"Unexpected rise in jobless rates"

Unexpected by whom?

One may ask, how is it that "experts" or economists get it wrong practically every time?

Well, who do they work for? The news agencies that select them as "experts" perhaps?

And who do the news agencies work for? Their advertisers perhaps?

And  how interested do you think GM would be in dropping a million dollar ad spot, pimping the new 2012 Chevy Tahoe or some such, into the middle of a news broadcast reporting 1) Current manifestations of climate change 2) Mounting resource depletion 3) and the generally crappy/negative outlook for the world economy?

No wonder the American people are so clueless. They've been sold.

Willful Ignorance.

This very interesting study released earlier this year: Yale's Six Americas Report. It's really worth a look over. . .

The scope of the report:

This report extends and updates an ongoing program of research analyzing Americans’ interpretations of and responses to climate change. The research segments the American public into six audiences that range along a spectrum of concern and issue engagement from the Alarmed, who are convinced of the reality and danger of climate change, and who are highly supportive of personal and political actions to mitigate the threat, to the Dismissive, who are equally convinced that climate change is not occurring and that no response should be made. The Six Americas are not very different demographically, but are dramatically different in their beliefs and actions, as well as their basic values and political orientations. The groups were first identified in a nationally representative survey conducted in the fall of 2008, and were re-assessed in January and June of 2010. The current report is the fourth in the series; in it we provide new insights into the informational needs of the six groups, their understanding of the health impacts of global warming, beliefs about current environmental impacts of global warming in the U.S., and support for local adaptation and mitigation policies.


The crux of the issue, as I see it:

Of the Six Americas, the Dismissive were the most likely to say they are well-informed about global warming, with 91% saying they were very or fairly well-informed. Among the Alarmed, 85% said they were very or fairly well-informed, followed by two-thirds of the Concerned the Doubtful. The Disengaged were most likely to say they were not well-informed, with only 2% saying they were very well-informed.

Take the time to work through it. Unless, of course, you're one of those who already knows everything there is to know about the issue. . .

Unemployment numbers:

Speaking of adopting new paradigms on how the future is going to work. . .

Jobs? Forget jobs. The role of whatever government we have isn't to create jobs, it's to allow for opportunities.  And there's our problem with policy now-- we've the worst of both worlds, where job creation is impeded by lack of support, and opportunities are impeded by institutional restriction.

Now all of this serves big corporate interests very handily, as high unemployment makes for cheap labor when you need it, and you get away with offering miserable terms. Restrictions are also very helpful-- as anti-competitive practice -- as it's only the biggest of the big who can afford to bear the burden of compliance. Thus it's cheaper, and considered safer, by policy makers to ship a cage raised frankenchicken, butchered by slave labor in a prison camp in Alabama, 6000 miles around the world to an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean-- and out-compete local poultry farmers.

It works nice for Tyson Foods. Now of course Tyson is a big, big contributor to right-wing nut case causes, like Koch, or Coors-- But seriously, you really think a company like Tyson Food wants small government? Baloney--big government is critical to their profitability. If it wasn't for the existence of the regulations on the books from whatever host of various institutions at all levels-- keeping moderate producers out of the market-- there is simply no way they could dominate the market like they do. Small government my ass-- that's just code language for "insuring the biggest players enjoy the privilege of socialized costs and private profits, oh, and pay no taxes at all."

Makes you really wonder what kind of sucker can buy some of the rhetoric out there. . .

It may seem inevitable on the current trajectory our economy and policy seems to be following(anybody read "Gravity's Rainbow?") an age of austerity is more likely than a pot of gold. Maybe. It's worth considering, as the wealth our our society continues to be raided, that a certain amount of liberty is gained with the impoverishment of various institutions--and while clearly in such an economy jobs may be scarce but opportunities may abound.

Just thoughts.

Opinion vs Agenda:

There's an interesting thought experiment that comes to mind here.

Imagine a 1000 people were giving the task of adding a column of a 100 numbers. Everyone turns in their results. We'll assume average math skills.

A certain percentage, maybe 70 percent(wild guess) will get their numbers right. Their results will be in agreement with each other.

A remainder will make errors here and there and get independently wrong results. Mistakes happen, and we should expect a random distribution of error results.

