you look at the link I posted and just how many wars there have been, going back centuries? I made the point about how wars were funded simply because a lot of people seem to think WW2 was funded by money printing, as did I at one stage. But when I checked, it appears WW2 and most wars were funded by taxation. Its important to have a good grip on history, but I don’t think we need to nit pick about the precise number of wars funded through taxes.
“Vietnam War was funded with taxes and inflation – so the US straddled the fence on that one and that calculation suggests that concern about inflation and MMT has some basis”
The Vietnam war wasn’t funded by inflation as such. Inflation is an outcome not a policy. And Inflation is not money printing or MMT if that’s what you mean. Wars that are funded through taxes are often inflationary simply because of the pressure cooker environment you get with war production. Funding wars with MMT would be inflationary as well probably more so, but if the government cant increase taxes money printing might be the only option as you alluded to.
“It’s almost impossible to pass tax increases in the US these days thanks to Grover Norquist and his ilk. Given that, I think it is safe to assume that a MMT/debt/inflation approach to any real crisis like global warming is the only way to get US participation. We may wake up in the US and raise taxes on the 1% eventually and address the slide in wealth and income inequality, but I am not certain that will happen.”
I agree. New Zealand is in the same predicament. Its very hard increasing taxes even although we are quite a low taxed country. There are so many lies that we are over taxed, all spewed out in the media, talk back radio and social media and coming from a certain side of politics. Not that I support really high taxes either, but like with most things I think there’s a sensible middle ground that gets things done.
So in terms of our politics, climate change mitigation, and difficulty increasing taxes, that does leave the possibility of either government borrowing, or printing money, (as perhaps a limited version of MMT). I think printing money its justified in the circumstances provided its not a permanent pattern for the whole economy, and given inflation is near zero it will probably ultimately only push inflation up to a few percentage points. In fact economists actually like some inflation and our Reserve Banks tries to keep it around 2%. Its in its policy charter somewhere. And all this QE which is similar to printing money hasn’t caused the inflation index to go up, although its boosted house prices.
I would be interested in what BPL thinks about that approach of some targeted money printing as opposed to full on MMT being applied.
“I think it is a very safe bet that the republicans who have been spending like drunken sailors for Trump will suddenly become deficit hawks when Biden proposes a budget with his modest/centrist priorities. The budget and financing questions are mired in the partisan swamp imo. That makes MMT questions look pretty theoretical.”
A very safe bet. The GOPS double standards is staggering. They appear to have almost no principles left at all. Our centre right party looks a bit the same right now.
I think Biden might be best to avoid too many moral lectures over the climate issue and sell his climate proposals on the basis they will create jobs and wealth as well as being environmentally responsible and “conserving of nature”. But he will have to take a firm stand on the issue or he will be torn apart. Compromise is sometimes ok, but its hard to compromise when one side of politics like the GOP has almost completely lost touch with reality. Or is there a better overall approach to getting climate legislation passed?
nigelj (117) Australia has pumped hydro schemes like this. They would not have built them if there were cheaper alternatives
Australia is building a new pumped hydro plant (Tantangara/Talbingo):
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
It is claimed as 2GW power and 350GWh storage, though I’ve seen a claim that doubts whether that storage can be achieved:
https://npansw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Snowy-2.0-claims-dont-stack-up.pdf
There is existing pumped storage in the Snowy Mountains Scheme, at Tumut 3. It’s 1.8GW. I haven’t been able to find recent reliable figures for its storage capacity, but it appears to be only a modest 3GWh.
There is also pumped storage at Wivenhoe (state of Queensland) and at Shoalhaven (state of New South Wales) that isn’t part of the Snowy Hydro Project.
Al Bundy @122,
“Through “the greatest generation”. Then we got tired of hearing about them (both the generation and paying for war). By Vietnam “war” was obviously a political crime/joke and the participants were spat on (even conscripts!). Paying for that hot mess wasn’t something any majority of politicians could brave asking, so a precedent was kinda backed into. Like the guy who pays a couple of child support payments, then real life happens. Then the GOPpers grabbed MMT for punitive purposes with the gusto of a Texas rancher who’s pumping oil as fast as possible so as to prevent his neighbor from getting any when its their time to govern. That could lead to (excuse the French) “socialism”.”
I agree about attitudes to the Vietnam war, but the Vietnam war appeared to be funded out of taxes and federal deficit spending (borrowing), not MMT or some other form of money printing:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/johnson-asks-for-more-funding-for-vietnam-war
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/01/archives/us-spent-141billion-in-vietnam-in-14-years.html
But it cost an absolute fortune, and was inflationary as Mike mentioned. But wars often seem to be inflationary regardless of how they are funded. Its just the huge increase in production heating the economy right up.
