Monday, 29 November 2010

Brash on the Key Government -- “deeply worried”

Former National Party leader Don Brash has finally broken his silence over the lacklustre  performance of his successor.

Delivering his speech at Orewa, the place at which he famously delivered the speeches that turned around the fortunes of the National Party after Bill English's dismal leadership, Brash described himself as "deeply worried" by the direction, or lack thereof, being taken by this National-led Government—especially over its economic management, and its pandering to a racist political party.

The National Party’s “constitution emphasises some fundamental values” that this National-led Government has lose sight of – “respect for individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility, equal citizenship and equal opportunity, and limited government.” In losing sight of them, he is worried it is simply occupying office rather than reversing the country’s decline.

_Quote Some of my worries are quite specific.
    I worry that, despite knowing that the Labour Government’s abolition of the youth minimum wage has very substantially increased youth unemployment – by 12,000 according to Canterbury University economics professor
Eric Crampton – we have taken no action..
    I worry that, despite knowing that New Zealanders face house prices which are higher, relative to our incomes, than in most other countries, and despite our being one of the least densely populated countries in the world, we have allowed that situation to continue because we’ve not been willing to put a stop to zoning laws which drive up the cost of urban land to ridiculous levels…
    I worry that, despite telling New Zealanders before the election that we should be fast followers and not leaders in the race to reduce carbon emissions, we have introduced an all-sectors Emissions Trading Scheme in a situation where none of our three largest trading partners – Australia, China, and the United States – has yet done so, nor in two of those cases seems likely to do so.
    I worry that, despite being a party which believes in allowing people the maximum freedom to make choices for themselves, we have to date done nothing to allow more freedom for parents to choose the school their children attend.

Rather than freedom for parents, Anne Tolley’s only thrust as minister is to increase the control of the ministry over schools.

_QuoteThose are some of my specific worries. But I have two more pervasive worries.

They are the economy, and race relations.

On the economy, he says “New Zealand’s relative economic decline over the last half century is one of the steepest on record anywhere. Reversing that decline won’t be easy.” Particularly if, as he says, there is no sign the Key Government even wants to.

_QuoteThere are six broad policy areas where major change is needed if we’re to get faster and more sustainable growth.
    First, it is absolutely imperative that Government gets its fiscal deficit under control quickly… But it’s important to state that this process has barely begun…

… which is to state  things mildly indeed.

_QuoteSecond, we urgently need to get the tax on business income down…
    Third, … “privatisation” has become a dirty word in New Zealand, thanks to Helen Clark’s propaganda … But the New Zealand paranoia about privatisation is entirely unhelpful if we’re to increase our growth rate…

There is no serious argument against privatisation, and as the Labour Party quietly announced last week while the media were looking elsewhere, even their paranoia against it is being reconsidered. But Brash maintains it’s up to the National Party to roll pack the paranoia, and to

_Quoteto be at the forefront of challenging why the state should be:

    • The biggest owner of dairy farms in New Zealand;
    • The biggest fund managers in New Zealand;
    • The 50% owner of a large chain of petrol stations;
    • By far the biggest owner of rental properties;
    • The dominant generator of electricity;
    • The dominant owner of our trains and planes;
    • The owner of our most aggressively growing bank.

And reason why it should be? Because listed like that, you realise just how pervasive are government-run “businesses” in what is reverting to the Polish shipyard we gave up twenty-five years ago.

_Quote“The assets owned by central and local government are now some six times the value of all the shares on the New Zealand stock exchange,”

notes Brash, with more to come when taxpayers are forced to fund government broadband—and the decisions on the use of those assets are no better now than they were when Muldoon was squandering enormous sums on “Think Big,” and Michael Cullen was spending money we couldn’t afford to buy a railway that barely exists.

_QuoteFifth, we need to reduce the huge burden of regulation which still encumbers the business sector – and indeed, encumbers us all as individuals. Why should it take months and months to get a simple building consent to build a modest home in a residential area? Why should it take two years to gain approval to set up a 30-child childcare centre? …  The Resource Management Act and the way in which local councils interpret it have a lot to answer for.
    People need to be much freer to use their own property as they see fit. Yes, there are public interest issues – pollution, effects on neighbours, and so on – but they don’t include some council’s judgement about “sustainability”, or fit with a bureaucratically imposed “spatial plan.”

But instead of freeing up New Zealanders from the control imposed by the Resource Management Act,  all the Key Government has done is to free up the government  from its constraints, and to give those bureaucrats more power in Auckland.

_QuoteAnd sixth, we must explain to the public why foreign direct investment in New Zealand is almost always beneficial to New Zealand.

Xenophobia must be expunged from decision-making, just as racism must be expunged from politics. This was Brash’s second substantial point.

_QuoteNational campaigned in at least the last three elections on the principle that all New Zealanders are equal before the law.

Now, however, it has reversed that—supporting special treatment for one race in law, and supporting a racist political party in Parliament.

Brash makes good points on every one of these issues, but it’s at this stage that he now missteps, giving tacit support to the ACT Party’s bizarre campaign to effect the permanent nationalisation of foreshore and seabed.

Unfortunately, this shows he’s learned nothing in the five years since he campaigned himself to nationalise foreshore and seabed. And unfortunately, this is what will be most reported about his speech, and in that reporting will undercut every good thing he did have to say. Because he is right to conclude that

_Quoteour great country is perhaps more at risk today than at any time since the Second World War. I believe it’s safe to say that our relative decline – both in terms of our economy and in terms of racial harmony – will never be reversed if our political leaders allow themselves to be driven entirely by political polls…
    Winston Churchill once recalled the time he heard a speaker say that leaders ought to “keep their ears to the ground”. Churchill’s response was typical and as relevant in New Zealand today as it was in the United Kingdom 60 years ago. “All I can say,” he responded, “is that the British nation will find it hard to look up to leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.”

Friday, 26 November 2010

A Thanksgiving Day lesson in political philosophy

_jeffrey-perren Guest Post by Jeff Perren.

