Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’m now using Substack as a blogging platform, and for my monthly email newsletter. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack. You can also follow me on Mastodon here.
John Quiggin 
Posted a couple of days ago at Clean Technica was a piece by Steve Hanley headlined Hansen Vs. Mann — Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? The takeaway included:
Inflation arises when demand exceeds supply. The way out of this is to either raise supply by increasing productivity or by reducing demand by raising taxes or interest rates or by reducing government spending. You don’t reduce inflation by constraining certain prices to not increase. That just either masks the problem or intensifies the issue of deficient supply.
The Treasurer Jim Chalmers, despite allegedly having an economics degree, doesn’t seem to understand basic economics despite his pretentious waffle about creating a new civilised form of capitalism.. His response to the inflation problem in Australia is to try to reduce “cost of living pressures” by subsidising certain types of consumption and by trying to stop prices from rising. This makes things worse and puts extra pressure on the RBA to keep interest rates higher than they otherwise would be.
Labor economic policies on inflation make life harder for most Australians. Additionally continuing high levels of infrastructure spending by state and Federal Labor governments not only add to our large national and state public debt and also crowds out private sector investment because of induced factor price increases.
Harry Clarke
Four weeks into its war with Hamas (which, let us not forget, started it), the Israeli government has finally come up with a comprehensible war aim, which “destroying Hamas” was not. This is for the IDF occupy Gaza and control security, while somebody else runs the rest of the government, including reconstruction. Why should anybody agree to do this? It’s a job for suckers: trying to run schools, hospitals, and soup kitchens for a destitute, traumatised and very angry population of 2.3 million Palestinians in facilities that the IDF reserves the right to blow up at any moment in the name of a “security” it alone defines.
The scheme actually provided for in the Geneva Conventions is that an occupying army is automatically responsible for the basic civil administration of all areas it controls apart from active combat zones. It is in particular responsible for meeting fundamental needs of public order, subsistence, public health and shelter. The ICRC gloss includes:
“To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.” https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
Applying the Conventions is the ICRC’s mission since 1864, they are very unlikely to have got this wrong. The humanitarian crisis cannot be simply dumped by Israel on the UN. The souvenir shop rule applies: if you break it, you own it.
With all due respect … it is H—s which “broke” Gaza, imho. (I wonder if the UN didn’t help.) And if it ever becomes clear what they thought they’d accomplish with all this destruction and death, it will be incumbent upon all of us to see that they never achieve it. (I’m not too worried when I say that though, bc it does not seem to me that the welfare of regular Palestinians entered anywhere into their calculations. Still, again, those are opaque to me. There was a guy on the telly who said they want a mini-caliphate. But, I have not read his book, or their charter. Bleachers, that’s me.)
Having said that, I agree that Israel must do everything reasonably possible to not stand in the way of aid. I *don’t* think I agree it is their responsibility to provide it, but, I’ll think about it more, certainly.
The thing about international law is that, well, for one thing, I don’t trust the UN that much. And it seems to me that these laws are not enforced fairly, either. And if they aren’t really workable, then I’m not sure they are valid, actually.
And on top of that, logic alone maybe isn’t the thing. I agree that what is happening is completely horrible. It’s just that I blame H—s and not Israel.
But on a human level, this does not of course feel sufficient. And, you’re completely right about the trauma part.
With all due respect … it is H—s which “broke” Gaza, imho. (I wonder if the UN didn’t help.) And if it ever becomes clear what they thought they’d accomplish with all this destruction and death, it will be incumbent upon all of us to see that they never achieve it. (I’m not too worried when I say that though, bc it does not seem to me that the welfare of regular Palestinians entered anywhere into their calculations. Still, again, those are opaque to me. There was a guy on the telly who said they want a mini-caliphate. But, I have not read his book, or their charter.)
Having said that, I agree that Israel must do everything reasonably possible to not stand in the way of aid. I *don’t* think I agree it is their responsibility to provide it, but, I’ll think about it more, certainly.
The thing about international law is that, well, for one thing, I don’t trust the UN that much. And it seems to me that these laws are not enforced fairly, either. And if they aren’t really workable, then I’m not sure they are valid, actually.
And on top of that, logic alone maybe isn’t the thing. I agree that what is happening is completely horrible. It’s just that I blame H—s and not Israel.
But on a human level, this does not of course feel sufficient. And, you’re completely right about the trauma part.
Further to my post above. Warwick McKibbin pursues this idea. The Government, he argues must cut government spending or raise taxes to prevent the need for even greater interest rate hikes as a means of addressing inflation.
