Sgt Hulka Uncut

uncensored opinion and technical information on stuff

Staying Away From The Simplistic

Aug 22

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Economics | Comments off

Long time away. I had a holiday where I thought I might do more posting on the blog, but in fact did none. So a real holiday.

Lots has happened, however, although not a lot of new things but noise on our Carbon Tax here in Australia, so I thought I might have a bit of a rant on something one of my low-tax, government-is-bad, simple-answer friends. People love sending me this stuff, possibly just to set me off. Here’s the forward, spelling intact:

“This is a great example of Micawberan Threory! Even I can understand this… This below states the USA financial position succinctly: U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 . Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 . New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 . National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 . Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 Now just remove 8 zeros and pretend it is a household budget: . Annual family income: $21,700 . Money the family spent: $38,200 . New debt on the credit card: $16,500 . Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 . Total budget cuts: $385. Now THAT is not a pretty picture is it?”

Yes, a fairly interesting, if distorted view of things based on simplistic view of a country as a family. I suppose that is Micawber’s forte. However, let’s look at the analogy more accurately given that paradigm. If the US was a family then its income would be $14.2 trillion, or $142,000 in the example above.

If a family had an income of $142,000 per annum, and they only artificially allowed themselves to have a maximum debt limit of that much, then pretty much they would always be renting and never own their own place. A standard middle income mortgagee in the USA is allowed to have a debt load for a mortgage that is 28% of its income after tax, excluding all other credit cards and personal debt. So, if the US was a family and went to get a loan on a new house and wanted to rent out the old one to Mexicans that have moved into the neighbourhood, they would easily get a new loan under FHA rules there from a bank (say a Chinese owned one) at a good government guaranteed rate (currently 2% for long term bonds) for a maximum capital cost of $2,030,000, assuming they put 10% down.

So, they don’t look like that bad a debtor at present really, do they?

Does the US have a credit card problem? Yes undoubtedly. If you think the government is bad, you should look at personal debt.

Does the US need to have an honest conversation with itself about taxes and entitlements? Also, definitely. But keep in mind that taxes as a % of GDP have NEVER been lower since records have been kept, before you start privatising social security, medicare or medicaid. You can go ahead and eliminate all those programs if you want, from my perspective, and I would be OK (even if I still lived there), but then you should also prepare to live with the consequences, and examine the lives of people in the US society in the period 1885 through 1920 and see if that is really where you want to go back to.

The truth is, if the US eliminated its optional foreign wars and eliminated the Bush tax cuts, it would be in surplus just barely, and then should talk about the viability of entitlements

But instead, it ran itself down in front of the world and the corrupt credit ratings agencies (that only a couple of years ago were triple A rating shitty CBOs), tarnished its reputation as a good financial risk, and spawned simplistic evaluations like the proposition above.

Hulka’s tips for public speaking

Jun 11

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, Good Ideas | Comments off

It’s easy to lose a month. Reading what others write and working (or in my case getting paid for writing) sometimes makes it easy to not post anything for a while. I also don’t have much of anything particular to report of interest. But I did get to do one thing fun.

On the 23rd of May I went to the “launch” of the Carbon Neutral program out here in Western Australia. Low Carbon Australia Ltd. (LCA) sponsored a drinks and canapes session in conjunction with an HVAC conference to familiarise organisations out here in the west with their gig. Part of the program was presenting An Mea with our “brick” which is a book sized lucite (that’s polymethyl methacrylate for the chemistry nerds) reproduction of our certification under the National Carbon Offset Program which is administered by LCA. The management of my company decided while I was out of the office the previous week that I would receive the brick on our behalf. I suspected that this was because they read the program and knew that there would be virtually no chance of me screwing up anything or generating some public relations disaster during the time it took me to take possession of the item and stand still for a photo op with the former Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill. Our reputation was nearly undone by this assumption.

The first thing about these things that you want to know is this. If you ever have to go receive an award and are pretty sure you don’t have to say anything at the event, I highly recommend downing 4 free beers or cocktails in the hour before you are on. That way, you will be in that loose frame of mind somewhere on the scale between ‘I am charismatic’ and ‘I am a genius’, and will therefore be able to effortlessly deal with minor changes to the program. Changes like, for instance, the difference between:

• “Just take the brick, say thank you, and don’t smear the front of it with fingerprints, thereby ruining the photograph”; and,
• Robert Hill saying as he hands you the brick after completely smearing the front up with fingerprints, “Now, you can say a few words”.

