Less economics, more leadership

The climate change proponents are clear on the matter. We need a “price” on carbon so the market can set about fixing the problem. Great. More derivatives. Exactly what we don’t need and yet another excuse to avoid the difficult job of governing. Consider what happened when there was a “price” on risk, perfected in the 1970s by Fischer Black and Myron Scholes.

Did this lead to the reduction of risk?

Hardly, it led to the opposite. Myron Scholes was a principal of Long Term Capital Management, which nearly destroyed the global financial system in 1998. No lessons were learned and we eventually ended up with the GFC, which is still not over.

The analogy between the pricing of risk and the pricing of carbon is not a tight one. The pricing of risk cannot remove risk, it can only shift it to another place. Theoretically, carbon emissions could be greatly removed, or at least reduced, by making them expensive enough. But there is a critical similarity, which leads me to my pessimism. Both are working from within the system to change how the system behaves.  They are endogenous not exogenous, as it were. Which is why they will not work. Because what is needed is governance, something outside the system acting on  it to make it change in the right way.

It is such government that is so hopelessly lacking, both in the financial sphere and the climate debate. In the wake of the GFC all the government-driven solutions have been attempts to fix things from within. That is why the stock of derivatives remains twice the capital stock of the world, and why a second crisis is inevitable at some point.

The same is looking likely with the climate change problem. Rather than concentrating on what matters — the collective intent required to change our industrial systems so that they do not pollute, which will require new technologies and new systems — we have degenerated into arguments about models. How accurate are the scientists’ models? How accurate are the economists’ models? The problem is pushed from being a human problem, from how new choices can be made, to being considered a technical problem. Something that can only be fixed by those who understand the technicalities of markets and climate systems.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that no-one understands either adequately — how can scientists, in all seriousness, claim to predict, using their linear computer models, something as non-linear and complex as the climate; it is surely an enormous exercise in collective hubris — it is not a technical problem. It is a matter of collective will. And government in the West have given up on trying to influence that, for about half a century. This is brilliantly documented by Adam Curtis in his superb series “The Power of Nightmares” and “Pandora’s Box”.

Politicians, having failed to inspire with vision, now win elections using fear. They have given up governing and instead concentrate on market research into people’s fear. What better example of the grubby results than the treatment of asylum seekers in Australia? As Malcolm Fraser pointed out last night, the grubby political race to beat up on refugees treats most of us voters with contempt. And that contempt is now the order of the day from governments. The human element — matters like responsibility, will, collective morality — are pushed to the side in favour of technocracy.

It need not be this way. In the 1990s the councillors of the city of Woking decided to go against the tide and do some governing. Using 1990s technology, the city decoupled from the grid and reduced emissions by more than 70 per cent and reduced power costs by changing the systems and using tri-generation (capturing emissions and re-using them for heating and cooling). It is not being applied in London and Sydney and could be applied in any urban environment.

The crucial element is not the technology or the price or the tax arrangements or the trading mechanics. It is government and leadership. A willingness to insist that the current system is too polluting and to change the system. People may argue about the climate change forecasts but they do not argue about pollution. Virtually everyone agrees that current industrial systems are unsustainable and pollution must be progressively removed.

The technologies are available, for example BlueGen, but government has to lead. Instead governments are passing it off to “the market” and “regulators”, thus avoiding responsibility. There will be no “picking winners” either, because “why would government ever be able to do anything right?”

It will not work. The operators of the centralised power grids have an enormous vested interest in keeping things as they are and will go to great lengths to stop innovation. Disappointingly, China is building cities that are on the twentieth century, centralised, model of power generation rather than a twenty first, distributive, structure.

How is it likely to end? Probably some series of natural disasters that eventually force us to change our systems. At least in the meantime investment bankers can make lots of money out of carbon trading.

Latest posts by __ADAM__ (see all)

Comments

  1. That Carbon trading is Goldman Sach’s preferred model makes me deeply suspicious as does Julia’s volte-face. I do think products should contain an environmental component in the pricing but it only makes sense if the money is dedicated to repairing the damage or researching alternatives neither of which I have seen mentioned. And yes, Blue Gen is a very promising technology that was developed in Australia but has moved to Germany due to lack of political vision. Blue Gen units could have been rolled out instead of Chinese pink batts.