I think it looks like Vietnam was funded from some deficit spending and they were reluctant to raise taxes, so this still fits your theory about how the GOP were operating and public perceptions about that horrible war, and how they were moving away from using just taxation alone.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if the USA tried productive, as opposed to punitive MMT?”
Yes, as a general thing. I can see a case for both deficit spending and / or MMT money printing in emergencies – the covid 19 situation, truly massive economic recessions, climate change, and wars where war is unavoidable. These are all temporary things, hopefully, so any inflation resulting is temporary.
Deficit spending appeared to start in earnest under Ronald Reagon and was used to fund day to day non emergency spending, an arms build up, and the shortfall in taxation caused by his tax cuts for the rich. It went on for about 8 years, and as a direct result, Americas federal debt increased massively under Reagon as below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
This appears to be when the rot set in and I think its the origin of the term “voodoo economics” applied to Reagon’s policies. Excuse my rant. I’m a bit of a history enthusiast especially economic history. But what Reagon did doesn’t mean deficit spending or some limited money printing is always wrong. Its ok if there’s a genuine emergency. You do what you have to do in emergencies.
So printing money (MMT) and running deficits is probably ok for emergencies of certain types. The PROBLEM is when money printing schemes like MMT and running deficits become normal practice all the time. I think that is vooodoo economics, or woo woo economics or maybe just stupidonomics.
n 124: I would be interested in what BPL thinks about that approach of some targeted money printing as opposed to full on MMT being applied.
BPL: It can be useful in a situation like the one we’re in, where the economy is depressed and can’t get back up on its own. Simple Keynesian economics. Lots of unemployment, lots of unused capacity, you need to increase demand though the government.
127 nigelj: So printing money (MMT) and running deficits is probably ok for emergencies of certain types. The PROBLEM is when money printing schemes like MMT and running deficits become normal practice all the time. I think that is vooodoo economics, or woo woo economics or maybe just stupidonomics.
Nigel: MMT is dumb.
Others: No, it isn’t.
Nigel: Well, not always dumb, but still dumb!
Prediction: Within 6 months nigel will be saying how he always thought MMT made sooo much sense.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Note to all: Deficits do not equal MMT.
nigel,
(per your link thanks) The USA debt to GDP plunged as America paid off WW2. This stalled, finishing its decline precisely(?) as the Vietnam Imperialist Misadventure collapsed.
It’ll be interesting to see how the GOPpers’ punishment fetish, at home and abroad, weaves with MMT. It only takes a couple of people with brains to wave a host of experts. Koch has such a brain. I hear he had an interesting childhood.
Economics is a very strange science, because what it studies is both objective and subjective. Whether people have enough to eat and a roof over their heads is an objective fact. Whether the economy is prospering or declining can be measured, albeit which measure one uses affects the outcome to a degree. But ultimately, whether the economy works or not depends on whether people believe in it.
An illustrative anecdote: Back in the dark and distant past when my wife and I got married, we taught at a small college. As such, during the Summers, we had time and no money as opposed to now when we have money and no time.
For our honeymoon, we drove to Miami and took a dirt cheap flight to Venezuela, and bussed it from there into Brazil for a 6 week, ultra-cheap trip around the country. This was the Sumer of ’93, and the economy of Brazil was in freefall. Inflation was running 30% a year. There were people whose sole job was to migrate around the supermarkets and raise prices. As soon as a poor person got some money, he or she would rush to buy bread before the price rose. As soon as a rich person got money, he or she would rush to buy dollars.
My wife found a 10 centavo piece from the period of military rule, and we calculated that there had been so many devaluations of the currency since it was minted that it would have been worth 0.0000001 dollars!
Then, in July, the new Finance minister Fernando Cardozo changed the currency–from the Cruzado to the Cruzeiro Real (eventually shortened to the Real). Now mind you, the bills didn’t change, but people just lopped 3 zeros off the Cruzado to find the value in Reals. Now there were other measure Cardoso took, but nothing that would have taken immediate effect. But it really was like a miracle. The economy stabilized overnight. Inflation was tamed. People started to invest in the country again. People BELIEVED in the reforms.
The belief was the thing that stabilized the economy. However, if Cardoso had not taken additional measures, the belief would have evaporated, and people would have been more cynical the next time a fix was tried.