Now, stop frame in this little vignette I am painting for you here and imagine the looks on both of the senior management team from my company in the crowd as I gathered my thoughts for a couple minutes worth of impromptu. “Oh fuck” would probably sum it up nicely. Fortunately, being properly medicated and having paid a small amount of attention to Mr. Hill’s previous comments left me well prepared with what to say immediately. I eased the crowd into the Hulka show with 30 seconds of correcting the factual record, nailed them with a joke about the initial carbon price (which will be $23.50 for those of you keeping book), and then gave them about a minute of guerilla marketing on our journey to carbon neutrality and how easy it is before getting off. My last key to public speaking is this: When you first pause to think, “What shall I say next?”, call it a day right then.

Later on, I had a chance to worry the boys again as they saw me and Minister Hill (who by then was just Bob to me) conversing directly over another cold beer (I did say it was an open bar, right?). I started my conversation with Bob by saying “Apparently you didn’t get the memo?” To his perplexed look I provided the explanation that I was given strict instructions from the LCA photographer just before going up to hold the brick by the edges (see photo) so as not ruin the photo, but when I got up there I saw he was pawing the thing like truckosaurus. He laughed but didn’t ask me what I meant. I think Bob doesn’t get much Archer where he hangs out. Pity him.

As we would expect . . .

May 31

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change | Comments off

. . . a genuine coalition of concerned citizens gets together and puts out a reasonable logical argument for early action on climate change limitation (which is really more accurate) and the nasty Coalition comes out before the ad has run and played the man and not the ball. Well, woman technically, but I reckon Cate Blanchett will be man enough to beat Tony Abbott on this one.

Notice that he attacked the woman on purpose, and not Michael Caton, who by my estimate is a far more largely known personality than Cate in the common Australian population anyway. Cate is fantastic, but a lot more people watch him on tv regularly than go to plays in Sydney. Now, I’m not saying Tony Abbott is a misogynist and went after Cate just because she was a girl, but it sure is because he wants to paint her as one of the latte sipping Fabian Society type elite. Because that is what Tony Abbott is into. He’s a bully, and bullies like best to pick on those they think they can physically and mentally intimidate. This means they tend to go after the small, the meek , the feminine or effeminate. Don’t take on Michael, who in the minds of the Australian entertainment public, is the Australian archetype. Go after the chic that is into ballet and will likely never be surpassed in the role of Elizabeth I.

See, because he also wants to attack the the intelligent. He can’t stand the fact that Cate has a mind and a voice and the resources to back herself. The bullies in the conservative branch of the Coalition hate the intelligent, and use their worst tactics on those they despise intellectually. They appeal to the basest of human instincts when they seek out and attempt to influence in the minds of a common voter to hate the intelligent, the artist, the scientist, the professor. Listen to their mouthpiece on 2GB any day of the week.

The Coalition is driven by this portion of their parties (Liberals and Nationals), and their tactics and mindset is evidenced in everything they do, whether it is pricing carbon, opposing the NBN, dealing with cigarettes, pokies or refugees.

A regular dude

Apr 24

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Economics, Zombie Plans | Comments off

You gotta love it when Krugman quotes David Bowie songs, and has intimate knowledge on zombies. Like making sure you use the double-tap.

An honest discussion on tax

Apr 19

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, Economics, International, Politics | Comments off

Tax, as it is said, is the price we pay for civilisation. So as we begin the shouting, gnashing of teeth and get deluged with millions of dollars in advertising over whether a carbon tax here in Australia is going to destroy our economy or not, it would be nice to have an honest conversation for a change. I found a little bit of that honesty when I was reading Paul Krugman again the other day, between the lines of the point he was trying to make.

The graph in the Professor’s post shows overall government revenues as a percent of GDP for a number of countries, as below:
Screen shot 2011-04-19 at 3.21.49 PM
The key point that he was trying to make is what a low-tax country the USA is, in comparison to all the current demonising of all government and taxes that the right is trying to do there again. But the point it made to me is not the red bar for the USA, but the one below it. See, the truth is that Australia, even with our single-payer health system, uniform funding for schools out of general revenue (not property tax), and generally more social welfare than in the USA, actually do it all for less money than the USA on a normalised basis. Now how does that work?

