Excited Delirium

Stories about Excited Delirium, the Shock Economy and a little fiction here and there.

China to Reduce $US Transactions

Please note:  the opinions expressed in this blog do not constitute financial advice.  Any investment action that you take in response to this article or other articles on this blog (or other blogs, for that matter) should be done with the support or review of a registered financial advisor.

The government of China has announced that it will reduce the volume of $US transactions, mainly out of a requirement to protect local economies from the volatility of the American currency.

A full story can be found here .

In the past, I’ve argued that the US dollar has a lot of depreciation ahead of it.

Continue reading

Green America: 7 Fixes for the Green Economy

Green America (was Co-op America) has added 7 recommendations for a new Green Economy. The original link can be found here.

Here’s a quick summary of the 7 fixes:

  1. Green Energy = Green Jobs
  2. Clean Energy ‘Victory Bonds’ (I would buy these!)
  3. Reduce, Reuse, Rethink (hint: consumerism is not the answer)
  4. Go Green, Fair Trade, Local (Use the National Green Pages index – is there a Canadian equivalent? If so, please post it below)
  5. Community Investing (US version – again: a Canadian equivalent anyone?
  6. Shareowner Activism
  7. Building Community

I would argue that there are many, many more: Continue reading

Excited Delirium: Chapter Index

Chapter 1 Prelude

Chapter 1: Kite Intro

Chapter 2: An OMNINet Employee

Chapter 3: They Call Me Mr. Kite

Chapter 4: Greyrock (Protect the Oil)

Chapter 5: Introduction to Griffith Garamond

Chapter 6: Kite Resignation Letter

Chapter 7: The OMNINet: From Good Intentions …

Chapter 8: Kite Meets an Employment Counselor

Chapter 9: The Garamond Guy

Chapter 10: Made In China

Chapter 11: Introducing the MOMYS

Chapter 12: Diversify Greyrock

Chapter 13: China – Actions in the Strait of Hormuz

Chapter 14: Kite’s Love Life

Chapter 15: INC Story – The Univists

Chapter 16: Mr. Kite – Between Assignments

Chapter 17: Greyrock, Part II

Chapter 18: MOMYS II

Chapter 19: The Death of Garamond’s Wife

Chapter 20: Kite’s New Gig

Chapter 21: MOMYS III

Chapter 22: Greyrock III

Chapter 23: China Sells Weapons to Taliban

Chapter 24: Kite: Introducing Chaos & Hummus

Chapter 25: MOMYS IV

Chapter 26: OMNINet Home Care

Chapter 27: China News (Poison Found in Kids Clothing

Chapter 28: Kite Thoughts on Religion

Chapter 29: MOMYS V – More Context

Chapter 30: MOMYS VI – Heather’s Going

Chapter 31: Kite & Eddie Meet Again

Chapter 31: Kite & Eddie Meet Again, Part II

Chapter 33: China News (SCO Grows Stronger)

Chapter 34: Kite’s Team Regroups

Chapter 35: Kite Meets Pigeon

Chapter 36: OMNINet (Greyrock IV)

Chapter 37: Heather’s Gone

Chapter 38: FAB (Female and Barren)

Chapter 39: OMNINet (Efforts with the FCC)

Chapter 40: Kite Listens In

Chapter 41: Garamond and his marvelous house

Chapter 42: Greyrock (Afghan Mission)

Chapter 43: OMNINet TRI-X IPO

Chapter 44: China News – The Dragon is Buying

Chapter 45: Kite Infiltrates the OMNINet

Chapter 46: OMNINet’s Big Meeting

Chapter 47: Kite Infiltrates the OMNINet, Part II

Chapter 48: OMNINet (Big Meeting, Big Plans)

Chapter 49: Kite Reports Back

Chapter 50: Kite’s Recording of Garamond

Chapter 51: Kite Enlists Eddie

Chapter 52: Eddie Works out the Pieces

Chapter 53: Greyrock – Bringin’ it Home

Chapter 54: Eddie Works out the Pieces, II

Chapter 55: Greyrock – Bringin’ it Home, II

Chapter 56: Eddie Confronts Kite

Chapter 57: Eddie Gets Info Too Late

Chapter 58: Garamond Meets with Daniels

Chapter 59: Diana’s Next Steps

Chapter 60: Eddie Brings Files Back to Kite

Chapter 61: Garamond on 888

Chapter 62: 888 Tremors

Chapter 63: Sasha Pigeon’s Funeral

Chapter 63: Sasha Pigeon’s Funeral

Chapter 64: The Great 08 Quake

A Banner Year for Canada’s CEOs

The people that are working closely with Jim Flaherty as his economic ‘dream team’ have very little experience with real life economics.