The thing about MMT is that it would work–at least up to the point that people stopped believing in the economy–believing that their investments were safe, that interest on the debts owed them would continue to be paid, believing that they could still buy a loaf of bread with what they were paid. And how long they believed would depend on how quickly debt grew, how the money was invested, whether they thought those investments in infrastructure, etc. were sound, even whether they perceived the economy as fair.
Now, none of these debates are particularly new. Adumbrations of the arguments can be seen in the debates over the desirability of a national bank at the founding of the US republic. So in a sense, Modern Monetary Theory isn’t particularly modern. It is definitely a theory, though, a model. And as George Box tells us: All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
The trick is finding the limits on the utility of the model, and in a field like economics where about half of what you study is subjective, that is a tricky business.
nigel,
No. MMT is based on the fact that “ownership” is a diffuse concept for a society.
If an individual wants to start a business, they generally combine ideas, sweat equity, and a loan, hoping that the sum exceeds the investment of life and treasure. All that can be reasonably measured.
Not so with a society. The society invests in its members, and retains the right to tax. The generally accepted measure of correct policy is whether the debt to GDP ratio is generally going down. The gold standard is if the debt, completely rolled over, tends towards zero in absolute value, as is the current case, where inflation exceeds interest rates.
MMT pulls completely different levers than Keynes. Keynes is about smoothing business cycles without regard to interest rates. MMT is about taking advantage of the differential between the increase in the value of a society given an investment by the government vs the principle plus interest accrued. Low interest rates really help this equation. But, of course, there are zagged rocks in that surf. What happens at 12%?
Killian: Prediction: Within 6 months nigel will
AB: have learned much that is valuable, but without the gloating. He’s not the “I was always right” sort.
MMT:
https://twitter.com/sdgrumbine/status/1342865753968697349?s=20
https://twitter.com/sdgrumbine/status/1342448169133727744?s=20
https://twitter.com/sdgrumbine/status/1223039735083544576?s=20
Killian @129,
“Nigel: MMT is dumb.”
“Others: No, it isn’t.”
“Nigel: Well, not always dumb, but still dumb!”
I didnt say that or react in that order. The initial discussion on this page was entirely about the adoption of MMT (money printing) as a permanent new system. I oppose that, at least until someone can come up with some damn convincing justification and evidence. Then of course I might change my mind, because Im not a fool.
I never at any stage said all money printing is always bad in all circumstances. I’ve said money printing can be useful in certain situations days, weeks and months ago on this website so I’m not reacting to what other people say on this page. Remember QE is a form of money printing.
If you had bothered to read even my comment at 124 and 126 you would have seen some details on what I think.
Can’t you understand the simple difference between the idea of MMT (money printing) as a permanent thing, and used sparingly when appropriate? By analogy being in a lot of debt is usually not a great thing for the average person, but some debt is ok.
Thank god BPL understands these things. Probably not surprising because he’s actually studied the subject. The rest of you sure don’t understand very well.
Al Bundy (122)
Piotr: I don’t recall ANYBODY EVER claiming that hydro STORAGE would “ produce more electricity than they use“.
AB: Rain. Lots of rain.
The discussion you join here is about J Doug Swallow’s inability to distinguish “Pumped storage” from NEW GENERATION – he tried to discredit the former by the tautology that it is not the latter (JDS 40). Hence collective -Duh- from BPL, me, and nigel.
Your contribution seems to suggest that you may be confused too – “rain, lots of rain” applies to the hydro NEW GENERATION, not to the “Pumped storage“, hence irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Modern Money Theory (MMT) vs. Structural Keynesianism
https://heterodox.economicblogs.org/real-world-economics/2018/modern-money-theory-mmt-keynesianism
Some smoke and mirrors at work in these economics comments.
some common sense from BPL at 128
and a lot of complete nonsense coming from the trolls.
at Killian at 129, yes, but he was for it before he was against it, but now for it again with reservations. Like nailing jello to the wall sometimes. One thing I appreciate about you is that you are pretty consistent in your analysis and suggestions about what needs to be done.
I don’t care much about economics, but I can’t see much difference between MMT and classic keynesian ecomomics. Print money or borrow and drive interest rates up? I think either path leads to the same place if you push it too hard. I think there is an argument to be made that austerity economics per the Chicago School can create some nasty outcomes.
Balance? Is such a thing possible? I think AB suggested above that he would welcome an MMT approach that spent money on something positive instead of the usual expenditure – waging war. Sounds right to me. Why not print money to get us through the pandemic and economic crunch we are currently in and use the newly printed money to create a green energy grid.
I dreamt that Obama would do such a thing in 2009, but the Goldman Sachs boys had other ideas and the GS boys definitely had Obama’s ear.