I don’t think tax increases are a serious possibility now. Given the pinch people are feeling at present I think that tax increases (other than continued sneaky bracket creep) would just mean it would any government would lose lose office.
(Of course I do favour indexing taxes to inflation – I don’t favour public theft.)
Hence the pressure must be on government spending. It must be cut or a financial crisis will develop via the housing sector. The last, so-called “neutral” budget shows that the government remains essentially unconcerned about excessive spending and its implications for interest payments and debt. Morrison, too, was a big spender on the other side of politics.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/chalmers-told-to-slash-spending-or-lift-taxes-to-avoid-higher-rates-20231108-p5eie1
Cut government spending or raise taxes. Otherwise interest rates will need to rise further:
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/chalmers-told-to-slash-spending-or-lift-taxes-to-avoid-higher-rates-20231108-p5eie1
How can you not blame the ones actually dropping the bombs on children. Children and babies are being killed by Israel. That’s a war crime. There is NO excuse. As for this absurd idea that “we must stop Hamas”. Sorry but I will not condone genocide and will certainly NOT partake in it. Not do I support my government sending young soldiers over to do Israel’s dirty work. This is a problem created By Israel. They chose to deal with Hamas not the Palestinian Authority. They allowed settlers to kill people in the West Bank. Anyone who supports this becomes complicit.
N: The UN did not write the Geneva Conventions, run by an older set of institutions. It has a stake in their implementation as part of the whole body of international law. This includes much older treaties, like the parts of the Treaty of Paris in 1259 which settled the status of the Channel Islands as autonomous subjects of the King of England. (Technically Charles III rex holds them as Duke of Normandy, a vassal of the King of France, if you can find him.) The relevant texts are the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocols I and II of 1977. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/geneva-conventions-1949additional-protocols-and-their-commentaries
I don’t think my analysis is particularly controversial: I heard the same point being made by a think tank pundit on the telly. If Israel wants to establish security control over all of Gaza, it can certainly do so. An organization with a monopoly of the means of large-scale violence in an area is called a government. Governments, even temporary foreign ones, are responsible for the welfare of their civilian subjects. Infeasible? It’s exactly how the Allies behaved in Germany and Japan in 1945.
The responsibility of Hamas for causing the mess is irrelevant to Israel’s duties as occupying power. I don’t think anybody has refuted my analogy with bank robbers: moral responsibility is not a cake to be shared out, summing to 1. A lone bank robber is caught, the sentence is say 10 years. A pair of robbers are caught, they don’t get 5 each but 10. Hamas is 100% responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. So is Israel.
James, first of all, I should maybe say that the only reason I am talking about this at all here (as an average mostly-ignorant American), is that I don’t see much actual discussion happening out in the world. This bothers me a lot, and I feel a need to talk I guess. (Like, if you compare the historical “explainer” post on Al Jazeera to the one on Bloomberg, my guess is there is maybe 50% to 70% overlap of facts. But that is a rough guesstimate. And, I feel like, nobody’s going after that gap.)
Though, maybe there is real dialogue happening somewhere, but isn’t reported on – I hope so!! Bc to me it seems like a Rashomon happening in real time, and we *still* can’t agree on who to *blame.* (We all can agree it is horrible.)
Also, I should say, if Israel finds that it can make itself secure *without* having to bomb Gaza to smithereens, I of course will be happy to see it. I am not pro-bombing. Never have been. And if having a bunch of civilians killed so that people get mad at Israel is what H—s did in fact want – then it’s so much more a reason to stop, or minimize whenever possible.
Plus, Israel has already given in on a bunch of things – like aid trucks. I know it’s not as many as people want, but they did let them in. And from what i read, they do still try to warn people to some extent. And they told people to leave the north.
H—s could have freed the hostages at any time. That has always been possible. And they could have turned themselves in for prosecution, to some international body.
So, I can’t agree that Israel is to blame. If your opponent hides in cities, then self-defense is illegal – from what you have said. Well, to me, that is textbook unworkable.
Maybe now that they supposedly have the bulk of the enemy surrounded, they will have more options and can be more precise.
What would you have had them do differently?
On this blog JQ has provided on ongoing commentary of the decline of nuclear power. Here is the latest chapter of that decline:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalitions-nuclear-smr-poster-boy-cancels-flagship-project-due-to-soaring-costs/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-nuclear-reactor-plant-in-the-us-has-been-canceled/
The cancellation of the only SMR project that was going anywhere was not unexpected but there already those out there arguing that over regulation is to blame, not the viability of the technology. Calculating future or potential risk must be a thankless task and it is difficult to see how it can be done with any level of precision so regulators will always be open to criticism.