    See “Bubble #6 Global Warming” in the attached essay for more info on GS positioning for Carbon Trading:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405?page=7

    • Here’s a quote from the article that you just have to love.

      “cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues.”

      Mmm.. wonder if that has any bearing on Mr Turnbull’s enthusiasm for carbon pricing.

      What was it Kevin Rudd called him again?
      Oh yes, I remember now, the member for Goldman Sachs..

      Does anyone seriously believe that politicians represent the citizens anymore?

  2. “how can scientists, in all seriousness, claim to predict, using their linear computer models, something as non-linear and complex as the climate; it is surely an enormous exercise in collective hubris”

    I would disagree on that one. The pure science is well understood. The Koyoto proposal arived at a CO2 reduction target based on underlying assumptions of how many gasses were to be constrained and how many nations would implement the change. Koyoto has failed to get the mumbers, and of those who did agree, none are addressing all “four + two” GHG’s of the original cause & effect modelling.

    Climate scientists would have a current “%< 1990 CO2 target" that reflects the political reality of a slipped start date, generic mining and agriculture exemptions and the lower "compliant nation" count. It will be a lot bigger than 5%.

    You cannot credibly model "Climate change due to man made causes" and then ignore when the "man made" side of things has changed. The rest of this post is likely to be split between the believers and deniers camps. There is a third possibility where we pay most of the avoidance cost burden but then suffer the same economic consequences of doing nothing.

    I put us on track for this "heroic failure" option.

    • I second this disagreement. Economics is not Science, and your confusion of Black Scholes with Climatology might just be clouding some of your judgement here.

      I’ve been amazed recently at the accuracy of weather forecasts. Weather forecasting has always been a by-word for guess work, but these days the 10 day forecast is more often correct. Sure, some cities are hard to predict (e.g. Melbourne) and some are easy (Darwin – 32, London – overcast), but I’ve taken to planning a week out now based on the weather forecast, where as in my childhood you couldn’t trust tomorrow’s forecast.

      • My point was you can buy the nicest hammer in the shop and still miss the nail. The model is not in reasonable dispute. The concern is arguing a stationary target (<2 deg C) with moving boundary conditions is untenable.

        Koyoto was a milestone missed by everyone except KRudd. A significant majority of nations chose the proven industrialisation model and it's consequences over a greener alternative. They didn't say "maybe", "we don't understand" or "We will think about it". They said "No".

        To imagine otherwise is wishful thinking. KRudd was there,and came back saddened by the experience. He understands "Heroic failure" better than the next guy.

        • Model not in doubt? When you don’t know what all the components of the system are, let alone how they work together, how can you possibly model it? So far as i remember about 30% of the energy budget goes ‘missing’ each year – even economics is not as bad as that!

        • The pure science is not well understood, and the statements on modelling in the article are accurate.

          if you dont believe me, look up the body of science on cloud and water vapour feedbacks. The IPCC states that there is a low to very low scientific understanding of this feedback mechanism, yet the climate models rely on very strong positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds to reach their conclusions. The climate models have not demonstrated any predictive power whatsoever.

          Meanwhile there is a body of empirical evidence that the feedbacks may even be strongly negative.

          i dont see how anyone who has actually looked into the science and understands modelling can say that the pure science is well understood and that the models are anywhere near accurate.

          • Don’t confuse “absolute certainty” with “not well understood”.

            A lot of us work competently and productively in professions where “absolute certainty” doesn’t exist.

            Here’s a crash course:
            List all forseable failure modes.
            Rank them by considering severity x occurance x detection. (RPN :Risk priority number)
            Action RPN’s from largest to smallest. Start at the top of the list and find the root cause of failures (5 whys?) and correct them. Convince yourself, then your peers then the customer.

            Works pretty well on anything from going to the moon to making a new kind of widget.

            Or just open the bonnet of your car and marvel at how absolute power, specific fuel consumption, emissions and durability are uncomparable to 20 yrs ago.

            An end result successfuly achieved with a ton of uncertainty in the process.

            (Learning to spell isn’t on the list. Apologies to all who can spell “Kyoto” without computer assistance)

          • Science is a continuous process of ‘truthing’ without ever claiming that you have the ‘whole truth’.