Possibly you've read the story of how the Jamestown pilgrims nearly starved their first two years in America, and what saved them. In 1620, half the population of the Plymouth Colony died during its first harsh winter. The second half was close do doing so but...
_Quote the fall of 1623 marked the end of Plymouth’s debilitating food shortages.
For the last two planting seasons, the Pilgrims had grown crops communally – the approach first used at Jamestown and other English settlements. But as the disastrous harvest of the previous fall had shown, something drastic needed to be done to increase the annual yield.
In April, [William] Bradford [leader of the colony] had decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate, with the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew. The change in attitude was stunning. Families were now willing to work much harder than they had ever worked before.
In previous years, the men had tended the fields while the women tended the children at home. “The women now went willingly into the field,” Bradford wrote, “and took their little ones with them to set corn.” The Pilgrims had stumbled on the power of capitalism. Although the fortunes of the colony still teetered precariously in the years ahead, the inhabitants never again starved.
It's only one data point, but a characteristic one. The pattern has been repeated countless times in dozens of countries over centuries now. Yet, almost 400 years later, we're still debating Progressives about the practicality of Capitalism vs [Communism/Socialism/Social Democracy/You-name-it-ism].

Clearly, economic facts alone are not going to decide the issue. Progressives are immune. Time to ramp up the moral crusade. Time to declare that even if, contrary to all history, Paul PoorGuy winds up much poorer than Peter Privileged, it's still wrong to force Peter to support Paul.

When we start to make progress on that front, I'll be truly thankful.

[Hat tip: Daniel Griswold of Cato for the selection from "Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathanial Philbrick."]

“..a producer’s holiday.”

No, it’s not Thanksgiving in New Zealand, but since America is on holiday most of the internet is quiet.

It’s a holiday with a decent message:

[Thanksgiving] is a producers’ holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production.

A useful reminder in an age when virtually every country of former producers is now drowning in debt it can’t pay for to fund  consumption it can’t afford.

The whole world has to re-learn the lesson America’s first pilgrims on the shores of New England had to either learn or die—a lesson that took them From "Starving Time" to Cornucopia.

And in a week that proved to be one of New Zealand’s most tragic, it might be a good time—today—to pause and just quietly give thanks ourselves to the existence of everything human beings have produced that makes  our lives worth living. We do have much to be thankful for, not least that we live in a time when the death of 29 people is a tragedy, the result of a terrible accident, when for most of human history such an event was almost a regular occurrence.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

Nimrod – Edward Elgar

We went to a great concert by the APO tonight. Brilliant orchestra. They dedicated their performance of this piece to the fallen miners of Pike River.

NOT PJ: Snake Oil

_BernardDarnton This week, Bernard Darnton cuddles an orangutan.

In 2002 the hills of South Wales were redolent with the fragrant vapours of something … chippy. Farmers had discovered that their Land Rovers worked perfectly well on throwaway vegetable oil. They’d also discovered that Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise weren’t collecting fuel tax at the local fish and chip shop. They were just a few years ahead of their time.

Christchurch is currently suffering a plague of rickety old buses plastered with advertisements explaining that we were supposed to get new buses but there was a an earthquake and blah, blah, but the new ones are coming and they’ll be all shiny and run on biodiesel.

Biodiesel is now big business - if by “business” you mean “heavily subsidised fad”. Whereas inventive Welsh motorists saved a small fortune in excise duty with their do-it-yourself tax cuts, in the government’s hands biodiesel had become an expensive boondoggle.

The 2009 budget contained a $36 million subsidy for manufacturing biodiesel, most of which the government will give back to itself in the form of payments to state owned Solid Energy’s Biodiesel NZ division.

Luckily this is outweighed by Solid Energy’s $68 million annual profit from its real business. As a state owned enterprise, the company is required to behave like a proper business and so it can’t invest its own profits in biodiesel because that would be a reckless waste of money. Hence the money-go-round.

New Zealand already has some experience with biodiesel powered vehicles. Earthrace was built in Auckland to showcase eco-friendly technologies and claim a world record for circumnavigating the globe.

After many mechanical difficulties and the killing of a Guatemalan fisherman, Earthrace managed the round trip in sixty-one days, a day slower than the fastest circumnavigation by a nuclear submarine (with no carbon emissions) and ten days slower than the fastest trip by a sailing ship (with no carbon emissions).

Physicist David MacKay (incidentally chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change) has noted that Earthrace consumed four times as much fuel per passenger-mile as the QE2, that paragon of environmental ascetism.

With the ignoble exception of Earthrace, which was briefly powered on Pete Bethune’s liposucked arse fat, New Zealand biodiesel is made from canola. Around the world biodiesel is made from many kinds of vegetable oils but they all amount to one thing: burning food.

Between biodiesel and ethanol production for fuel, five percent of the world’s food is now burnt for fuel. In 2008, diversion of food into fuel programmes combined with an Australian drought to push prices up to the point where there were riots in several countries.

In general, however, food production is keeping pace with the world’s population. While environmentalists whined about overpopulation and mass starvation, technology and capitalism got on with the job of feeding everyone. Only the meddlers and do-gooders can bugger it up. Making a bet that we’re all going to starve and then passing laws requiring us to set fire to the grain reserves is just not cricket.

If we want to feed everyone - and it would be unkind not to - then land for growing biofuels has to come from somewhere else. And the only other places that are really good at growing stuff and that aren’t already covered in food are forests.

Conversion of tropical forests into palm oil plantations for biodiesel is already happening in Malaysia and Indonesia. And, in a tragic greenie-on-greenie scrap, that “sustainable” fuel production can only occur by destroying the habitat of orangutans.

So here’s the question: if you’re going to drive an empty bus round and round in circles from one shopping mall to an identical other, should it be powered by burning the remains of animals that died 300 million years ago ,or by burning orangutans today?

* * Bernard Darnton ‘s NOT PJ column appears here at NOT PC every Thursday. * *

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: The death cults of Islam and Environmentalism

_richardmcgrath Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath ransacks the newspapers for stories and headlines on issues affecting our freedom.