What would be really unexpected, however, is when/if you get a group of people who all make the same mistakes and all come up with the same wrong number--and insist it's right. This can't actually happen in the world of mathematics, it can only happen if you have some central outside influence, one that wants wrong answers, and that tells people what result they're supposed to get before they start adding and they make the necessary mistakes to get that desired and predetermined answer. Does this sound like Congress?  There's a hell of lot of this kind of figuring going on right now. The debt debacle and the resultant downgrade by S & P is a great current example, but plenty of others exist, and while they certainly don't hold a monopoly share, mostly this crap is coming from the same camp-- those who claim to believe in a "right to life," but don't give a shit about the biosphere. They believe there's infinite resources of oil in the ground but also believe the Battle of Armageddon is just around the corner and we probably don't have the time to use it all up like we should. They have invisible friends and expect the rest of us who grew out of that phase of development respect them for that. They think there's no evidence for climate change, but there is evidence of the "virgin birth." Right down the line, it's a very handy convenient world view that nicely absolves one of  any responsibility to the rest of humanity, or the planet, or even one's own children while maintaining a veneer of smug, entitled, self-righteousness. . .how nice for them!

I think that veneer has been about polished through, 'bout now.

See, I think people can tell the difference between "opinions" and "agendas." Opinions are positions based on one's current understanding of the applicable data. Opinions change on occasion. Agendas, on the other hand, are pre-conceived preferences defended by cherry-picking data or even outright fabrication. Here we have a pretty good track record of respecting each others opinions. Agendas, well, I think we're all a little chapped when it comes to hearing that stuff all over again.

Feel that one's opinion is unjustly labeled an agenda? Without a doubt, an honest, forthright, good faith willingness to look and discuss the facts at hand in a fair and objective manner goes a long way to creating the necessary good will to maintain a constructive dialectic.

Our society can exist with a difference of opinion. But sure as hell it's becoming increasing difficult to accommodate agendas, as they are inevitably --inherently-- divisive.

Practical Solutions: XT500

Some months ago watching fuel prices rise I decided I'd better be proactive--even though I drive a relatively new Toyota Tacoma frankly it's not infrequent that my work outside the farm doesn't require such a vehicle, and while it can still get 25 or better MPG one could do a lot better. A friend had this old beater Yamaha XT500 that had been wrecked and left in the rain. I figured by the time I got the 100 pounds of rust ground off of it, it would be lighter than stock, fast, and it might be a fine machine. LOL.

It's coming along. This will be an utterly stripped, utterly practical back roads rager designed to run on E85 or higher with a bit of pre-heat(a wick wrapped around the fuel line, high tech!).  Magneto, wholly. Banana juice goes in and smoke comes out. That's it.

All in all these were very fine machines, very ahead of their time and robustly built. Certainly equipped to breathe in an old school kind of way. In the process of lapping the valves out here. The seats cleaned up fine.

Actually, a very exceptionally well built machine--a Paris/Dakar winner back in the day, and perfect to my needs. The gauges and controls actually worked/were rebuildable, which was a minor miracle. The handlebars were bent, but that was fixed with the mapp gas torch and some dinking around. The head stock had a pretty good twist in it but I cut the whole works off with a dremel tool and stuck it back on square to the frame with the wire feed. No sweat! Took a tiny amount of rake out. Am trying to talk myself out of adding some length to the swing arm(and of course the 575 big bore kit--shame on me for even thinking about it! LOL Oh, and the cam, oh and the 49mm intake valve, etc.,) In reality at some point I'll need to replace the stock piston (8 to 1) with a higher compression unit (probably 10 to 1) to be serious about the high E formulations, but one thing at a time.

Hopefully will get new rings and a couple of seals in the mail this week to get the thing running. The spokes on both wheels are complete trash but the rims are passable. These are on their way from KEDO in germany, stainless steel this time around, as well as an oversized jet kit to run on back yard ethanol blends if need be. It's no trouble to get the permit to brew one's own E100, it does take some tinkering to build machinery to process it but certainly doable-- that and an acre or so of bananas or cane will keep a guy on the road in a cost effective manner for years to come. I'll have about a grand in it to have it running. It would be pretty trick for 1500. It would be radical for 2000--restraint! Restraint!

More conversation here. There's a place for a rally of such kinds of bikes. Hows that for hopeful fun?

So What's the Hold-Up?

Continuing, obliquely, with the topic at hand. . .