Well, I haven’t finished my research yet, but I have a big feeling that the first big difference has to be that we don’t lie to ourselves as much. See, Americans have a great constitution, and a bill of rights, and pretty universal voting rights. But they got all those things long ago and haven’t really used them much since, that I think they have become complacent and still believe they have a functioning democracy. The truth is, the political system and public discourse through media in the US are so dominated by moneyed interests, that they virtually never have an honest conversation about serious issues like the role of government and what it costs (tax). Ever since I remember first having a political discussion in relation to the presidential primary between Bush I and Reagan, I have heard continually in virtually every discussion about the issue the fake truism that the US is taxed too highly. The discussion is pretty much always handled very simplistically and centres around rates. And it is easy to swing opinion to the side of the fake truism with the majority of people who draw a paycheck from an employer. They understand it: take your gross salary, multiply it by the rate and thats the tax the government gets from you. But what they don’t work through is the way most companies, and wealthy people do their tax with deductions, special tax subsidies, losses that can be carried forward and the different treatment of earned and unearned income. When you factor those things in that make up a huge portion of the US tax code, the result are absurdities such as those below as compiled by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT):
bernie-sanders-corporate-tax-4001
See, only suckers really pay the full 30% rate for corporations. The same is true for individuals paying tax, which is why the US can end up collecting so little revenue as a portion of GDP.

So, when I hear yesterday here in Australia that the government is now at 31% support, and that 60% of people now oppose a carbon tax, I wonder if we in Australia are also now buying into the sort of lies that have worked their “magic” in the USA. The truth is, we are also a very low tax country. The truth is that the carbon tax is going to have very little impact on the economy in Australia, and will also be made more fair to lower income households through the compensation already announced. We will even then still be able to afford to fund good things, and provide some relief to companies that are energy intensive and exposed to international trade.

And even though I generally support unions, if the unions here in Australia require that not one job be lost in order to address climate change, then its time for them to get honest with themselves as well. The truth is jobs digging up and burning the magic dirt have to go, and it won’t be a bad thing unless your only goal is to maintain the status quo.

At some point everyone needs to ask themselves, “What is my civilisation worth?”.

Tester and Baucus

Apr 7

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Good Ideas, Other Topics, Politics | Comments off

I got a letter from a US Senator and started a conversation with his staff today. Not my Senator of course, as that would technically speaking be the either of the two Senators mentioned in the title. But he is a solid guy with good principles he believes in, so always respond to him. My guys never seem to change their behaviour or address my specific concerns as a result my correspondence with them, so I will let loose on them here. Anyway, the Senator’s staff (because, you know, you are never really talking to a Senator unless you can touch them) wanted to know my thoughts on how do we bring down the deficit, based on his suggestions:

• End the exclusive tax breaks available only to millionaires and billionaires.
• End the subsidies for the highly-profitable oil and gas industries.
• Bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a responsible end.
• Get our economy back on track – by investing in education and clean energy technology, boosting manufacturing, and keeping families in their homes by fixing the broken housing market.

I responded to him in the positive, as his suggestions are all positive. A refreshing change. And I provided some positive suggestions of my own.

On taxes and corporate subsidies, let’s get back to capitalism and free-market taxation systems. A good business does not need the government to make it, or keep it healthy. So shame on you Exxon, GE, Bank of America, etc., etc., etc. for paying no tax. Businesses are inherently good things, a collection of people (primarily) and other resources for a common good well beyond themselves that make an economic system function. So where those entities are participating in the economic system providing stuff and requiring labour, fantastic. In fact, as entities, they should pay a lower tax rate than a human being. But not no tax at all. So the USA needs to have a serious discussion at some point about addressing ALL tax loopholes that are used by major corporations of ALL types to minimise their tax in a way that smells suspiciously like avoidance.

Then my main point was about the defence budget. The USA will never seriously deal with the national debt if it maintains a military budget that is larger than all other militaries combined. Even at half of the current spend it would still leave a US military that would still be larger than all non-NATO countries. Why the paranoia in the USA about security? Most the yanks I know are the most secure and free people I know on the earth today. Does the USA honestly need to maintain a military that can take on NATO after defeating its real enemies?