This week:    Islam and Environmentalism - Cults of Death

  • NZ HERALD: “Pike River disaster: The day hope endedA second explosion ends all reasonable hope of rescuing the trapped coal miners on the West Coast…

    THE DOCTOR SAYS: As I sat yesterday afternoon digesting the sad news, I remarked to a workmate how open-cast mining didn’t seem so bad after all. Well, blow me down (no pun intended) if SOLO spokesman Mark Hubbard didn’t beat me getting these thoughts into print with a press release (reprinted in the post below) pointing out that much of the blame must rest with the anti-industrial (a.k.a. ‘environmentalist’) lobby, who oppose open-cast mining in favour of protecting mud puddles and mosquitoes. As Mark put it:
                “So, why was Pike River not an open cast mine? Answer: the bureaucrats in DOC who    
            place a higher value on a
    tree, than on humanity, and certainly an individual human

  • NZ HERALD: “Gruesome abuse case sparks cry for migrant protectionA 23 year-old Indonesian woman working as a maid in the bosom of Islam has her lip cut with scissors, her back scalded with a hot iron, her finger broken and her legs pummelled. Allah be praised…

    THE DOCTOR SAYS: Really, what can a Muslim woman expect if she chooses to work in the country that is the spiritual homeland of a religion that is intensely anti-female, and in all respects a cult of death? This poor woman is still alive, however, which is more than can be said for another Indonesian maid who, as the article tells us, was tortured to death by her Saudi employer then dumped in a rubbish skip.
        At least the Indonesian press are so disgusted they have featured the story of Sumiati, the disfigured young woman, in the newspapers and on television, every day for the past week.

  • NZ HERALD: “ACT campaign against foreshore bill costing National votesACT is sending out flyers in protest at National’s attempt to privatise ownership of the foreshore and seabed…

    THE DOCTORS SAYS: The ACT Party has done a complete about-face, trashing its principles and openly opposing the concepts of privatisation and private property.
        The Libertarianz Party, on the other hand, upholds both. We understand that land tends to be better maintained - and more productively used - if it is owned by actual flesh and blood humans (or co-operatives thereof) rather than the Marxist abstract entity misleadingly labelled ‘The People.’
         It must be gut-wrenching for any ACT member that truly believes in freedom and free-market values to see their deputy leader John Boscawen write this:
                “[It] seems only a matter of time before nationalised resources - oil, gold, silver,
            uranium - are denationalised, which could see some of the benefits of those resources in
            the foreshore and seabed go into private iwi hands rather than to Government coffers…”
    This makes it clear beyond words that today’s ACT Party believes in the nationalisation of land and all associated minerals and resources, doesn’t it.
        Perhaps it should now merge with what’s left of the Alliance.

  • NZ HERALD: “Grower tariffs rise to $235m – Our fruit and vege exporters paid a tariff of $34k each, on average…

    THE DOCTOR SAYS: All the more reason why governments should keep their noses out of peaceful international trade and stop imposing tariffs that make our exports more expensive for people overseas.
         Instead of passing taxpayer money to corrupt foreign governments, John Key’s administration should concentrate on pursuing free trade agreements with as many countries as possible – before trimming back the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the bone, or even abolishing it altogether.

  • NZ HERALD: “Lame duck PM loses support but drafts new budget Irish PM outlines a budget to slash billions of euros from state spending over the next four years…

    THE DOCTOR SAYS: Heard the one about the Irish turkey? He’s looking forward to Christmas.
        Seriously though, Ireland is now experiencing the economic reality that the Greek government has had to confront, and that the governments of Portugal, Spain, Britain and other European countries will shortly be forced to address: You can’t keep spending money you don’t have. Especially when you don’t actually produce any wealth, you merely take from others.
        I’ve always found it mildly amusing that the media talk of the imposition of ‘austerity’ measures’ when governments find themselves going broke. Others would, with infinitely more accuracy, describe it as ‘living within your means,’ ‘balancing the budget,’ ‘paying off debt,’ or even ‘not consigning future generations to debt slavery.’

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny - when the
government fears the people, there is liberty.”
- attributed to Thomas Jefferson

GUEST POST: Why Wasn't Pike River Mine Open Cast? [update 3]

_MarkHubbard Mark Hubbard says* what many of us are thinking about the tragedy at Pike River.

I feel empathy for the family and friends who the perished miners leave behind.. I do not feel grief though, for the same reason I feel no personal grief for the millions of young men who died in the last two world wars: I knew none of them personally, as I knew none of these men. There have been far too many plastic tears in the reporting of this disaster…

Many involved acquitted themselves well—one man especially for whom I have acquired enormous respect: that man is Peter Whittall. It’s no accident this great man has risen from miner to CEO. If you want a case study in competence, communication and simply being ‘human,’ then use Mr Whittall as your example. His bearing in the media exudes a morality and sensibility of man qua man.

And despite the flak they’ve taken, I also think the police acquitted themselves well—and as Lindsay Perigo observes, the second explosion has shown their prudence was well-founded.

But for me the police made one error. I think Stephen Franks was right. If I am a free man, then that includes the freedom to die nobly, or stupidly (take your pick)… If men wanted to go into this mine to rescue their loved ones, as irrational and ill-advised as that would have been (and presuming that would not itself risk a second explosion), that was still their prerogative. If the police did physically stop this (some comments from the grieving relatives would indicate this, but it is merely supposition on my behalf), then the police were beyond the mandate a free society should have given them.

These are hard questions emotionally, but they are also very simple…

So to the even simpler issue of where my anger truly lies.

Open-Cast This mine increased the standards of living of us all via the mechanism of free markets and wealth creation. So should it exist? Yes. Of course. The mine however was known in the industry for being ‘gassy’: that is, the coal seam released a lot of methane as it was mined, which is dangerous, despite its being a 'wet mine': this fact caused problems and cost overruns throughout its development, especially around the ventilation system (cost overrun $7 million just on that). Was there a way to reduce the danger of a ‘gassy’ mine to the workers who took out the coal? Yes – an open-cast mine would have held none of the risks of this mine, for the methane would have dissipated immediately without enclosed spaces in which to build up.

So, why was Pike River not an open-cast mine? Answer: the bureaucrats in DOC who place a higher value on a tree, than on human beings, insisted it couldn’t be.

It is significant that DOC have felt needed to put out their own press release they disclaiming any responsibility. But their very own press release damns every bureaucrat involved:

_Quote_Idiot Environmental concerns did not compromise safety at the Pike River mine, Conservation Department director-general Al Morrison says. "We set stringent conditions and they met them to the extent that we gave them a conservation award."  [Emphasis mine.]