          • So SteveB you believe that you can build a credible long-term predictive model based on effects that are not well understood? As in, the sign of the feedback is not understood, not just the quantum. If you have done any kind of long-term modelling in the past you would understand that this would result in a model that creates such a wide range of outcomes that it would result in no predictive power.

            Funnily enough, thats exactly what the climate models do. They produce a wide range of possible temperature paths due to the significant uncertainty in the models. The modelers then discard what they consider to be ‘unrealistic’ output (ie all the ones that dont produce significant warming). hey presto, the earth will warm by at least 3 degrees dontcha know?

            You can spare me the lecture on uncertainty, I have actually built long-term projection models in the past.

  3. +1. I am all for pricing of carbon, as long as investment banksters are kept out of the exchange.

    • I dont think investment bankers can be kept out of the exchange. We live in a world of free market economics and unless carbon can be traded by investment banks, hedge funds etc the entire system will fail. There needs to be an incentive to trade carbon credits, if that incentive is removed by not allowing investments by commercial financial entities then the system would of failed before it even began.

      The entire system of pricing carbon may at some point succeed I dont doubt the basic methodology. If you make something too expensive people will stop buying/using it. However in my opinion the world and Australia isnt ready for this sort of far reaching economic reform.

      The Greens are correct about one thing, pricing carbon at $20 per ton isnt going to be enough of an incentive to affect change in emissions. It is likely going to have be somewhere in the region of $90+ per ton in order to affect any real reduction in emissions which is after all the goal of pricing carbon in the first place.

      With the world economy at best on dodgy foundations at the moment instituting a price on carbon and the ensuing large rises in inflation would spell financial disaster for any nation willing to take those steps. This will however only be the case if these nations actually price carbon at rates that will actually get any given nations emissions to pre 1990 levels.

      On a more domestic viewpoint, pricing carbon at $20 per ton is at best a political gesture for the Greens and Green leaning Labour voters. In the grand scheme of emissions it isnt going to make a difference, its just a way to shut Bob Brown up until the next election.

      Disclaimer: I am a climate change sceptic but I wholeheartedly accept that their does need to be large amount of action on several much more pressing enviromental issues than man made climate change.

      Anyway it doesnt matter anyway no one is going to stop India and China industrialising so any reduction of emissions in the West let alone Australia isnt going to make any real difference.

  4. There is already a price on carbon, it’s whatever the market demands for buying coal, oil or gas. If governments are serious about the world using less, they should tax these at source, via agreed levels of resource rent tax or similar. Just keep raising the taxes until demand drops off. The increasing price will result in lots of innovative schemes like Woking’s to get the same result with less energy input, as well as shifting demand to lower carbon alternatives.

    Of course, they are not serious, which is why we get the idea of trading schemes to further enrich governments’ merchant banker buddies instead.

    As for the models, anyone who has read and understood Taleb would have to agree they are hubris squared.

  5. > Politicians, having failed to inspire with vision, now win elections using fear. They have given up governing and instead concentrate on market research into people’s fear.

    > How is it likely to end? Probably some series of natural disasters that eventually force us to change our systems.

    The pioneering work of Edward Bernays that applied Freudian concepts to PR and propaganda has been the curse of modern politics. After all the purpose of political parties is to win government and what’s better way of striking the right notes with the voters than focus groups. The outcome of this is that politicians are to a large extent being led by the crowds and will take actions that they do not neccessarily believe in but that will keep them in power.

    On the surface this is the way it should be. However, the problem is that the focus of the average voter is more on the micro level and driven by the day-to-day problems so unless the average voter is visibly affected by polution or climate change there isn’t much hope for making progress in protecting our environment.

  6. JPK, if you want to see more on Bernays, Adam Curtis did an excellent documentary looking at precisely what you are talking about :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self The conclusion from watching it is that psychiatry is actually less scientific, rigorous and consistent than economics — has flipped from one extreme to another over the last century.

  7. > If governments are serious about the world using less, they should tax these at source, via agreed levels of resource rent tax or similar. Just keep raising the taxes until demand drops off.