Honestly, you can live your principles and keep yourself a lot safer a lot cheaper than maintaining a huge military, and the associated industrial complex to support and feed off of it.

Now you are never going to get a reduction of half, so why not go for something reasonable, like 40%. I expect that a serious discussion/fight over the subject could result in something like a reduction of 25% in the short term, with a ramp down to whatever is reasonable in the future (what, 50% at all times not going to make you feel good enough to sleep at night?). That is still a win as there will be a cut of $225 billion (all military, but not including the black ops budget). How about that for a debt and corresponding interest payment reduction? See, that’s what Americans mean when they tell you they want the government to treat its budget like a family budget. Reduce debt and interest when you can responsibly. But, perhaps it wouldn’t be responsible in the short term to use all that savings to pay off debt today. Perhaps there are some things the USA should move to spend money on in the Senator’s last point that may need to take priority over debt reduction. That $225 billion is supporting a lot of jobs, and the USA will need to shift, retrain and retire a lot of people. Or leave them to their own devices as you tell them the war factories are closing, but that is also a topic for later discussion.

When seriously discussing other cuts, focus the rest of your priorities on the elimination of fraud, waste, redundancy and inefficiency, but realise the diminishing returns of finding these opportunities. Start from the basis that people are generally honest, and companies are by definition amoral.

And for fuck sake don’t go into those serious discussions and offer everything your adversaries want in negotiation straight away, ala the President. Honestly, I don’t know what he is thinking sometimes, and I don’t believe when he has used this tactic previously that it fits into any long term strategy he has to lose tactically but win strategically. If it did, we would be talking about the simple details of a single payer health care system instead of also talking about eliminating Medicare and Medicaid in the USA. You have to go into these fights strongly defending a position based on your principles and fight it out hard. I am much more interested in times such as these to support those that fight the good fight to the end, even if they lose.

Aren’t you?

The funny thing is, it really will be a buck-o-five

Apr 5

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, Economics, Politics | Comments off

OK, its time for a bit more math, but basically the amount required is pretty much going to be about $1.05. Here’s the facts for you to work with.

The Australian Department of the Treasury has announced that before assistance costs that will trickle down through all the sectors of the economy will cost the average household in Australia (worst case) $860 a year, assuming carbon costs $30/ton in tax.

Using my previous estimates of total emissions upon which the tax is payable results in a massive $10 billion of revenue for the government, and more than cover a compensation program to reduce the $860 a year to pretty much any amount you want, as well as fund appropriate research and investment into long term renewables.

But to be honest, it doesn’t have to be a program that big. Let’s say, for instance, that we set the price not at my previous lowball $15/ton, but rather split the difference between that amount and this whopping big program, and go with a price of $23/ton. This price is relatively familiar to those that have been trading in international carbon markets for the last few years, so it seems like a good balance.

OK, so we raise $7.67 billion in carbon tax at $23/ton, and fund all the good programs I identified previously with about 2/3rds of the money ($5.26 billion) and return the rest ($2.41 billion) to the 8.75 million households in Australia on monthly basis resulting in a net cost to them of $383.25 a year, or $1.05 a day.

And if you won’t kick in $1.05, who will?

I mean, if you have seen the movie reference here, and know the social commentary in it, you will see what a accurately portrayed view of our pathetic existence it is, rather than a near perfect parody using puppets. I believe we will really prove this point, and have a ready made theme song to go with it (on a slightly different theme), and still we won’t be able to get the common user to kick in a buck-o-five to solve a problem when it is almost too late. Frankly, we deserve zombies.

However, on an up note, finally, I am glad to see dolt* get the treatment he deserves on the ABC from Jonathan Holmes, and I am glad I am not the only one that thinks dolt’s bullying should be stood up to. His strawman argument of the cost to Australia versus the actual reduction in temperature that will be seen immediately is as offensive as his views on aboriginals that is currently on trial in Victoria.

* – see, he is already diminishing in importance and doesn’t even rate capitalisation. He’s just another anonymous dolt.

Most days . . .