By 9:04 AM on January 2, most CEOs in Canada earned as much as the average pay level in all of Canada.

To make things more insulting, the average pay hike for the top 100 CEOs in Canada was 22%.  The grand total for these people will likely break another milestone:  pay in excess of one billion for the top 100.

Canadian earnings rose a mere 3.2%.

Now, we’re giving these people bailout money because … ?

Here’s the full story from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives .

Watch the video too (when you have a second) .

No New Nukes for Ontario Please

Nuclear power is an incredible waste of taxpayer’s money.

Rarely have we seen the full promised potential of nuclear power, the cost overruns have always been well beyond anyone’s wildest imagination and the risks of dealing with waste greatly outweigh any described benefits of nuclear power.

However, it’s very likely that the McGuinty government in Ontario will sign agreements in the spring of 2009 to bring on 2 new nuclear power plants in this province.

Nuclear power has everything to do with energy consolidation, something that is inconsistent with the general direction of markets, diversification and consumer behaviour.  Any portfolio analyst will tell you that you don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.  Why should the people of Ontario?

More importantly, we stand at the cusp of a golden opportunity to make Ontario one of the world’s greatest and dynamic markets for independent power generation – if the province lets it happen.  Making the production of cheap, efficient and green energy is the future of this province.  Relying on an old monopoly is exactly the reason why manufacturing in Ontario has lost a lot of its cost advantages.

Please petition / attend meetings / write Smitherman and do what it takes to encourage our provincial leaders to spend $50-60 billion on renewable power generation.

Start here and spread the word .

Also, read up on Ontario Clean Air Alliance’s recommendations for a green energy future.

Thanks!

Labour Costs and the Auto Bailouts

One of the central issues that materialize when people talk about the bailouts for the auto industry is the high cost of labour.  Apparently, the Big 3 pay the average worker $73 per hour, but we should all know this is only kind of true.

(Of course, when brokerages, banks and insurance companies are bailed out, no one asks why certain traders and executives continue to get billion-dollar bonuses, but I suppose that’s another issue.)

The folks at the New York Times tried and failed to investigatethe true cost of labour with Ford/GM/Chrysler, mainly because they miss one major component:  the cost of labour for the Big 3 represents about 10% of total costs .  The majority of costs are actually materials.  Plastics, metals, ceramics and other inputs drove costs through the roof in 2008, but in 2009 it’s likely that these costs will drop to the benefit of the manufacturers.

I’d still like to see a more honest breakdown of all of the costs, including management, materials, labour, energy costs, marketing, warranty coverage, distribution costs and other expenses related to the sale of a car in North America.  Only when we’ve got all of the facts on the table will we be able to make prudent decisions about the future of this industry.

(P.S.  If you’ve got these kind of numbers, please share them with the comments below.  I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to see what these costs are like).

Meanwhile, the Socialist Project offers a much broader analysis of the efforts involved with the auto bailouts to break the spine of the labour unions in North America (link here . It’s long, but worth the read) .  It’s no wonder that the bailouts are nothing like they should be (ie. protection for pensions, protection of warranties), given that the real agenda is to reduce the cost of labour in this continent.

Don’t fix the economy: Change it

This story from the Toronto Star was inspirational in that the real story – change – is making it to mainstream media.

Here are some highlights:

Neither the Conservative minority nor the opposition has proposed anything that will set Canada on a long-term path toward the kind of economy that will both provide for the well-being of Canadians and enhance and preserve the ecological community of which people are but one dependent part.

Here are six steps we can take toward a truly balanced budget that will allow Canadians, and all people on Earth, to live fulfilling, healthy, yet more ecologically compatible, lives.