_Quote_Idiot"The Pike River mine had to navigate sensitive environmental challenges above the ground, as well as difficult geology below … The company has an access agreement with DOC. Once mining has finished, all evidence of the project has to be removed, such as buildings, bridges and powerlines. Pike River Coal has spent millions of dollars to meet environmental guidelines. It recycles water, has kept its surface features to a minimum and has zig-zagged powerlines and roads around ancient rimu trees."  [Emphasis mine.]

And, the truly damning part:

_Quote_Idiot"New Zealand has an opportunity to be a world leader in developing `green mines'. Our mine at Pike River proves that it can be done. It was likely any new mines would be underground. In such cases the surface impact is small, the infrastructure is removed at the end of mining and the small areas affected are restored. On the small areas affected, trees grow back."  [Emphasis mine.]

Well now we know what a green mine does: it kills humans.

Killers So, under DOC’s watch, under the Gaia-worshipping eyes of the bureaucrats, open-cast mines will never occur in NZ, and they weren’t even an option for Pike River. Yet if Pike River had been an open-cast mine, all 29 of these miners would still be alive.

That’s where your real anger should be directed, and that’s what any “inquiry” should skewer.

* * * *

* Excerpted, and cleaned up slightly from his SOLO press release this morning.

UPDATE 1: UPDATE: You can donate to the Mayoral Relief Fund for the families of the victims at Give A Little.  [Hat tip Kiwiblog]

UPDATE 2: Here’s a very helpful science blog posting on the intrinsic dangers of coal mining, where explosions are always waiting to happen [hat tip Moira Fraser]:

UPDATE 3: Chris Trotter (yes, Chris Trotter) pays beautiful poetic tribute to the twenty-nine

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

‘Isle of the Dead,’ by Arnold Bocklin


The Isle of the Dead, 1880,
Oil on canvas, Kunstmuseum, Basel

As good as gold? Or as bad as paper [updated]

"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes
of mankind, none has been more effective than that
which deludes them with paper money."
                   - Daniel Webster

I’ve bagged Bernard Hickey mercilessly (and deservedly) for his calls for a return to Muldoonist mercantilism, but in truth there’s one thing about Bernard that has to be said: he at least realises that the present monetary system is broken. He realises that we are living not just through global financial and economic crisis, but (more accurately) a monetary crisis. He realises, more perhaps than many of the other status-quo merchants, that the way the present system is set up makes it both unsustainable and destructive. Sadly, however, he is as incapable of proposing any solution to the crisis beyond reversion to many of the statist band-aids that helped cause it.

Developed in crisis and destined to die in another one, let’s join him at least in agreeing that the present system is broken, just like all the other systems of the last century from which it grew. But let’s disagree with him in saying that the only solution is his reversion to currency nationalism and the breakup of world trade. The solution, I suggest, is to revert to the system that built internationalism and world-wide prosperity just over a century ago.

The present system, which has lasted barely two decades, has been dubbed “The Great Moderation”: based on a model in which a government’s Central Bank Governor sets interest rates to maintain so-called price stability (while all around him booms and busts), it is a paper-based currency system built on organising ever-rising mountains of debt into ever-more ballooning quantities of currency.

From Europe to America, the system is clearly broken, not least here in New Zealand where (even when things were apparently running well) the new money entered the system as unsustainable debt, and the interest rates set to maintain domestic “price stability” set up a positive feedback loop punishing progress, rewarding stagnation, and (still) attracting the sort of hot foreign money to our shores that drives up our dollar’s exchange rate without making any real capital investment to compensate producers for the rises in their costs.

Hickey is right to criticise the present collapsing system; but he’s wrong to think that a few statist band-aids could, would, or should fix it. Like the few other commentators who’ve identified that things as they are now are indeed broken, he’s left floundering when it comes to what “new thing” to fix it all with.

And since ours is not the first monetary system to have collapsed, we’ve seen plenty of “new things” to fix the same old monetary problems over the last century—each of them purporting to be the way to wealth and riches (or, to use the words of John Maynard Keynes who was responsible for at least two of those systems, they way to effect “the miracle of turning stones into bread.”)

Consider, over the last century—ever since the First World War threw all the belligerents off their managed gold standards—there’s been fix after fix to the world’s monetary systems, each one lasting barely two decades before collapsing just like the latest system, taking in its wake the wealth, prosperity and hard-earned savings of everyone who trusted it.

Ever since gold coins were taken out of workers’ hands, we’ve seen a (mis-)managed bullion standard leading to explosive boom then catastrophic bust (1921 to 1933); worldwide competitive devaluations leading to monetary and military chaos  (1933 to 1946); the unsustainable Bretton Woods I, which collapsed in 1971 when the US defaulted on its gold obligations, and the world collapsed into a decade-and-a-half 0f stagflation;  and finally the “Great Moderation” of the last two decades which supposedly brought all the chaos under control.

Yeah right.

We’ve seen a century in which the world’s money has abandoned its links to gold, and has built instead a money that is built on debt, and lots of it; a century in which we’ve gone from a money that acted as anchor has been transformed to one that swings like a weather-vane; a century of chaos in which at least ninety-five percent of the value of every paper currency has  been destroyed—and people’s savings and prosperity with it.

Things certainly are broken.


Recognising the current catastrophe as just the latest monetary dissembling since the links to gold were dissolved, some folk are calling for a return to gold.

The present head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has begun to suggest that the world needs to think seriously about “readopting a modified global gold standard to guide currency movements.”  What he means by that, however, is a “gold exchange standard,” something like the one (mis-)managed earlier last century in which governments and central banks hold gold in ingot form, and let people see it on television occasionally just to keep them happy it’s still there.

Without any doubt at all, this will work no better than it did before—particularly since no debt-laden government on earth is interested in sound money at this time.

Meanwhile, Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf asks, “Could the World Go Back to a the Gold Standard?”

_Quote It is not hard to understand the attractions of a gold standard. Money is a social convention. The advantage of a link to gold (or some other commodity) is that the value of money would apparently be free from manipulation by the government. The aim, then, would be to ‘de-politicize’ money.

But Wolf musters more objections than praise for the system that leaves money free from political manipulation (objections which Richard Ebeling masterfully dismisses).