Mar 18

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Other Topics, Politics | Comments off

. . . its Dilbert that gets it right for me. But today the non-sequitur is spot on.
Screen shot 2011-03-18 at 8.12.50 AM

OK, I am starting to have some questions of my own

Mar 17

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Economics, Good Ideas, International, Other Topics, Science | Comments off

No news may be good news for a bit, but after a while if there is no news (information) you start to wonder if people are keeping bad things from you. Certainly that is what the Japanese people are expressing on TV and with their feet as they start to proactively evacuate totally. TEPCO does not have a great record about being open and forthright in it communications about incidents. The ominous sign is the still the evacuation of the plants, with only 50 staff remaining, where 1000 once worked, and perhaps this is why the people in Tokyo who can are voting with their feet.

Yesterday, US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu (a real smart guy with tons of credibility) told Congress: “If workers have to be permanently evacuated from the site it is unclear if the damage can be effectively contained.” Unfortunately, that is true. I know that if I was managing an emergency situation at an industrial facility during a persistent fire and chemical spill, I would need a lot more than 50 guys to regain control of the situation.

So, significant questions need to be directly asked by journalists now. The first has got to be cooling. What precisely are they doing with the cores of these three reactors? Do all three have a continuous flow of water, what is the temperature down to at present, and are they ensuring capacity and supply of coolant in redundant forms yet on each reactor. Is #4 at cold shutdown? The spent fuel rods in #4 reactor building have also clearly lost their cooling bath, as fires re-ignite there daily, and steam is almost always coming out of the building. How much and how long were these spent fuel rods dry, what is their temperature at present, and are we supplying coolant flow to them yet?

Clearly, reactors that have triple redundant cooling systems that can lose pumping and liquid supply lines at every line of defence during earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis have got to go. I mean if they can build an earthquake proof container for a little patch of sun on earth, then surely we can build water-proof containment systems for our backup pumps, earthquake-proof piping as much as possible (segmenting in solid sections?, flexible connections?) and provide quick reconnection facilities on standby for re-establishing cooling, monitoring, and electrical and mechanical control?

And if we can’t make these plants catastrophe proof, then we can’t build more. Let’s completely convert over to electricity supply bridging only with gas and fuel we can grow (but not eat) on the way to solar, wind, wave, geothermal (I mean fuck, the world ain’t running out of that on the ring of fire) as fast as possible, regardless of the cost. And I don’t say that lightly. I don’t mean regardless of the cost, so let’s let the big corporations rip off the whole program of conversion over to renewables, and control the energy game at the end of the transition.

I mean that whatever it costs to convert over to renewables on a macroeconomic scale, let’s pay it, and the sooner the better. You need research money to finish up the conversion of a useful scientific invention into a renewable power source at the home or industrial level? You got it. You need capital to take your electric plant off coal and onto gas? Here’s a low interest loan. Are you a massive power user (steel) that if given enough capital at low cost could become a power producer, and make your business carbon-proof from dirty international competition? I’ve got some cash for you too. However, each of you had better spend the money on what you said you will, and stay out of corruption and theft with my money, because I will be watching. In fact, your project accountant will actually be employed by me. Work for you, take all instructions from you, but I pay the salary, and get monthly reports form him/her. That’s all the oversight I need.

But there is a decision to be made, and it is as old as democracy itself. What is government’s role? Because only government’s (and maybe Warren Buffett) have the money and credit to accomplish a massive conversion to renewables. If you don’t want to do that, by doing the kind of things I outline above, then I guess we have to head back to find out if there is anything more I can do to make the nuclear plants safe from incident, and the waste safe for eternity.

And finally, I have a long-term question. As time goes on, I am wondering if there is no way to catalyse chemically a nuclear reaction, and is there such a thing as an intrinsically safe nuclear reactor?

Update on yesterday

Mar 15

Posted by Sgt Hulka in International, Other Topics, Science | Comments off

As this drama still plays out in Japan, I have continued to do research on the subject, and the information available from actual experts supports the facts presented by me yesterday. The IAEA provides more support for what I provided.

That the nuclear incident is still occurring, and not abating as yet also supports my evaluation on what a complete loser Dolt is.

The final update I want to make is that it is highly inappropriate to compare this incident to the incident at Chernobyl. They are completely different reactor designs, have completely different containment systems and were managed completely differently. So it will be very seldom when a comparison to Chernobyl will be appropriate to the situation in Japan.

In the washup of all this, we may decide to reduce or eliminate the use of nuclear power worldwide. But let’s do it on a reasoned evaluation of the facts, and not emotionally.