    That’s definitely the simplest way of trying to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emmission. However, that would be an almost certain way of losing power for any government that does it. Probably the only way to tackle it would be to rebalance the tax system and tax resources but reduce other taxes.

    • I wonder how the masses will fell that if 10% of the revenue raised from the carbon tax is sent to U.N.
      Most people thought, (I know I did assume) when the Govt said Climate Change Programs, that meant programs in Australia, not in some 3rd world country.

      But then again once our $1B per year is sent, it will just be wasted inside another bureaucracy, anyway.

  8. Well … I agree with the last point:

    How is it likely to end? Probably some series of natural disasters that eventually force us to change our systems

    That’s definitely how it will end. Humanity won’t act until we’re all scared sh*tless. Anthropogenic climate change can be plausibly denied until then.

    If you’re all so worried about the banksters making money out of carbon trading, then lets just keep it as a straight tax. Really, a carbon tax isn’t that different to the GST, and I don’t recall banksters making gazillions out of the GST.

    FWIW, my preferred way of pricing carbon would be James Hansen’s Fee and Dividend model but the economists don’t like it because a climate scientist came up with it!

    Basically it works like this:

    1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, gas and coal).
    2. The fee is progressive (increases gradually) over time.
    3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

    Its simple, equitable and incorruptible.

    • umm yes carbon tax is plenty different from the GST, the GST was apart of tax reform whereby inefficient taxes were removed and replaced by one tax (also designed to remove federal funding for states), simply adding taxes is not reform.

      The rate of natural disasters is not higher or more severe now then any time in history, please dont let your emotion and religious bias towards some sort of Armageddon get in the way of facts/statistics.

      Also if people are willing to bother looking the amount of pollution(real pollution) in the developed world in major cities are reducing and have been reducing nominally for some time.

      Please watch this reputable source:
      http://documentaryfilmsource.com/the-narrative-of-environmentalism.html

    • Lorax, I doubt economists don’t like it because it was devised by a climate scientist (of course, an earnest if occasionally inaccurate individual) – more likely it did not receive due consideration (which at a quick glance would appear fair) because it was not devised in the back rooms of the likes of Enron, Goldman, MS, DB, et al.

      The question of carbon pricing has been hijacked by financial interests that have a long term view to trading benefits. I linked a while back to an Economist article pointing out that whilst the usual suspects (as you call them, Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Carbon) fund anti-emissions campaigns to the tune of several hundred million in the US alone, the rather interesting fact currently is that environmental pro-carbon emissions reduction/ETS iniatives were in fact funded to an even greater extent by….no, not sandal wearing greenies… Big Finance. Everyone has a barrow to push and no-one is perfect. Green does not equal Supreme in the political arena.

      This movement has been hijacked by financial interests. End of story.

  9. SoN top stuff, and thanks for making the effort to raise these issues which get little serious coverage in mainstream, or more worryingly in parliament.

    On BlueGen I emailed Penny Wong about it failing to get government support when it had won gold medals in Germany and having UK support. No reply. This is a great technology that came out of the CSIRO, but why can’t this government see it’s value given the world is moving from oil to gas. It’s like the Australian Blade electric vehicle that was ruled out by Penny, and co , yet the Mitsubishi got the nod.

    I don’t know how we can have our voices heard, but this government won’t listen.

    +1 to BeN

    Finally, Rothchilds (Sydney branch) and E Systems are lining up to profit from the ETS when we get it. And look at the Future Fund’s allocation of AUD 600M in Haymarket Financial part of Lord Rothchilds empire, yet there is no support for BlueGen.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/future-fund-in-600m-british-start-up-deal/story-e6frg8zx-1225914505244

  10. Sounds good 2 me, Lorax. i.e. make it a tax, start low and increase it steadily to create incentive for change. Oh, and govern (that last bit is laced with sarcasm).

    • With all externalities government intervention is required. Ideally that intervention should be minimised with a simple, transparent and incorruptible scheme.

      We don’t tip our garbage into the street, we don’t sh*t in the gutter — all of things have a price — nand so it should be with carbon emissions.

  11. “The crucial element is not the technology or the price or the tax arrangements or the trading mechanics. It is government and leadership.”

