Pages

Monday, November 9, 2009

Desertification

Today, the UN is warning that parts of the world could become 'economic deserts', unviable for people or agriculture, and may have to be abandoned. Even in rich countries, people are hitting the limits of what can be done with money and infrastructure because there simply isn't enough water anymore. Disaster is feared as desertification spreads.



1) In China's northwest, desertification has escalated from 1,560 sq km annually in the 1970s to 2,100-2,400 sq km in the 1990s. Dust storms from the Gobi desert regularly blow through Beijing, and the government's response is getting more desperate: Chinese authorities have begun telling hundreds of villagers that farming will cease and that they will have to give up their animals.



2) Strong desertification processes have been developing in Latin America with several countries of the region, as well as significant sectors within some countries, in a state of water stress. This situation is projected to worsen significantly over the medium term.



3) Decades of war and mismanagement, compounded by two years of drought, are wreaking havoc on Iraq's ecosystem, drying up riverbeds and marshes, turning arable land into desert, killing trees and plants, and generally transforming what was once the region's most fertile area into a wasteland.



4) The Sahara desert is encroaching into the Nigerian landmass at the speed of 600 meters per annum, thereby threatening the country's food base. Most villages in the northern states have already been overtaken by sand dunes.



5) 90 percent of the water in Lake Chad, which is considered to be the sixth largest in the world and is bordered by four countries (Chad, Niger, Nigeria and the Cameroon) has been lost to the adverse effects of climate change. Lake Chad served as source of fresh water to the more than 30 million people living around its bank.



6) The Sahara Desert is crossing the Mediterranean, and the livelihoods of 6.5 million people living along its shores could be at risk.



7) 74 million acres of fertile land along the Mediterranean is turning to desert, giving rise to the term Sahelisation (ie: becoming part of the Sahara desert).



8) In Egypt, brackish groundwater has already compromised half the country's farmland.



9) Aquifers around the Po Delta in northern Italy are also showing signs of saltwater contamination.



10) Spain has implemented its first Program of National Action against Desertification after recognizing that 37 percent of the country is at risk from desertification and is in danger of becoming "eroded forever".



11) A new desert is forming 250 km from the 'Garden City of India', Bangalore. This new desert is the result of continued indiscriminate water use by village inhabitants even as sand from floods and wind started covering the region. Now thousands of acres of land are covered by sand dunes.



12) This September, Sydney residents woke to scenes from a Hollywood apocalypse movie as the worst dust storm in 70 years, carrying an estimated 5 million tons of soil from drought-ravaged farmland, turned the sky blood red.



Save for the Antarctica, desertification affects all continents. New deserts are growing at a rate of 20,000 square miles (51,800 square kilometers) a year. More than 70 percent of drylands in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are being used for agricultural purposes are already experiencing the effects of desertification. Desertification leads to famine, mass starvation and unprecedented human migration.


Весьма занятно, хотя краски излишне сгущаются; вообще говоря, этот автор - куда ни посмотрит - везде видит сплошной Epic Fail. Потому либо кроме этой самой дезертификации происходит еще какая-то зеленизация не меньших масштабов, либо плодородных земель в пропорции с этой ежегодной цифрой ну очень много, либо одно из двух...

Awaiting a correction in PM's

Stocks falling wouldn’t necessarily cause gold to do the same. But lately they’ve both been the beneficiaries of the liquidity that’s flooding in from the world’s central banks. So it’s not unreasonable for gold to fall if declining stocks lead to renewed deflation fears. Look for a lot of comparisons between the current market and that of 1931.

So -- again with the caveat that I’m the world's worst trader -- this seems like a pretty good time to bet on a temporary drop in the price of gold. But only for traders. Most people with money in precious metals and long time horizons should play golf or hang out with the kids for another five years while the broad, long-term forces of monetary destruction work their magic. But if you’re someone who can't help playing with his money once in a while, the nice pop that the junior miners, for instance, have seen lately might be a good excuse to raise some cash.


Да когда уже эта ямка-то будет, а?..