In response to calls like Zoelick’s and Wolf’s, there are folk like Edwin Vieira who call for a return to the sort of real gold-coin standard that underpinned the long-term prosperity of the late-nineteenth century, a standard that leaves gold coins in the pocket of workers—giving them the power to manage their own affairs that the governments took away.  [Hat tip Antal Fekete]

But their remains this recalcitrant rump of people who do know that the world’s money is broken, but who resist the call for its full de-politicisation. Much of that resistance is based on the love of the state, but much is based on just flat-out ignorance.

Consider this piece by Nouriel Roubini, for example, one of the few folk to warn in advance about the onset of the latest crisis. Here's Why a Gold Standard Won't Work , he says. Let’s fisk what he has to say.

…a gold standard would make central banks unable to fight inflation or deflation, much less do anything to combat persistent unemployment…

Since the central banks’ paper is itself (during the boom) the source of price inflation, and the centrally-managed fractional reserve system the source (during the bust) of monetary deflation, this seems a bizarre complaint to make about a gold standard, particularly when those charts above show the sort of real  price stability that gold anchored over centuries of growing prosperity. Furthermore, the world had never seen the levels of structural unemployment seen in the 20th and 21st centuries of debt-based monetary booms and busts.

A fixed exchange regime, even if it is not a gold standard…just exacerbates the business cycle. Roubini asks us to imagine two countries: One that's growing very quickly, and one that's growing very slowly. The economy that is growing quickly would tend to "overheat"—an economic phenomenon characterized by accelerated growth, inflation and the potential for asset bubbles. In the economy that is growing more slowly, there would be a tendency toward deflationary pressure and recession. So, instead of having a central bank with the capacity to successfully counter-balance these tendencies, an economy with a fixed exchange rate regime would continue to reinforce the existing negative trends in the business cycle…

This really is flat-out ignorance. In a gold-based system of stable exchange rates (stable, because all prices everywhere are determined in weights of gold) the higher priced, overheating economy with lower interest rates would tend to lose gold (lose it because more imports are bought, and because money will be seeking higher interest rates), giving the precise counter-cyclical pressures that are needed; whereas the more depressed economy with higher rates and falling costs will tend to attract gold and new investment. 

Instead of having a central bank which over the last century has always made things work, gold effects a naturally-equilibrating process which has been known about for centuries (at least since David Hume first explained it in the 1700s) and which worked to harmonise world trade over the period in which it flourished most successfully.

….fixed rate regimes inhibit the ability of banks to provide lender of last resort support to an economy when necessary….

But as the present bank bailouts demonstrate, the “lender of last resort” fallacy leaves the world trapped in a cycle where new debt is simply passed round and round in circles.  We need a mechanism to wind up failed banks, not to reward them while impoverishing ourselves.

Roubini raises the following question: If you are on a gold standard, or modified gold standard, what do you do in the event of a bank run—if you don't have enough gold to fully back the currency? Roubini explains that most central banks in today's economy have far greater financial liabilities than gold in reserve. In fact, according to Roubini, in the case of most central banks today that ratio is about 40 or 50 to 1.
    Of course, many who support a gold standard would say that limiting the ability of central banks to increase their leverage would be a benefit of adopting the gold standard…

They certainly would. As Roubini must surely know (unless he’s simply being disingenous), virtually all of those arguing for a return to the classical gold standard have been in the van in calling for an end to the unstable fractional reserve system on which it was unfortunately based (and which still exists in the paper system, exacerbating the violent monetary inflations and deflations of boom and bust); and those who support a gold-coin standard like the one Vieira proposes insist that all central banks be kept away from gold as a matter of urgency, with those coins being put in the hands of workers, credit unions and private (non-leveraged) banks.

“We printed at once the notes, large and small,
Tens, twenties, fifties, hundreds and all,
You can't imagine how it pleased the folk, short and tall!”

- Goethe, Faust (Part II, Act I)

Of course, the major objection to the reintroduction of any gold standard is that it would take away the freedom of governments to “manage their own affairs,” by which is meant it would impose on them a fiscal discipline that would make impossible governments’ rampant profligacy, their inflationary electioneering, their multiplication of the welfare-warfare state, and the creation of all that paper-based “sovereign debt” in which the world, from Ireland to Sacramento, is now drowning.

It should be understood (and this is probably the most important lesson to take from all this) that far from being something about gold to decry, this discipline that it imposes on governments is in fact one of gold’s primary virtues.

UPDATE: The government thinks they own our money. George Reisman explains it is otherwise.

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

So much for honest government

Was the government changed at all at the last election?

You wouldn’t think so.

  • Nanny is still with us.
  • Her anti-smacking law is still with us.
  • Aside from making it easier for the govt to bulldoze houses and factories, the Resource Management Act is fundamentally unchanged.
  • Council rate rises continue to rise, even as their borrowings to fund their spending increases accelerate.
  • The global warming/emissions trading scam continues.
  • Our substance is still eaten out by KiwiRail and KiwiBank, KiwiSaver and Welfare for Working Families, by bureaucrats and central bankers, by the IRD and ACC -- and by politicians whose snouts are in the trough with an arrogance and sense of “entitlement” that normally takes three terms to develop, not just one.
  • And in the face of the biggest economic crisis in seventy years we have a Finance Minister who can talk only about “sharp edges” and “green shoots” “rebalancing,” and between times acts in a manner that makes a deer in the headlights look purposeful.

So it’s all not good. Not good at all. 

And then yesterday it was reconfirmed, as it was was in September last year, and then again back in April this year, that the Electoral Finance Abomination is on its way back again, with just a few tweaks from Simon Power-Lust to pretend that all the campaigning and protesting and marching in the streets to oust Helen’s Electoral Finance Act really  meant something.

But it didn’t.

We marched to tear down Helen’s anti-democratic attack on free speech, only for you lot to vote in this lot to do the same themselves. To replace her Electoral Finance Abomination with their Electoral Finance Abomination-Lite. It includes:

  • a $300,000 spending limit on non-political parties running protest campaigns in the three “official” months of the election.
  • These “third party” protestors must register with the grey ones if they want to spend anything more than buying a classified ad in the Herald;
  • and include their names (and addreses?) on their ads and billboards.
  • "Anti-collusion" measures to really crack down on these jumped-up ne’er-do-wells with the temerity to criticise their betters.
  • More taxpayers’ money gifted to the big two parties to advertise themselves on television and radio to the effective exclusion of the smaller parties.