    This dilemma goes to the heart of the Western (mostly) democratic and political system. I have no answers but our system seems to encourage adverserial political discussions on scientific matters. Climate science cannot be analysed by gut feeling, or be dependent on whether you are a labor/liberal or democrat/republican.

    Economics also seems to be even more beholden to this same sort of ideological bias.

    Rather than an objective look at the evidence, arguments end up being fought with slogans, PR campaigns and who sounds most beleivable.
    (Thank you for this blog which does present evidence and logical arguments!)

    The system doesn’t seem to throw up good leaders very often perhaps surprisingly.

    But as Winston Churchill once said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”

  12. > 1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, gas and coal).
    > 2. The fee is progressive (increases gradually) over time.
    > 3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

    Point 3 would defeat the purpose. Whoever consumes energy should pay a tax for it. If we agree that burning fossil fuels is harmful then we should discourage wasteful ways and force efficiencies.

    It may be through increased taxes on fuel and electricity and reduced personal taxes to preserve some balance. If the fee is returned to households they will have little or no incentive for changing their habits of driving SUVs, having poorly insulated houses, having flat screen TVs in every room etc. A high cost of fossil fuels would encourage R&D on alternative sources of energy and would change its economics.

    We would hopefuly come to senses with the way we build our cities. There would be fewer mcmansions and more medium density housing. It would make sense to build an efficient mass transport system and do simple things such as car pooling.

    The last thing that should be introduced is emission trading. We had a sample of what can happen with an emission trading scheme with the carousel scam that costed EU governments over EU5bln. I dread to think what investment banks can do out of it especially that they will likely try to influence how it is implemented. Even if we take into account government inefficiencies there’s much less risk in national taxes than international trading of carbon credits.

    • “Point 3 would defeat the purpose. If the fee is returned to households they will have little or no incentive for changing their habits of driving SUVs, having poorly insulated houses, having flat screen TVs in every room etc.”

      That’s actually not true. If you were to put a hefty tax on fossil fuels, and then give every cent of tax revenue raised back to people who use fossil fuels, they will still use fewer fossil fuels (as counter intuitive as it may seem). The key thing is that the tax changes the relative price of fossil fuels.

      “Whoever consumes energy should pay a tax for it.”

      It actually doesn’t make any difference whether producers pay the tax or consumers pay the tax, the outcome for both parties is the same either way.

    • Whoever consumes energy should pay a tax for it.

      And they do.

      e.g. The oil company pays the tax at the well or port, the increased cost gets passed up distribution chain to the consumer who pays more at the pump. So the SUV owner pays more at the pump, but gets the same amount back from the government as the hybrid-diesel owner.

      Simple really.

  13. The myron scholes risk model would be easily discounted by most scientists with statistical knowledge and is a strawman, this is not why it failed though. Implementation was the key, assumption on assumption many of which invalidated the model were used all while saying they were myron scholes models (correlation assumptions anyone?) .
    No Climate scientists claim to be accurately predicting the effect of CO2, they are working very hard to improve their models, and make them more accurate than the previous ones. I am sure you woiuld prefer they use an ouja board.

    The carbon price may well work in an extraordinary manner,the easy way will be a move away from carbon intensive energy generation to gas. More impressive would be a massive misallocation of costs, as we invest in clean coal, gas and other useless furphys, leading to a space for technological innovation to exploit, dispensing with the centralised grid and taking the TPTB with it.

    I still find it amazing that solar is so uncompetitive with say Nuclear (oh yes it does have high costs…). Coal (sorry we’ve underinvested in coal fired plant pay more), Gas (massive investment in exploiting gas now). Solar thermal grid and distributed systems like bluegen and other microCHPs, will destroy all of these given time.

  14. “…Both are working from within the system to change how the system behaves…”

    There is no alternative to this. We have only one system. It is dysfunctional in some respects – in particular, it does not price “pollution” effectively. The carbon tax is an attempt to amend what is a failure of the market to fully capture all the costs of economic processes. The beneficiaries of this market-failure include all the consumers of industrially-produced goods and services and all their suppliers.

    In this sense, we are all free-riders – at least, those of us who participate in and benefit from the industrial economy are free-riders.

