Having picked up this week's Economist I have made an amazing discovery. A disinterested observer might be tempted to think that oil-producing countries are nearly certain to struggle during an oil glut especially following OPEC's decision to not curtail production.
This is evident in the cases of Russia, Venezuala, Brazil and even Nigeria. America should be treated as something of a special case. The shale gas producers are certainly being squeezed be low oil prices but the size of the US economy and its central position in world investment means that the boost to economic endeavour given by the low prices helps to offset damage to the exporting energy industry.
However, if you read the Economist it becomes clear that these failings are due to the number one suspect. Venezuala is suffering for decades of, unfathomably, attempting to fund social progress with oil profits rather than stakeholder dividends. Brazil could have avoided this crisis entirely if it had nipped corruption and state control in the bud with a healthy dose of market forces.
I'm not saying that this is entirely a fabrication. The corruption in Brazil's Petrobras company is abominable (although it wouldn't look out of place in the modern state capitalist China). What seems unfair is the special pleading that the same journalists would apply in analogous cases for devout capitalists. The Coalition are heaped with praise for staying the course with austerity even though it is clear that low oil prices (over which they had little control) are responsible for much of the recent upturn in economic growth.
Sunday, 15 February 2015
Sunday, 8 February 2015
Osborne resorts to bribery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31241867
I just saw an interview on BBC news with Osborne offering the flimsiest reasoning for this blatant piece of electioneering.
"We've just come out of a recession where our need to lower interest rates have hit savers", he mugs. Fair enough so far, "and therefore we should support those who save for the good of the economy".
Lots of buzz words. Impeccable logic. However, one wonders why the over 65's with their Final Salary pensions and innumerable state-funded benefits are especially deserving of further government largesse. Osborne's move has been described as 'reverse social engineering' since all the studies show that the young have been disproportionately screwed by the downturn. This further encouragement to growing wealth inequality doesn't seem to faze the chancellor.
The only reason for this move is that we are now in election season and Osborne wants the silver vote to help stave off the defeat that threatens with the splitting of the right wing vote between Tory and UKIP.
I just saw an interview on BBC news with Osborne offering the flimsiest reasoning for this blatant piece of electioneering.
"We've just come out of a recession where our need to lower interest rates have hit savers", he mugs. Fair enough so far, "and therefore we should support those who save for the good of the economy".
Lots of buzz words. Impeccable logic. However, one wonders why the over 65's with their Final Salary pensions and innumerable state-funded benefits are especially deserving of further government largesse. Osborne's move has been described as 'reverse social engineering' since all the studies show that the young have been disproportionately screwed by the downturn. This further encouragement to growing wealth inequality doesn't seem to faze the chancellor.
The only reason for this move is that we are now in election season and Osborne wants the silver vote to help stave off the defeat that threatens with the splitting of the right wing vote between Tory and UKIP.
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Ecology and War: The Wiki Review
So, a while back I wrote a couple of posts about the effect of war on the environment: (http://stochasticreview.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Ecology%20and%20war)
By the standards of this generally idiosyncratic and opinionated blog they were actually pretty scrupulously researched. However, I neglected that most venerated source of amateur research knowledge - Wikipedia.
While reading about the military and civilian uses of depleted uranium (scary stuff - look it up some time) I found that there is a Wikipedia article titled 'Environmental impact of war'. Sadly it is pretty much useless. Despite having multiple issues that should be apparent to a literate reader with no expertise in the subject matter it does not even seem to have warranted a clean up label from the ruling Wikipedia cabal.
The most glaring error is a dominant focus on the long term and cross-generational effects of various chemical and nuclear weapons on human beings. Of course humans play a dominant role in most of the Earth's ecosystems but there are plenty of other places where the human impact of war is addressed. In my humble opinion a better use of a page specifically about ecological effects of warfare would be to focus on animals, plants and the general environment.