And of course Labour will support it all because it, too, wants to limit the political competition—any competition at all—from anyone outside the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber of The Big Two parties.

What a crock.

So much for all the pontificating blowhard National Socialist MPS who blew hard and long at rallies around the country about the iniquity of Helen’s Electoral Finance Abomination, only to introduce their own.

Just as they marched and blew hard and long at rallies around the country about the iniquity of Helen’s  ant-smacking law, only to support it themselves.

They are scum, scum, scum, from their back teeth to their bum.

Bernard Darnton said two-and-a-half years ago that he looked forward to seeing the back of Helen Clark, but did not look forward to seeing the front of John Key.

Two-and-a-half years on from exchanging one from another, the only visible difference is a smile and a wave and the endless repetition of the word “relaxed” while things fall to pieces around him.

But of any fundamental change, there is none. None at all.

Here’s a poster produced by Whale Oil based on those produced for the last free speech campaign. All it needs is some funding and a corner site somewhere.


So much for responsible government.

This big-spending government got a wake-up call this weekend, courtesy of the gimlet eye of the ratings agencies who are now scouring the world to find the next Ireland on the horizon—and with this government borrowing a quarter of a billion a week just to tread big-spending water, the New Zealand Government is now in their sights. The Wall Street Journal quotes

_Quote ANZ senior economist Khoon Goh, who says, the outlook revision suggests "Standard & Poors are more concerned about the state of the government's finances than initially thought."
    The net result is that the government will have to tighten its belt more than initially projected and try to return to surplus…

Sadly, it was apparent listening to Billy Bob English on Radio NZ this morning that it’s a wake-up call he’s too tied up in the status quo to take, and that his government is going to carry right on spending more than it has.

So much for responsible government.

The tower from space

It’s easy to forget, sometimes, what exciting times we live in.

Here, for example, is what the tallest structure ever built looks like from the highest resolution satellite in operation—surely an iconic image representing many magnificent human achievements we’ve already begun taking for granted.

GeoEye Picture and story from New Scientist magazine.

Pike River disaster

The thoughts of all involved with this blog are with the friends and families of the trapped Pike River miners.

At this stage, there’s not much more to be said—or that can be. So, pace Wittgenstein, we will remain silent.

Rodriguez House - Rudolph Schindler


A rare big-budget house for architect Rudolph Schindler, this 1930s Californian masterpiece can now be bought for around $3million.



Monday, 22 November 2010

Idiots guide to a public sector that produces no wealth

Producers produce. Governments consume. And so it has always been.

And if governments continue to grow as they have—consuming in the process their country’s substance—they’re going to bury everyone, consumers and producers alike, in the mountain of government debt that no-one can pay for except the very producers they’re killing off.

Martin Durkin shows how Britain reached this parlous state.

Don’t laugh. It’s all equally true for us, as well.

Government spending is not productive spending; what it spends it spends almost entirely on consumption. Explains George Reisman,

_Quote In the same sense as a housewife, the government is not a producer but a consumer, who is dependent upon producers.  All of its physical production, like hers, is in the last analysis a consumptive production. It is a production which cannot replace the means with which it began ...  a production which leaves the government poorer by the amount of funds it has expended.  In order to continue the activity, resort must be had to an external source of funds -- in the government's case, the taxpayers or the printing press.”

Government spending always has to be paid for.  Deficits even more so—

with interest.

And perhaps even worse than this ongoing consumption of our substance by the grey ones—and the widespread ignorance about the destructive process it represents—is the enormous number of bright, intelligent, resourceful individuals who, instead of working to produce things, head off to work every morning to sit behind a government desk writing reports on how the life of producers can be made more difficult.

And the tragedy is, they think their efforts are worthwhile.

Electile Dysfunction: ‘None of the Above’ Wins Mana By-election

Guest post by Dr Richard McGrath

Libertarianz Party leader Dr Richard McGrath said Saturday’s debacle in Mana was an embarrassing kick in the guts for the two main political parties, with only 55% of people judging any candidate worthy of their vote.
    He suggested that in any by-election where less than 50% of people vote, the seat should remain vacant until the next general election.
    “Kris Faafoi struggled to win the support of a quarter of eligible Mana voters. What sort of mandate is that?”
    “Our own candidate, Sean Fitzpatrick, took a pasting on Saturday, receiving 43 votes - despite a great effort on the campaign trail.”
    “But the big losers in this by-election are the Labour and BlueLabour candidates. On election night they were well beaten into the minor placings by ‘None of The Above’, which garnered an impressive 45% of votes.”
      “The people have spoken. ‘None of the Above should now take their seat in Parliament…”

Read more here.

Sunday, 21 November 2010

Conservatives Misread Lomborg's "Cool It"

Guest post by Jeff Perren

Several recent conservative commentaries offer a sympathetic review of Bjorn Lomborg's global warming documentary "Cool It."

These well-mannered gentlemen have been snookered.

According to the approving Spectator story, "Mr. Lomborg's thesis is straightforward: Global warming is real and humanity needs to do something about it."

PC has provided countless links pointing to data that radically undermine the scientific portion of that thesis. In the past ten years it's been exposed as incoherent, evidentially weak, and often supported by outright fraud.

The policy portion is even worse. The idea that "we" should do anything about the climate - beyond leaving individuals free to adapt to any changes that occur - is the fatal flaw in Dr. Lomborg's argument. No matter what we discover about the physics of the Earth, the politics of the world — not to mention human nature — make it clear that capitalism is the best cure... if there were any problem to solve.

Lomborg may be more skeptical and slightly less statist than many of his fellow Greens, but he still accepts their basic views. He's still committed to Comtean altruism, Roussean environmentalism, and garden-variety collectivism. He still touts a highly dubious hypothesis to justify them. Running around Africa crying over the poor doesn't change any of that.

Bjorn Lomborg is more dangerous than Al Gore precisely because he appears (and is) more moderate. Obvious con men like Gore expose their own racket before long. It's those who are more apparently reasonable - but still opposed to individualism and freedom - who do most of the damage today. Smiley-faced fascism is still fascist. Nanny may intend to be kind, but it's still unwise to give her $100 Billion of taxpayer funds and the power of the State in order to 'do good'.