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Paul Krugman : Then and Now

Dateline August 27, 2009
Paul Krugman: "Deficits Saved The World"

Dateline November 3, 2004
Paul Krugman: "[The Budget Deficit] is comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. It's bigge[r] than Argentina in 2001."

Whether or not budget deficits are irresponsible seems to depend on whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. Such is the "Conscience of a Liberal".

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Gold floats above $1k

In general, Gold, like Fiat money does poorly when economic conditions are generally rosy, credit worries are non-existent, and interest rates are falling. In simple terms, cash (and gold) are trash, and assets are where you want to be. Free to float, gold is apt to do worse as Prechter notes.

In 2002 when Greenspan stepped on the gas to fight deflation. Gold started reacting in advance to the pending credit event, an event that blew sky high in 2008. Gold's reaction now suggests the crisis is still not over.


Хороший анализ и оценка тренда в Записках Управляющего:
Мое мнение сейчас такое: золото - не инструмент спекуляции, а хороший прогнозный индикатор. Если мы имеем дело с U-shape рецессией, такой динамики в золоте не было бы. Потому не стоит расслабляться: вполне вероятно какое-то принципиальное изменение монетарной системы. Например: сначала краткий период дефляции, а потом аргентинский сценарий в мировом масштабе.

Вот заговорщик-теоретик вдумчиво рассматривает этот вопрос (немного моего стайлинга для удобочитаемости):

What you need to do is send your best Wall St. salesmen and diplomats to China and sell them a bill of goods about how they can “modernize” with our help. The Cold War is over. Capitalism reins. You know us Wall St. types! It's all about the dollar! Have the radio scream the President sold out and sign them up to the WTO as you suck Asia into massive overcapacity and a deep, unbreakable reliance on the US and G-8 as customers while paving over the national independence of their life-giving water and farmland.

Then, once they've tasted freedom and affluence, once they're unable to support themselves independently, you pull the plug not on them but YOURSELF. Implode your own middle class as above. Kill the bond markets, cause a run on your own currency, and default on the debts you owe them.

Hey, it's the only thing you could do, right? Americans are just stupid, right? Wall Street is just greedy. It's all an accident, an act of God really. No one's to blame. It's classic Judo.

In a single stroke you:
  • lose the burden of external debt
  • by devaluation lose your internal debt
  • make the nation competitive as a manufacturing power
  • scare the people back into compliance, even exultation with their low wages.
  • with the renewal of manufacturing, re-cast the power that your military rests on
  • during a time of Peak Oil, radically reduce unnecessary consumption while insuring strategic (military) supply
  • by doing that, suck in the oil powers of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela enough to knock them off-base, first with high prices, then low prices
  • club China into submission to the G-8 money powers again
and best of all:
  • enrich insiders beyond their wildest dreams, insuring their dominance for a generation to come
All the right people win, all the wrong people lose.

Seeing the monetary parabola looming dead ahead after the near-miss of the Tech collapse, what do you need to insure this happens on a very tight schedule?

First, knowing this will happen, you suck in your own people by demanding—straight from the top—that bankers loosen lending standards so low even the dumbest financier couldn't believe it was prudent, then refuse to prosecute even the most blatant corruptions by mortgage originators, fraudulent borrowers, and other “outsiders”. Suspecting this will all blow up, pay yourself today in bonuses instead of later in investments.

Then, knowing you'll never repay, you jack up national spending beyond anything anybody's ever seen and go do what you want all over the world, in any country you want, with impunity.

Then you have a scare that gives you cover to set up conduits that insure all the right people have lifeboats, even if it costs $23-30 Trillion, and even if the Hoi Polloi scream bloody murder. It'll all be over soon anyway.

It was only a 3% GDP deficit that sank Argentina. But the US$ is not the Peso. You need to make sure it goes down on demand. You aim straight for $2+ Trillion yearly deficits for 70 years and threaten more if necessary. Hey, is this (12% of GDP deficit) enough to insure a collapse, even of the world’s reserve currency?