  • Recognize that the economy is part of the biosphere. A comprehensive economic plan must be based on the scientific fact that the global economy is a subsidiary of the natural order. Economic policies should be attuned to the limited capacity of Earth’s biosphere to provide for humans and other life and to assimilate their waste. Photosynthesis and sunlight are as essential to the framework for economic budgets and expenditures as the laws of supply and demand.
  • Acknowledge that we need new institutions. An economic renewal tailored to the 21st century would establish institutions committed to fitting the human economy to Earth’s limited life-support capacity. Canada, with its token efforts to address climate change, is far off the track. We need something like the central reserve banks, but which look after shares of the Earth’s ecological capacity, not just interest rates and the money supply. Money should be recognized as a social licence to use part of Earth’s life-support capacity. Some functions of governance would have to operate at a global level, through a federation modelled perhaps on the European Union, with enforceable laws designed to assure that individual nations don’t overrun Earth’s limits. The rules for the developed countries that are responsible for the current ecological crisis should be different from those for developing ones.
  • Acknowledge that unlimited growth on a finite planet makes no sense. Most people wrongly believe that unlimited growth and wealth accumulation are the "natural laws" of the economy – inviolable, even though together they undermine the Earth’s ecological and social systems. We face a moral challenge: bring the global economy into a right relationship with the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants or suffer the increasing destruction of Earth’s finite life-support systems and social structures. Growth in consumption is a nonsensical response to the sharp decline in Earth’s biophysical systems that is caused by overconsumption. Our new ecological and climate reality demands new ways to live within the means of the Earth.
  • Fairness matters. A "right" human-Earth relationship would recognize humans as part of an interdependent web of life on a finite planet. The economy must recognize the rights of the human poor and of millions of other species to their place in the sun. In a world awash in money, addressing poverty only with growth reflects a tragic lack of moral imagination. Indeed, in pushing for more "free" trade as it is currently understood, Canada would entrench an ongoing addiction to consumption, pursued in a manner that often ravages the bio-productivity of developing countries.
  • Expand the discussion. The new knowledge that will forever mark this period in human history is the overwhelming scientific evidence that we are overconsuming the planet and accelerating toward ecological catastrophe. The short-term approaches of most ministers of finance and professional economists don’t account for how the planet works, or even that the economy exists on a finite planet. Scientists morally committed to protecting the global commons and researching ecological limits to the global economy need much more funding and influence in policy-making.
  • Look beyond technological fixes. Bold new leadership is needed that will focus on all four policy "theatres" relevant to human ecological impact and provide the moral footing that will lead people, individually and collectively, to choose lifestyles with radically lower impact. The four policy variables are: technology; population; wealth and consumption; and morals and customs. These factors should together shape Parliament’s rethinking of the current economic system. Technology can increase efficiency of energy and resources use, yet it is overemphasized as a solution. Pushing technological solutions like hydrogen cars and genetically modified agriculture is much easier politically than asking people to consume less or have fewer children. Unfortunately, technology alone cannot solve the ecological crisis. For one thing, efficiency gains often lead to greater, not lower, consumption. An example is the squandering of Quebec’s underpriced hydroelectric power.

Investments in new "green" technology need to be coupled to a regulatory structure that ensures that efficiency does not result in more impact, along with massive investment in creating or restoring natural systems that build bioproductivity. Economic policy must promote not more affluence as currently defined, but more sufficiency for all Canadians – so that all may live with self-respect, without overconsumption.

Peter G. Brown is a professor at McGill University. Geoffrey Garver is an environmental consultant and lectures in law at Université de Montréal and Université Laval. They are co-authors of Right Relationship: Building a Whole Earth Economy .

Iceland: More from the economic ‘canary in the coalmine’

A couple of days ago, the traditional meeting of Iceland’s prime minister and other leaders was interrupted by protesters to the point where the PM cancelled the annual review on TV.

Full AP story here .

For me, Iceland feels like it’s the economic canary in a coalmine.  They have experienced a crushing economic defeat and will likely have to cave to a broad range of reforms dictated by the IMF and World Bank if they’re ever going to have enough cash to buy another Bjork record again.

What are your thoughts?

The Green Shift was the right thing to do

According to James Hensen of NASA, a ‘green shift’ was the right thing for Canadians to do.

This article
reminds us that we blew an opportunity to institute a new system for penalizing polluters.  Instead, we blew it because some of us were wooed by a blue sweater vest and the rest of us were too busy bickering amongst ourselves to get a majority for progressive voices when we needed it the most.

According to James Hensen, a tax is the only solution.  And it’s a critically important one if we’re ever going to control carbon emissions:

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the ‘greenest’ countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol :

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.vi In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.

It looks like we’re going to need some feedback from the NDP, given that they’ve always supported a cap/trade system.  If you’re with the NDP and you have some comments, please post them below.

In the interim, for those of you who are concerned about the cost of a carbon tax, DO THE MATH.

  1. Alberta / Tar Sands exports go mostly to the US.  Our local gas prices wouldn’t be affected as much, given that we get fuel from such stable locations as Libya and Nigeria.  We’d export the cost of environmental remediation to American consumers.
  2. A tax of, say, $40 dollars per tonne translates to about $0.02 per litre.

If that’s all it takes to help us dig ourselves out of our self-fabricated economic and environmental disaster, then you’ve got my 2 cents.