    The problem is to try to reduce our deeply ingrained and usually very finely tuned talent for finding and exploiting free-rides wherever possible.

    This also goes to the very core of our human responses to the prospect of scarcity, and explains why otherwise rational people deny the reality of climate change and seek to postpone, dispute, deflect and plain lie about the need to change behaviour.

    For mine, I think there is almost no chance of getting a half-effective carbon abatement system in place. If we had one that worked, the economic costs would be sufficiently high that it would be torn down overnight. We cannot overcome our desire to get things as cheaply as possible for as long as possible.

    This is a survival reflex. It evokes a stronger, more immediate and deterministic response than the “knowledge” that in 20 or 30 years the economy and the environment will be undergoing radically destructive changes. Our species seems incapable of incorporating long-term cause/effect relations into decisions about the here and now.

    We just don’t work that way. If we did, we wouldn’t need a carbon tax at all. We would just change our behaviour because it is the smart thing to do.

    We have known for more than 20 years that climate change would inevitably occur. We are now experiencing climate change, as predicted. And yet we are institutionally incapable of adapting to this. People prefer to swallow the illusions of the deniers than to accept the alternative proposition – that change is not only desirable but essential.

    I think this means we should seek other means to achieve rapid and far-reaching changes to the technologies of energy production. We need to revolutionize the energy sector….far better to try this than to try to change human nature.

    We are, after all, unable to organize something as simple as the banking system. We have no hope of repealing the laws of human greed and self-deception.

    • We are not experiencing climate change ‘as predicted’. You can check this yourself by examining the predictions of Hansen’s model of the late 1980’s.

      While atmospheric CO2 has risen just as he projected in his ‘worst case’ scenario, the temperature increase was consistent with the predictions of his ‘best case’ model, where CO2 emissions were significantly lower.

      Ergo his model predictions have not been met, and climate change is not ‘worse than we thought’. This is the same for all data, whether sea surface temperature, ice extent etc.

      Dig below the press releases and articles into the actual science.

  15. How else can Australia fund 2 million public servants in the extravagant lifestyle they are accustomed to? 800K on disability pensions. 800K on unemloyment. Old age pensioners? Babyboomer demographics going forward. The mountain ranges of debt we currently have.

    Our politicians are so inept and incompetent that they have a mountain range named after them- The Bungle-bungle range in W.A.

    Less economics and more politics you say?

    Sorry, nice try but no cigar.

    There is only one way to kill capitalism…by taxes, taxes and more taxes. – Karl Marx

    “The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” Frederick Bastiat

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken

    • “Our politicians are so inept and incompetent that they have a mountain range named after them- The Bungle-bungle range in W.A.”

      In financial terms, she is executing one of the biggest “hostile acquisition & share float, share buy backs” in history.

      If successful, we will go to the next election with a 10 billion dollar pork barrel.

      Who’s bungling?

  16. david, I’m afraid I don’t agree with you. The “system” is not a natural occurring phenomenon about which we have no choice. It is a created thing. It can be created differently. We have choices, but no-one in leadership willing to make them.

  17. El Zorro Dorado

    Excellent post to stir the pot. Climate change policies are designed to tinker with the status quo and entrench existing slices of the pie. Societal change for the past decades –unless prompted by technology, war, revolution or disaster, has been more about linear refinement rather than dealing with underlying issues. Despite the history of failure in this regard, and the tenuous nature of both economics ( its no science despite the pretensions of its prominent practitioners) and our industrial/technology platforms, we continue to hold on to what we have rather than risk deeper water. Whether AGCC is real or not, the inefficiencies and inequities in the modern world are blatant and pervasive, and are unable to cope with the underlying pressure of population. The remedial emphasis should be on improving asset and input efficiency at all levels of world-wide societies and economies — starting with our own in a way to preserve or improve our relative position. This would far exceed carbon taxes and other finangling –it should embrace all aspects including distribution, politics, resource allocation..indeed the whole shebang. Such change usually cannot come from within existing formalised structures –exogenous and temporarily disruptive forces are likely required.

  18. a couple of fitting quotes:

    “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

    “Mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats.”

  19. There are some interesting points in time in this article however I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There’s some validity however I will take hold opinion until I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want extra! Added to FeedBurner as effectively