Harry, this is from tomorrow's paper. What do you think? How does it square with your other opinion? Also, why didn't you answer my question about the Infantry vs Air Power as a substitute metaphor to examine the economic metaphors of conservative and liberal. Two terms so loaded with garbage that I suggest we examine the principle and process as metaphor rather than get entangled in the history. What do you think? Should it be Infantry or Air Power?
REH March 28, 2003 Delusions of Power By PAUL KRUGMAN They considered themselves tough-minded realists, and regarded doubters as fuzzy-minded whiners. They silenced those who questioned their premises, even though the skeptics included many of the government's own analysts. They were supremely confident - and yet with shocking speed everything they had said was proved awesomely wrong. No, I'm not talking about the war; I'm talking about the energy task force that Dick Cheney led back in 2001. Yet there are some disturbing parallels. Right now, pundits are wondering how Mr. Cheney - who confidently predicted that our soldiers would be "greeted as liberators" - could have been so mistaken. But a devastating new report on the California energy crisis reminds us that Mr. Cheney has been equally confident, and equally wrong, about other issues. In spring 2001 the lights were going out all over California. There were blackouts and brownouts, and the price of electricity was soaring. The Cheney task force was convened in the midst of that crisis. It concluded, in brief, that the energy crisis was a long- term problem caused by meddling bureaucrats and pesky environmentalists, who weren't letting big companies do what needed to be done. The solution? Scrap environmental rules, and give the energy industry multibillion-dollar subsidies. Along the way, Mr. Cheney sneeringly dismissed energy conservation as a mere "sign of personal virtue" and scorned California officials who called for price controls, claiming that the crisis was being exacerbated by market manipulation. To be fair, Mr. Cheney's mocking attitude on that last point was shared by almost everyone in politics and the media - and yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right. For we now know that everything Mr. Cheney said was wrong. In fact, the California energy crisis had nothing to do with environmental restrictions, and a lot to do with market manipulation. In 2001 the evidence for manipulation was basically circumstantial. But now we have a new report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which until now has discounted claims of market manipulation. No more: the new report concludes that market manipulation was pervasive, and offers a mountain of direct evidence, including phone conversations, e-mail and memos. There's no longer any doubt: California's power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy companies to drive up prices and profits. Oh, and what ended the crisis? Key factors included energy conservation and price controls. Meanwhile, what happened to that long-run shortage of capacity, which required scrapping environmental rules and providing lots of corporate welfare? Within months after the Cheney report's release, stock analysts were downgrading energy companies because of a looming long-term capacity glut. In short, Mr. Cheney and his tough-minded realists were blowing smoke: their report described a fantasy world that bore no relation to reality. How did they get it so wrong? One answer is that Mr. Cheney made sure that his task force included only like-minded men: as far as we can tell, he didn't consult with anyone except energy executives. So the task force was subject to what military types call "incestuous amplification," defined by Jane's Defense Weekly as "a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation." Another answer is that Mr. Cheney basically drew his advice about how to end the energy crisis from the very companies creating the crisis, for fun and profit. But was he in on the joke? We may never know what really went on in the energy task force since the Bush administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep us from finding out. At first the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, which is supposed to act as an internal watchdog, seemed determined to pursue the matter. But after the midterm election, according to the newsletter The Hill, Congressional Republicans approached the agency's head and threatened to slash his budget unless he backed off. And therein lies the broader moral. In the last two years Mr. Cheney and other top officials have gotten it wrong again and again - on energy, on the economy, on the budget. But political muscle has insulated them from any adverse consequences. So they, and the country, don't learn from their mistakes - and the mistakes keep getting bigger. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:36 AM Subject: Re: Silk parachutes ( was Re: [Futurework] B52s overhead again last night > Ray, > > I blamed the governors - Republican Pete Wilson and Democratic Gray Davis > for failing to build any utilities while the population of California > increased 20%. > > However, the deregulation nonsense they encumbered us with was beyond > belief. They got the existing utilities to divest themselves of their power > plants, then did something even more stupid. They allowed the wholesale > price of electricity to float free, but fixed the prices at retail. When > wholesale prices rose, the local companies could not raise their prices to > pay for it. So, they began to go broke. > > As I recall, the local companies had to go to a room in Pasadena to get > their spot prices. It was a very dubious deregulation to say the least. > > Had retail prices been allowed to soar, electricity consumption would have > sunk and the source companies would have lost money, so they would have had > to lower prices to get to an optimum (and economic) supply. > > Davis hadn't finished. When supply prices reached their peak, he entered > into a long term contract. Then, prices inevitably began to drop - > seriously. But, California was stuck with the contracted high prices. Davis > has been trying to get out of the contract, I'm not sure with what success. > > Davis inherited a $12 billion dollar surplus that he successfully turned > into either a $25 billion or a $35 billion deficit (I've heard both, but > pessimistically assume it's the higher figure). Now he's cutting school > funding and suchlike. So, teachers are awaiting the pink slips to arrive in > the mail for the next school year. > > He isn't much good at hiding the dirty tricks, and he has sold bunches of > privileges for cash contributions which are quite open. He may be dumb. > But, he has white hair and looks like a governor, so I suppose it must be > all right. > > Harry > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > Ray wrote: > > >Keith you said: > > > I think this war is an abomination and has been started for ulterior > >motives > > > which are all to do with the meeting of the National Security Council > >which > > > met on Deptember 12 2001 and put the security of Iraqi oil at the top of > > > the agenda not to do with any of the various fictitious reasons that