The historical section (necessarily a whirlwind tour in such a short article) appears to be randomly organised. For example the Vietnam war and Rwandan genocide are lumped together without any apparent rhyme or reason. Surprisingly this section is actually rather good with interesting points made about the US use of herbicides and the pressure that Rwandan refugee camps put on the surrounding ecosystem. Similarly the brief paragraph on the Iraqi oil spills caused by Saddam's scorched earth policy in the first gulf war is thought provoking about the effects of war in a major oil producing country.
We then have another confused list of general environmental hazards from unexploded ordinance to the use of Agent Orange. Again there seems to be more focus on issues that the authors were interested in than on those that genuinely caused environmental damage. At a glance I'd say that increased military use of fossil fuels (potentially offset by the usual domestic economic slow down?), intentional flooding and nuclear testing are most likely to have a major environmental rather than merely human significance.
So unfortunately not much of an asset to anyone considering the effect of war on the environment. Whole swathes of history are ignored with no real consideration of the (likely lesser) effects of war before the modern era. Geographically the picture is better than you might expect with the case studies taken from numerous continents but coverage remains piecemeal and incomplete. Here's hoping some community minded editor takes an interest in it soon!
By the standards of this generally idiosyncratic and opinionated blog they were actually pretty scrupulously researched. However, I neglected that most venerated source of amateur research knowledge - Wikipedia.
While reading about the military and civilian uses of depleted uranium (scary stuff - look it up some time) I found that there is a Wikipedia article titled 'Environmental impact of war'. Sadly it is pretty much useless. Despite having multiple issues that should be apparent to a literate reader with no expertise in the subject matter it does not even seem to have warranted a clean up label from the ruling Wikipedia cabal.
The most glaring error is a dominant focus on the long term and cross-generational effects of various chemical and nuclear weapons on human beings. Of course humans play a dominant role in most of the Earth's ecosystems but there are plenty of other places where the human impact of war is addressed. In my humble opinion a better use of a page specifically about ecological effects of warfare would be to focus on animals, plants and the general environment.
The historical section (necessarily a whirlwind tour in such a short article) appears to be randomly organised. For example the Vietnam war and Rwandan genocide are lumped together without any apparent rhyme or reason. Surprisingly this section is actually rather good with interesting points made about the US use of herbicides and the pressure that Rwandan refugee camps put on the surrounding ecosystem. Similarly the brief paragraph on the Iraqi oil spills caused by Saddam's scorched earth policy in the first gulf war is thought provoking about the effects of war in a major oil producing country.
We then have another confused list of general environmental hazards from unexploded ordinance to the use of Agent Orange. Again there seems to be more focus on issues that the authors were interested in than on those that genuinely caused environmental damage. At a glance I'd say that increased military use of fossil fuels (potentially offset by the usual domestic economic slow down?), intentional flooding and nuclear testing are most likely to have a major environmental rather than merely human significance.
So unfortunately not much of an asset to anyone considering the effect of war on the environment. Whole swathes of history are ignored with no real consideration of the (likely lesser) effects of war before the modern era. Geographically the picture is better than you might expect with the case studies taken from numerous continents but coverage remains piecemeal and incomplete. Here's hoping some community minded editor takes an interest in it soon!
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
Osborne gets back on his hobby horse
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/20/scottish-votes-income-tax-george-osborne-devolution
Anybody else worried about the fact that we are meant to hand our economy over for another four years to the party that took approximately 3 miliseconds after the Scottish referendum to swing from appealing for them to stay to pandering to British nationalists?
Labour may have their issues but at least they aren't total two-faced hypocrites.
Anybody else worried about the fact that we are meant to hand our economy over for another four years to the party that took approximately 3 miliseconds after the Scottish referendum to swing from appealing for them to stay to pandering to British nationalists?
Labour may have their issues but at least they aren't total two-faced hypocrites.
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
Class War? What Class War?
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/31/labour-class-war-private-schools
I'm amazed Mr Jones managed to keep a straight face for the photo.