Friday, 19 November 2010

General Debate

_Fekete I’ve just spent a fascinating week in the company of some wonderful people at Professor Antal Fekete’s Symposium on Sound Money (right), and now I’m heading off to Great Barrier Island for some R&R.

My thanks to Louis Boulanger and Professor Fekete for an outstanding and enthralling week.

While I’m away, why not treat this post as an  opportunity to debate whatever you want to, and raise whatever points you wish to.  Think of it as a managed commons.

What’s on your mind?

Thursday, 18 November 2010

Demeter & Persephone

Deméter_tipo_Madrid-Capitolio_(Museo_del_Prado)_01 Demeter was the Greek goddess of the harvest, and Persephone, her beautiful daughter, the goddess of the seasons (who Pluto famously “took to wife”).

In a pre-scientific culture intimately dependent on the vagaries of the harvest, where a bad crop could mean famine and death, the manner in which the gods or goddesses responsible for the life-giving harvest is personified tells you a lot about the culture.hades450

In most cultures, the god was a violent, unpredictable god requiring placation. (A personification in mythic form of the malevolent universe premise.) But in the Hellenic Greek culture, the life-giving divinities were depicted not as monsters or ogres with the arbitrary power of life or blod-curdling death, but as beautiful women who must be seduced—a a depiction in stone and ceramics of the sunlit, benevolent universe premise that would inform and eventually permeate the life-affirming pagan Greek philosophy to come.

And artists today still use the myths to tell a tale that Homer told


NOT PJ: The Todger Screening Administration [update 2]

_BernardDarnton This week, Bernard Darnton found some nudie pics on the Internet. They're of you.

The latest weapon against airborne terrorism is nudie pictures, with backscatter x-ray machines being installed at airports across America.
    Normal x-rays machines use radiation that passes through an object and can detect dense things like guns, femurs, and the various household objects that people waddle into A&E having “accidently” sat on.   
    Backscatter x-ray machines, however, measure reflected x-rays. While fabrics appear invisible the radiation is scattered by most other things, like guns, explosives, and penises.    The Fiqh Council of North America has issued a fatwa stating that the nudie-scope is un-Islamic for its violation of modesty. Save your breath guys. Strip searches without warrants or probable cause are un-American, too, but nobody’s listening.
    Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’” Those were simpler times. That statement has mutated into, “I’m from the government and I’m here to take photos of your cock.”
    All this is in response to the attempt to blow up a plane last Christmas by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a. “Smokin’” Umar, the underpants bomber. Abdulmutallab’s plot raised many questions, chief among them: How do you explain to the seventy-two virgins, who’ve been eagerly waiting for you their whole afterlives, that you’ve just blown your todger off?
    The second question was: What’s happened to al Qaeda? 9/11 was simple, ingenious, and devastating. The underpants plot was so bad it would’ve been rejected by ‘Allo ‘Allo.
    The third question was: What’s the dimmest knee-jerk reaction we can have to our hopeless security lapse?
After 9/11 the instant response was to ban anything sharper than an Oscar Wilde story from aircraft cabins. (In New Zealand the Aviation Security Service was formed so hastily that they forgot to check that it’s acronym wasn’t ASS.)
    After Richard Reid’s shoe bombs (again, WTF al Qaeda?) passengers had to remove their shoes at the security gate. Clearly, getting everyone to remove their pants for x-raying was too dumb even for the Department of Homeland Security so the nudie-scope it had to be.
    Passengers who don’t want to be photographed by the nudie-scope can opt out and have a good old-fashioned groping instead. As Ben Franklin once said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will end up getting its bollocks gripped by the government.”
    Protesters recommend the groping because it slows down the queue to the point of impracticality and requires the government flunky to molest you face-to-face (or hand to bollock as the case may be) in the hopes that this is embarrassing for him too. November 24th has been designated National Wear A Kilt To The Airport Day.
    What Ben Franklin actually said was, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” He is backed up by Rafi Sela, former head of security at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, a man who knows about fending off murderous nutters. He says that Israel hasn’t bothered with body scanning technology because the machines are “useless.” “I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747.”
    I assume he’s talking about the old cocaine smugglers’ trick. If the machine maps the outside of a passenger’s body in exquisite detail, carry the explosives on the inside. Come on al Qaeda - let’s see how big your arsenal really is.
   The truth is that all this remove-your-laptop-battery, take-off-your-shoes, drop-your-pants nonsense, known as “security theatre,” won’t stop terrorists but it will make life unpleasant for the rest of us. You are now assumed to be a criminal the moment you walk into an American airport.
    Security expert Bruce Schneier believes that security theatre does nothing to protect us. What he claims will protect us is intelligence gathering, understanding Islamic organisations, diligent police work, and having the sort of society where people don’t want to become terrorists.
    Notwithstanding the horror and drama of 9/11, bringing down an airliner won’t destroy our way of life. A hyperbolic and misguided response to the threat just might. It’s time American air travellers told their government to stop taking liberties.

* * Read Bernard Darnton’s NOT PJ column
here every Thursday, barring drinking accidents. * *

UPDATE 1: Lindsay Perigo offers a robust critique of the elephant in the Todger Screening room: It's the Muslims, Stoopid!.”

UPDATE 2: New #TSAslogans suggested on Twitter include:

  • "Remember -- if the government doesn't squeeze your nads, then the terrorists win!"
  • Former Sen. Larry Craig defends TSA: Says he really enjoys new pat down policy.
  • Molesting. It’s Not Just for Catholic Priests.
  • Bend over and take it like a man.
  • Please place your hats, shoes, and self respect in the bins.
  • We're the people ur mother warned u about.
  • You'll need more than 3oz of personal lotion by the time we get through with you.
  • If you want to fly, you can't be shy.
  • Don't ask, don't swell.

Pueblo Rivera Holiday Houses – Rudolph Schindler

EXTERIOR1 A series of twelve simple yet delightful holiday houses designed in the 1920s by Viennese architect Rudolph Schindler. EXTERIOR2

Simple one-bedroom houses with a sleeping porch above.pueblo1_thumb[2] And, yes, I did say “the 1920s.” That’s when the “look”  now so popular first saw the light of day, and  the architects who developed it then knew what they were about.


Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Ten centuries in five minutes

Here’s a great animated map showing Europe’s changing borders over the last millennia.  There’s nothing so impermanent as a border. Or an empire. [Hat tip Scott Powell]

HINT: Pause the video and drag the slider along manually to see it in all its glorious detail.

GUEST POST: Sustainability Isn’t Sustainable

Guest post by patent specialist Dale Halling

Sustainability is all the rage today.  What do we mean by sustainability?  There are numerous and conflicting definitions of what sustainability means.  However, most sources point to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), also known as the Brundtland Report.  
    According to the 1987 Brundtland Report, sustainability is:

_Quote_Idiot Meeting the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their needs.

This definition is not testable and is incredibly vague.  Let’s take the word “sustainable” literally.  A sustainable technology would be one that can be used indefinitely by humans without side effects and without any diminution in its effectiveness.  This definition violates the laws of physics.  Entropy is the second law of thermodynamics and is normally defined as the measure of the disorder of a system or a measure of the energy not available for work.  Entropy was discovered as part of thermodynamics and it explains that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.  Entropy always increases in a closed system.  Sustainability taken literally is an attempt to create a perpetual motion machine.
    Some of the key issues for the sustainability crowd revolve around so called non-renewable resources, such as the use of fossil fuels and the using up of other natural resources.  The way this is often phrased today is Peak Oil, Peak Water, Peak _____ (Pick Your Favorite Resource).  [For more of the same, see Peak Everything: Eight Things We are Running Out of and Why.[2]]
    Peak Oil (natural resource) allegedly occurs when the amount of oil that can be extracted reaches its maximum or the point at which we reach the maximum net energy output from oil.  The alternative definition takes into account that even if we can extract more oil, this is irrelevant if it takes more energy to extract the oil than we receive from the oil. 
    The supposed solution for our “Peak Oil problem” is to develop renewable energy resources.  The Clean Energy website provides the following definition:

_Quote_IdiotRenewable energy is natural energy which does not have a
limited supply.  Renewable energy can be used over and over
again, and will never run out.

    What is “natural” energy?  Either all energy is natural and comes from nature, or only animal muscle power is natural.  The “natural” qualification is complete nonsense – unless they really want us to go back to animal muscle only. 
    Moreover, the “never run out” qualification itself violates entropy.  All energy resources will run out eventually.All energy sources—fossil fuels, solar, hydroelectric, tidal, biomass, hydrothermal, fission, fusion, etc.—are at base solar, or at least stellar.**  And the Sun will not last forever and does not provide unlimited energy.  The concept of renewable energy that “will never run out” and “can be used over and over again” is fatuous nonsense.  It violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy.
    This concept of “peak resources” is not new.  For instance, the fertilizer crisis of the 19th century.  In 1830 it was discovered that guano was an excellent fertilizer.  Population exploded, as guano was used in Europe, because of the additional food that was produced because of this excellent fertilizer and mechanization.  The best sources of guano began to run out fairly quickly.  People predicted the equivalent of “Peak Guano.”  The question was not whether we would have “Peak Guano,” but Peak Fertilizer?  We did not have a guano problem we had an invention problem.  The Haber-Bosch process was invented in 1909, which allowed fixing nitrogen in air and solved the “Peak Guano” problem.[5]
And therein lies the lesson.
    Reason magazine’s article “Peak Everything?” discusses how logical, scientific projections showed we would run out of lithium, neodymium, and phosphorus.[6] “Peak lithium” was going to limit the batteries necessary for electric cars.  In fact, we would run out of lithium faster than we would run out of oil.  The solution is a new invention that replaces lithium with zinc air batteries.  Note that the solution was not a better way to extract lithium, but to make the supply of lithium irrelevant.  It is a paradigm shift created by a new invention. 
    Peak neodymium is going to limit our ability to build the electric motors of hybrid cars as well as other products.  Interestingly, neodymium magnets were invented to overcome the problem of peak cobalt.  In the area of permanent magnets, it appears that a new induction motor will eliminate the need for permanent magnets. 
    Peak phosphorus is a repeat of Peak Guano.  Peak phosphorous threatens our ability to provide enough fertilizer for our agricultural needs.  One solution, recognises that phosphorous is a product of human urine.  The phosphorous can be recycled using a no-mix toilet.
    The lesson should be obvious:

_Quote Paul Romer has observed, “Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding: possibilities do not merely add up; they multiply.”[7]

    The computer industry was also beset by predictions of impeding doom when it could no longer achieve Moore’s law of doubling the number of transistors every eighteen months.  Ray Kurzweil has shown that if you restate Moore’s law as computational power, every time a technology reaches its limit to improve computational power a new technology takes over.  Using this he shows that computational power has been growing exponentially since 1900.  The first computational devices were electromechanical.  When this reached their limit, they were replaced with relay devices, then these were replaced with vacuum tubes, then transistors, and then integrated circuits.[8]
Life is a fight against entropy.  The unique way humans overcome entropy is by inventing.  Inventing is the answer to “Peak Anything.”
    Inventions are not subject to diminishing returns or entropy.  Potential inventions grow factorially, which is much faster than diminishing returns from natural resources shrinks.  We do not have a natural resources problem, we have an invention problem. 
    The sustainability crowd are not pushing science, they are pushing a political slogan.  And in the process, by diverting resources from the most promising technologies to the most politically acceptable, they are actually inhibiting new technologies from being developed.

* * * *

** (Hydroelectric energy, for example is the result of the Sun heating the oceans or other large bodies of water.  As the water evaporates and then condenses in the form of rain or snow on land masses it is collected in dams.  The dams converted the gravitation force of the water into electric energy.  Fossil fuels are created by plants converting sunlight into biomass (including animals).  The biomass is trapped underground by sea sediment and the pressure and heat converts the biomass into oil, coal, natural gas, etc.[4] Fission is the process whereby heavy elements, generally Uranium, are split into lighter elements and energy is released.  These heavy elements were created in a star that has long since expired.  Thus, all energy is Solar or at least stellar.)

Dale Halling is an American patent attorney and entrepreneur, and the author of the book The Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws are Killing Innovation.
Read his regular thoughts at his
State of Innovation blog. This post, with all its references, originally appeared THere.