Regardless of regulation costs, my understanding is that renewables and storage look like becoming a more affordable solution for a continuous, adequate and stable grid supply.
N to me: “What would you have had them [the IDF] do differently?”
Fair question.
1. Do without the intense air bombardment of a densely populated urban area.
2. Or at least limit it to roughly the scale of those in the 2008 and 2014 incursions, which respectively led to 1,400 Palestinian deaths and 13 Israeli, and 2,100 / 73. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-attacks-on-gaza-since-2005
Just relying on a ground attack should have limited civilian deaths substantially. Israeli citizen-soldiers are not genocidal Nazi monsters, and there is a lot civilians can do to keep themselves safe in a combat zone by hiding, surrender or flight. The problem of course is that Israeli military casualties would have been higher.
Them’s the breaks, if it’s what the laws of war require. These are quite specifically the rules that military personnel are expected to follow even at significant risk to themselves and their comrades, on pain of court-martial by their own side for violations b y ordinary troops, and prosecution for war crimes in international tribunals for the commanders (a still low but not trivial risk, ask General Mladic).
The laws of war are currently embodied in the Geneva Conventions, as serious as international law gets. They were carefully negotiated by national delegations and ratified by each state party, normally after parliamentary debate. Professional military leaders are fully consulted in the process. This will have been especially true for Israel, which has never enjoyed a secure peace. These are not vague feelgood documents.
The foundations of this branch of law stretch deep into the past. Piracy has been a serious problem for much of history, and were widely considered enemies of humanity who, like Hamas, rejected any moral constraints on their actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis Cicero argued that pirates were not owed the limited duty of good faith normally owed to an enemy I suggest that this absolutism is impractical: Pompey surely had to negotiate with his pirate enemies over truces to recover the wounded after battle, ransoms and prisoner exchanges, and terms of surrender, just as Bibi has to negotiate with Hamas over the return of the hostages. Neither can get what they want without a minimal assumption of mutual good faith, and both sides carrying out the promises made.
campidg: – “Regardless of regulation costs, my understanding is that renewables and storage look like becoming a more affordable solution for a continuous, adequate and stable grid supply.”
Nuclear is too expensive and consistently requires 10+ years to deploy (for experienced countries). Renewables are much cheaper and much faster to deploy.
On 18 Oct 2023 in Edinburgh, Johan Rockström presented the 44th TB Macaulay Lecture. The YouTube video titled 44th TB Macaulay Lecture – In conversation with Professor Johan Rockström, published 20 Oct 2023, duration 1:37:47.
See the graph presented from time interval 1:02:33 showing the projected doubling curves for the rollout of renewables. Per Prof Rockström, renewable deployments have been doubling every 5½ years over the last 15 years – that’s exponential.
Meanwhile, the 2023 yearly average temperature is on a trajectory to overshoot +1.5 °C relative to 1850-1900 IPCC baseline.
Nuclear is too expensive and too slow to save us.
I agree that civilians should be spared to the greatest extent feasible.
To whatever extent isn’t feasible, I still blame the other side. If bad people hide under a hospital, then I don’t see how these IHLs can be applied. (I assume that if starving them out were an option, that this would have been the strategy.)
And as for the math approach, that to me might even seem worse. How would you know when you’d killed this approximate right number of people? And if they were civilians at whom you weren’t even aiming, you’d still feel crappy about it. And it wouldn’t work as a deterrent. Especially if you’re fighting people who seem to be nihilists.
So, I guess what we need here are better options.
I know that I see things from a certain side – so, I wouldn’t say that my mind is completely closed. In fact, I would love to see some type of factual commentary from the other perspective. What I have seen so far has not been impressive. Where are the dissenters on the other side? (Real question. There must be some, somewhere.)
Nor do I think that being “right” is much of a moral shield for anybody.
Just to self-critique for a moment, one thing I feel bad about is that I think the international community, including the US, has not done a good enough job taking care of Palestinians in a material sense – not just in the last month, but generally. I don’t know exactly how that occurred, if maybe the money has been going into the wrong pockets, but we all should have been helping them more, all along. Perhaps it was arranged that way deliberately for someone’s alleged political benefit. (And I do not see this either as Israel’s fault. It is the fault of the rest of us.) We’ve got to fix this.