He manages to simultaneously work in a claim that many parents who send their children to private schools make 'huge sacrifices' to do so while also accusing Labour of returning to 'Class War' by considering ending tax breaks (that favourite tool of oppression of revolutionary parties!).
Surely if anybody who is willing to sacrifice can make use of private school services then there is no 'class' here to be victimised. That argument only holds together if such schools really are over privileged havens for grooming the children of the rich.
Typical woolly-headed thinking from a defender of the establishment.
P.s. Happy New Year to one and all. Please consider not voting Conservative or UKIP as a potential new year's resolution.
I'm amazed Mr Jones managed to keep a straight face for the photo.
He manages to simultaneously work in a claim that many parents who send their children to private schools make 'huge sacrifices' to do so while also accusing Labour of returning to 'Class War' by considering ending tax breaks (that favourite tool of oppression of revolutionary parties!).
Surely if anybody who is willing to sacrifice can make use of private school services then there is no 'class' here to be victimised. That argument only holds together if such schools really are over privileged havens for grooming the children of the rich.
Typical woolly-headed thinking from a defender of the establishment.
P.s. Happy New Year to one and all. Please consider not voting Conservative or UKIP as a potential new year's resolution.
Saturday, 6 December 2014
Russia today, Britain tomorrow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30326253
Putin's economy is in a mess due mainly to his alienation of key trading partners in America and Europe (unless you subscribe to the fantasy that OPEC are keeping oil prices down as an early Christmas present to all the motorists and industrialists out there).
The British coalition government should be carefully taking notes. A departure from Europe would not piss the international community off as much as Russia's annexation of Crimea and blatant intervention in Ukraine but no amount of austerity scrimping will suffice if we too succeed in annoying our main trading partners.
Putin's economy is in a mess due mainly to his alienation of key trading partners in America and Europe (unless you subscribe to the fantasy that OPEC are keeping oil prices down as an early Christmas present to all the motorists and industrialists out there).
The British coalition government should be carefully taking notes. A departure from Europe would not piss the international community off as much as Russia's annexation of Crimea and blatant intervention in Ukraine but no amount of austerity scrimping will suffice if we too succeed in annoying our main trading partners.
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Miliband forgot the economy!
So I tuned into Prime Minister's Question Time last weekend - mainly to see Cameron get the kicking he royally deserved for hiring a welfare minister who thinks that it is acceptable to indicate that the disabled may not be worth paying a minimum wage (http://stochasticreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/lord-freuds-slip.html).
However, I was astonished to find that the Tories are still droning on about Miliband's accidential omission of mention of the deficit in his Manchester speech in late September. "I hope Ed remembers to attend the doctor's appointment for his sore throat" quips the intolerably smug Prime Minister in a show of mock sympathy for Miliband.
Insincere condolences are something that Britain has got used to under the Coalition. Perish the thought but some of us might even think we can afford to forget the economy every now and again rather than using austerity to justify a barrage of policies that keep the poor unsupported, vital national services privatised and growing numbers of young people excluded from adequately renumerative employments or affordable housing.
... but then such thinking goes against the austerity play book in an election where Cameron seems determined to pander to the privileged and/or UKIP supporters.
However, I was astonished to find that the Tories are still droning on about Miliband's accidential omission of mention of the deficit in his Manchester speech in late September. "I hope Ed remembers to attend the doctor's appointment for his sore throat" quips the intolerably smug Prime Minister in a show of mock sympathy for Miliband.
Insincere condolences are something that Britain has got used to under the Coalition. Perish the thought but some of us might even think we can afford to forget the economy every now and again rather than using austerity to justify a barrage of policies that keep the poor unsupported, vital national services privatised and growing numbers of young people excluded from adequately renumerative employments or affordable housing.
... but then such thinking goes against the austerity play book in an election where Cameron seems determined to pander to the privileged and/or UKIP supporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)