So, why has the "sustainability" movement been so ineffective at initiating real change? Come'on, we've got to admit that-- by any metric, we're only losing ground.

The answer is in the "P's," I think.

Sustainability is most effectively achieved by altering paradigms. The primary paradigm which is in need of alteration is that the expectation of "economic growth" as a means to prosperity remains a viable world view. In a world of constraints, where we obviously find ourselves now, the only avenue left to increasing prosperity is through altering "process"--to ever more efficient, beneficent and higher real value return activity. Old timers call this frugality, and simplification of lifestyle and expectations is the fast track to achieving it. A vegetable garden isn't a bad example.  Process, adopting this paradigm, leads to progress. Unfortunately, the bandwidth of the cultural consciousness is still captivated not by progress, but by profits, and the "sustainability" movement is no exception here. Profits aren't accessed by efficient process, but rather products--and yup, here is the hold-up.

There are those that will tell you that you can transition to a "sustainable" world by adopting solar PV's, high tech batteries, LED lighting, smart chargers, electric hybrid cars, triple-pane thermally active windows, etc., etc., which is all neat stuff, no doubt, except the problem is you'll never ever be able to afford any of it if you actually do something for a living that's "sustainable." Is pimping inherently unsustainable "sustainable" product a sustainable means of earning a living? Phat chance!

Here's it's more the message of-- turn off the lights, wear a sweatshirt. Take the bus. Funny but there's no money in any of that. . .of course if you adopt the process of progress you'll find have less need for profits anyway.

Musing on the Qualities of Leadership, or Lack Thereof. . .

Well, no need to belabor the obvious, for anyone who pays attention to the news.

It seems interesting to me that one of the primary attributes of "empowered leadership" that for some reason we've wholly lost is the confidence to listen to evidence and be persuaded. Just where have we got the notion that blind adherence to rigid ideology is somehow a stronger manifestation of personal strength--stronger than than the confidence to impartially entertain opposing views, consider the merits of the argument, and alter one's opinions as the evidence demands?

It's utter craziness. From Oslo, to Washington D.C., to the guy that told me the other day that he knew climate change was a hoax because God promised in the Bible to never destroy the world again after the flood, and of course, if climate changed destroyed the world it would prove the Bible wrong. . .radical, dangerous, short sighted, entrenched, militant idiocy threatens our very survival. It's our consumerism again, our consumerism of ideas--selecting those things we'd like to think over those we need to accept-- and now increasingly demanding others participate in those kinds of destructive fantasies too-- all too often, ultimately, at the end of a gun.

I find it utterly terrifying that I know literally dozens of people who believe they are masters of various arcane sciences, are shamanic, whatever that means-- have magic powers, unique conversations with angels or whatever, or can heal cancer by chanting vowels. . .they're pretty insistent about everyone taking them seriously too. . .smugly grouchy even. . .and I know basically one capable mechanic.

God, this self-indulgence is really going to bite us in the ass.

Also: Bonus link for the psychologically inclined-- Diagnose your favorite Panglossian! Worth a read.

http://www.peakoilblues.org/blog/?p=2693

Musing on the Qualities of Leadership

A couple of thoughts come to me this morning, observing world events and dynamics here locally.

Anyone who would deign set themselves up in a position of leadership must possess a certain level of hubris, and a sense of entitlement-- a sense of exceptionalism. That's natural and part of the job, and that narcissistic self-confidence is not necessarily a defect, rather it can be a source of great creative potential.

Still, I find it striking the enormous schism that exists between the two ways that a "sense of exceptionalism" can manifest itself:

1. The sense that because one is exceptional, the ethical mores that may bind mankind do not necessarily apply to oneself.

OR

2. The sense that because one is exceptional, the ethical mores that may bind mankind may apply to oneself especially.

Worth chewing on, I suggest.

The Numbers of Sustainability: 3

So the "numbers" series is continuing to generate both interest and ire. Nice to know people are reading. . .

An email I received-- paraphrased:

"Jay, you've got no idea what you're talking about. My family has four 100 square foot raised beds and they easily grow half our food. That's for a family of four. . .maybe you need more practice gardening."

This fellow makes a partial living promoting and developing small garden beds. And he mows lawns, elsewise.

OK, that's fine, on the surface the claim sounds reasonable. But let's think about it a bit.