Cheers
Mike
Clarification: Thank god BPL understands these things. Probably not surprising because he’s actually studied ECONOMICS. The rest of you sure don’t understand very well.
Interview with Steve Keen:
https://braveneweurope.com/steve-keen-interview-by-the-oecds-new-approaches-to-economic-challenges-unit
I suggest you digest it in its entirety, and remain open to the idea all the economics you all discuss here is pretty much bunk. You are free to disagree, but at least digest it first.
BTW, this was not his insight, it was mine, told to him in 2010 after he presented his model at a conference in Michigan:
Economics, like all else, it ultimately energy. I told him profit equaled a drain on the system, therefore it creates imbalances in the system, so no model of economics that allows profit, and by extension, Capitalism, can be sustainable. If money were in some way separate from the natural system, then profit would not and could not matter, but money is a proxy for energy moving through the system.
decided to study up a bit on MMT and I get that maybe it is different and new.
https://youtu.be/PGFcB65l8Io
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGFcB65l8Io
James Galbraith talks about austerians and stimutards – folks who think a financial crisis resolves when govt gets out of the way and folks who think a financial crisis resolves when govt gets into action.
JKG seems to be including new issues like climate change, resource depletion and costs, loss of job to automation etc. that suggest that a new economic model might be needed because the spectrum from Chicago School to Keynesianism does not address the new issues that are becoming increasingly important to the global economy.
It’s interesting that MMT thinks about taxes as a way to resolve inflation and to cool an economy by reducing aggregate demand.
I think Killian is correct, but not particularly informative at 130. Deficits do not equal MMT.
Cheers
Mike
#109, JDS–
The Institute for Energy Research is not credible:
https://www.desmogblog.com/institute-energy-research
Just another tentacle on the Kochtopus.
There seems to me to be a lack of appreciation as to what Modern Monetary Theory does, and does not, say. Good ol’ Wikipedia has a useful description; I for one would welcome other, perhaps more rigorous explainers as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
My takeaway is that MMT is not just whether or not governments should “print (more) money.” (A pretty obsolete descriptor for fiscal policy today, surely!) Rather, it’s a different conceptual model for how money works–a new paradigm.
As we know, MMT is therefore wrong to some extent, just like all the other models of anything. But is it useful?
There is hydropower and then there’s hydro-hegemony:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/12/27/commentary/world-commentary/china-asia-water/
Piotr: “rain, lots of rain” applies to
AB: a joke. Only a joke.
All this blather about MMT, when fixing climate change requires concrete physical assets like cement, steel, aluminum, glass and so forth. You can’t print a glass plant or a steel mill, or the grain and vegetables needed to feed the people who build it.
People really need to be thinking about the concrete questions:
1. How much physical stuff will you need?
2. How many people with what skills will you need?
3. How are you going to get them?
If you can’t answer those, you don’t have a plan.
134 Al Bundy: Killian: Prediction: Within 6 months nigel will
AB: have learned much that is valuable, but without the gloating. He’s not the “I was always right” sort.
Hmmm… so constantly changing your position in the direction of the people that have been schooling you while claiming you always knew is somehow admirable? It’s called dishonesty.
And if you think, as you clearly are attempting to imply, that I gloat, you’re just a fucking idiot. I repeat: My record speaks. I point it out because you all refuse to listen, to learn, after all these years. Facts are what they are. It is, in fact, your egos that PREVENT you from acknowledging the facts of the last ten years that is at issue. Not one of you understands the historical context, so I keep pointing it out, hoping you will hear. I will keep doing so.
To be absolutely clear, I do not point out my record because of ego – it’s bizarre I still have to – but because you dumbshits choose to pretend it doesn’t exist.
141 mike: I think Killian is correct
When am I not?
but not particularly informative at 130.
So facilitating learning by stating a fact that contradicts what has been being discussed here and stating, clearly, where to look to learn the reality (I have many, many times pointed to Steve Keen, which is the previous context for the statement at 130) is uninformative?
Interesting take on learning, teaching. Or is it your position I need to spoonfeed every one of you?
139 nigelj: Clarification: Thank god BPL understands these things. Probably not surprising because he’s actually studied ECONOMICS. The rest of you sure don’t understand very well.
He does not. He *believes* in thoroughly debunked economic theories. Claiming to understand classical and neo-classical economics is like claiming to understand God/gods: It’s claiming to understand and make sense of nonsense; neither is real, so can only be believed in, not understood.
I misspoke here:
140 Killian says: Economics, like all else, it ultimately energy.
Should be, “The economy, like all else, it ultimately energy.”