have > > > been advanced since. > > > >Great story Keith well said. > > > >As I've been watching the Stock Market respond positively to the war I have > >been reminded of a comment by Keynes that I can't find to quote. But it > >went something like this: "Wars are one of the ways that we rescue ailing > >economys." If the quote isn't Keynes perhaps you economists could correct > >me and if it is I would be interested in the source. Either way this war > >is going to not kill as many of the population as in the past so that won't > >help the labor market but it will destroy a lot of hardware that will need > >to be replaced and then there are all of those claims against America by > >Iraqis not to mention the oil and the brand new infra-structure that we will > >finance as we did in Europe. Of course over here it will continue to go > >to pot as the Arts have done and as they let the Steel Mills in Youngstown, > >Ohio and the many factory companies in New York City that are closing up > >shop with antiquated equipment and no capital. Everyone here is looking > >to be laid off. Of course if they work for Halliburton they won't be and > >the industries for Iraq will get a big shot in the arm. They may even get > >the wealthy to invest that money they are getting back if Bush gets his tax > >breaks through and if it all works and as Nixon said: "They are all > >Keynsians now." then we may get a little relief from the constant > >Neo-classical crowing from the Friedman school but I doubt it. Chicago > >never could get over being second. > > > >Researching Keynes life it is interesting to see how many times the two > >parties have traded places. The problem with Bush may not be what he's > >doing but that his reasons for doing them are unconscious and poorly evolved > >due to his mediocrity. Did anyone see the Republican "Leni Riefenstal" > >Frank Luntz in Turkey tonight. He looked like he had been hit in the face > >by the power of the disagreement of the young Turks speaking in Luntz's > >native tongue more articulately than many of the Americans in his focus > >groups back home. They weren't shaped by his words being endlessly > >repeated by the corporate media back here as our citizens have been. > > > >REH > > > >PS Harry, don't I remember you blaming Gray Davis for the California energy > >disaster? Seems the law didn't agree with you since they have fined > >almost every single energy company in America for bilking California. It > >may have been bad law but I suspect they were caught in an R.D. Lang "Knot." > >They were afraid that deregulation would make fools of them so they created > >a bad deregulation that made it easier for that to be accomplished. Give > >me a good old fashioned despot any time compare to that. (just kidding of > >course). REH > > > >"Fear is the enemy" Frank Herbert > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:56 PM > >Subject: Silk parachutes ( was Re: [Futurework] B52s overhead again last > >night > > > > > > > Harry, > > > > > > At 10:04 25/03/03 -0800, you wrote: > > > (HP) > > > >Keith, > > > > > > > >Those "land mines" came down with parachutes so they burst above ground. > > > >They were terrifying. > > > > > > Yes, each one was capable of destroying several houses and digging a hole > > > several yards deep. Amazingly, the three land mines that dropped in our > > > street didn't explode and it was considered that they were magnetic. In > > > fact, my father (who was a policemen and had decided to patrol his own > > > street during the raid) had to pull one neighbour away from the landmine > >in > > > his garden because he'd got out his stepladder and garden shears and was > > > about to mount the landmine and cut off the parachute (for reasons of > > > strength, the parachutes were made of silk -- much desired by the ladies). > > > > > > It wasn't until a year or two ago that I discovered why our batch of > > > landmines didn't explode. They were made by 'slave labour' in Polish > > > factories under the supervision of German SS guards. The Poles quietly > > > sabotaged the detonators whenever they could. I owe my life to some > >unknown > > > Pole (or two) because two of the landmines were within a few yards on our > > > house where I was under the stairs with my brother. I would certainly have > > > been killed had either of them exploded. When my mother was in the garden > > > and saw the landmines coming down she thought the parachutes were German > > > troops, but she said nothing to us thinking we would have been scared. But > > > we probably wouldn't have been (see below). > > > > > > (HP) > > > >While you were experiencing the bombing in Coventry, I was camping on the > > > >outskirts. > > > > > > > >When the bombs began to fall, a platoon of WAAFS about a quarter mile > >away > > > >were struggling to get their barrage balloon up in the sky. Shrill voices > > > >shouting in the night - which carried to the kid in the tent - eventually > > > >got the balloon up in the sky. Being stupidly young, I watched the > >bombing > > > >(in an open field) and enjoyed the efforts of the ladies as they got > >their > > > >balloon in place. > > > > > > Cor, you've reminded me of those strange things. There were hundreds of > > > them all over the place. But I don't suppose they downed a single bomber. > > > I guess they were mainly for psychological reasons. No . . . I suppose > >they > > > stopped low level straffing. > > > > > > After one daylight raid, one German bomber flew only a yard or two over > >the > > > chimney pots of the houses in the next street from us. My brother and I > > > heard it from the distance and ran out into the garden to see it. Being > > > only 5 and 8 years old respectively we thought this was very exciting and > > > waved wildly to the German pilot, hoping he would wave back. We could see > > > him clearly through the glass cockpit bubble with his goggles and all. But > > > he was, in fact, in desperate trouble with failed engines and he landed > > > only a little distance away in the local park, crashing throught the > > > bandstand as he did so. He died, of course. He'd jettisoned his bombs on > >a > > > playing field about a quarter of a mile away. I think he did so in case he > > > crashed into houses -- if so, a real gentleman. > > > > > > (HP) > > > >We were both too young then to have a beer together - something I hope > >will > > > >be remedied this summer. > > > > > > I look forward to meeting you if you come here. But bear in mind that I > > > think this war is an abomination and has been started for ulterior motives > > > which are all to do with the meeting of the National Security Council > >which > > > met on Deptember 12 2001 and put the security of Iraqi oil at the top of > > > the agenda not to do with any of the various fictitious reasons that have > > > been advanced since. > > > > > > Keith Hudson > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-- > > > ------------ > > > > > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > > > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > > > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 3/17/2003 > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 3/17/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