We can talk in terms of calories, and it would be very helpful, but no one wants to, because the numbers are irritating. We can talk in terms of pounds, but no one wants to weigh out and really quantify this either. So there's an attempt to keep numbers out of the conversation, but whoops, they're still there. Back of the envelope, and off the cuff, but still there. . .

Hypothetically:

We can assume that it costs perhaps 400 dollars a month at a reasonable minimum to feed an adult. If, as in this household they're 4 adults(two teens) that's netting 200 dollars a month(half their food) x 4, or 800 dollars a month. Times twelve, that's 9600 dollars a year in produce, out of 400 square feet, or a net yield of 24 dollars a square foot.  If we assume my numbers of net value(the produce likely worth 2 dollars a pound, as in greens, brocoli, etc.,) that's cranking out 12 pounds a square foot a year. Sustainably too! Organic!

It's all in the mulch, he says. I think it's in the bullshit.

A one acre property "gardened" at this level of proficiency would net the gardener, what, almost a million bucks a year in gross proceeds, and that's assuming that you lose some square footage to pathways and a tool shed(approx 40000 square feet times 24 dollars a square foot.)

Boy, if I could plant beans like that, I'd quit my day job!

The Numbers of Sustainability: 2

It seems my last post generated a lot of interest, and not a little ire. Some people hate it when you quantify things. Sorry 'bout that. I'm writing this blog for the purpose of helping normal people of average financial means to attempt to live sustainable lifestyles. It isn't as easy as some would make it.

So, constructively, here's another question people must ask if they want to succeed with a sustainable lifestyle. Their personal conclusions can differ, sure, as mine's a bit of a guess, but a good one--and as the economy changes so will the conclusion. My conclusion is based on my experience and what feet on the ground right now will likely experience. Not selling anything, just offering up my best analysis.You're welcome to your own answer: Just have one.

Question: 


At what point does the per square foot cost of a given piece of land make farming/gardening economically nonviable?

Here's how I would think about it. Raw, round numbers again.

I'd assume that reasonably fertile land can return a quarter pound per square foot of produce per season.

I'd assume that a reasonable mix of produce may have a value on the current market of 2 dollars a pound. Bell peppers may be more, potatoes a lot less of course. This is a guess of a mix of things that constitutes a garden that might provide meaningful substance. Other guesses are worth hearing and will provide other results. Obviously if we try to cook the books by suggesting that we're growing saffron we'll get unrealistic numbers.

That means one can expect to gross .50 cents of value per square foot per season. This assumes no labor inputs at all, no water bill, no seed costs, no fertilizer, and no bugs. Honestly, any body I know who could crack out .50 cents a square foot is doing pretty dang good. I don't get even close to such a number, as such intensive ag would make for so much soil erosion I'd be done in 5 years.

To purchase a given piece of land either requires an out of pocket expenditure or finance-- in either case it would generally be considered bad business practice to expect to yield less than a 10 percent value return on such an investment. We can quibble about that number. I'd appreciate hearing other views.

That gives me, of course, a value of  5 dollars a square foot, as I see it, as a reasonable estimate the absolute maximum number at which a given garden can actual return more value than it consumes. 3 dollars a square foot is more realistic, and leaves some room for labor costs. 2 dollars a square foot may even net a very meager return. Again assuming no labor input or costs or losses. Beyond this projected value, the garden consumes more resources than it produces and becomes unsustainable. I'd appreciate hearing other values of what one might think is the breakback number where inputs are a wash and labor a loss. Surely we can all agree that such a number 1) exists and 2) is important. I understand that some are in a position where none of this matters, again, great, smoke 'em if you got'em. It's doesn't make you bad. But at some point, for sure, exercises in gardening become so uneconomic to be nothing else other than conspicuous consumption. That's all, and to obfuscate that fact may mislead people new to the issue and of more modest means to take on projects that won't pan out for them, and that's a shame.

Unfortunately, much real estate in suburban neighborhoods exceeds this number. The closer one gets to the beach, the more one exceeds this number. The Girl's old place in Venice had a cost in excess of 300 dollars a square foot at the bubble valuations, yikes!-- it would cost you 25 bucks, by that math, to rent storage for a dog turd.  By contrast, I paid .14 cents a square foot for my property and one could go cheaper than that now. Obviously, if one wants to have a leg up on achieving sustainability, or even pretend to approximate economic decisions, those kinds of low costs give one a huge leg up.

Do the math, it matters. . .