Is this enough to force China to cut us off and play the role of the bad guy we have planned for them? Funny how convenient that is, no? When every economist is screaming, “Mr. President, don’t do this, why are you doing this?” Why indeed.
© Charles Smith; The Royal Scam

Return on Heterodoxy

The Fed hires Ph.D. economists. Lots of them. It gives the Fed a large contingent of intellectual defenders. It helps them marginalize critics. Because of their size, they have considerable sway over academic journals, and over invitations to prestigious conferences (dey got money mon).

There is a kind of paradigm a la Thomas Kuhn here, (Structure of Scientific Revolutions) where the dominant paradigm is well-supported economically, and self-interested, but it is false, and being attacked by poorly-funded nobodies who only have the truth on their side.

The Fed does not need most of the people that work for them. They have two main functions — monetary policy and banking supervision. They could do those tasks with 20% or less of the personnel. Not that I want to unemploy a bunch of economists, but why should they be implicitly funded by the US government? Why should they be doing academic studies?


Собственно говоря, потому я скептично отношусь к любым обобщениям, которые в экономике выражаются в приверженности определенным школам. Давно уже актуально монетизировать не контроль производственных активов, а контроль идей и моделей. Это я не к тому что австрийцы и либертарианцы обязательно правы. Просто если у автора нет конкретных данных и методик измерения, исторических аналогий, то "это похоже на уринотерапию, а не на науку".

И вот еще один весьма показательный пример промывки мозга в академических кругах - Найл Фергюсон, пропагандирует империалистические стратегии США и Британии. Занятно было бы рассмотреть его работу в контексте прайм-нормализации: убрать отождествления, сущности и провисающие аргументы. Перевод весьма вдумчивого разбора его работы был сделан Вадимом Цушко.

В целом получается, что операциональный, взвешенный и строгий подход популяризовать практически невозможно - потому что даже для конкретной ситуации ответ профессионала сложно описать простым обобщающим принципом. Зато простую (даже заведомо неправильную для большинства режимов работы сложной системы) идею можно популяризовать, вытеснить оппонентов и использовать слабые места теории в интересах третьей стороны.

Это все упирается в отрицательный отбор в социальных иерархиях. Вверх проходят те люди и идеи, которые хорошо выглядят, а не те, которые хорошо работают. Эдакий когнитивный, человеческий фактор, который опять таки сводится к ненужным отождествлениям. Следовательно, пока основная масса социума думает рептильным мозгом - такая ситуация будет сохраняться.

Потому во многих областях знаний мейнстрим позволяет лучше управлять системой (в интересах третьей стороны), но полезные и сверхэффективные (для индивида) вещи чаще всего маргинализованы.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Домашние Финансы

Давно озадачился вопросом о прослеживании личных финансов. Около полутора лет пользовался GnuCash, но эта штуковина регулярно ломает мои репорты и не всегда удобна. Из других вариантов отдельных приложений еще есть KMyMoney и Grisbi. Я вообще говоря просмотрел еще несколько приложений - но они либо дохлые (в плане активности разработки), либо неудобные. Оба вдумчиво не пробовал, но второе вроде бы выглядит получше.

Вообще говоря - в свете последних трендов на Cloud-изацию служб - можно предположить что найдутся смельчаки, которые попытаются сделать Web-based personal finance (и эту службу как-то монетизировать). И в этом направлении есть движение:
fin-ack и home.finance.ua.
Сервис на финанс.уа мне не подходит по идейным соображениям:
  • мультивалютость и наличие счетов у них сейчас стоит около $20 в год: вопрос не в сумме, а в том что основной для меня функционал может в принципе быть отключен без моего согласия;
  • никаких гарантий о сохранности и приватности данных в договоре не дается: можно собрать статистику по всей базе и ее продать без уведомления и согласия подписчика;
  • импорта-экспорта нет вообще, что в целом не радует (потому что импорт весьма желателен), а в особенности с учетом отсутствия гарантий сохранности данных экспорт тоже критичен;

Насчет fin-ack не уверен, но мне кажется, что там получше.

Собственно, пока что все - потыкаюсь и потом обновлю. В целом надеяться на легкую жизнь с экспортом данных через QIF не стоит: курсы валют в транзакциях, похоже, не сохраняются. И вообще - пока что у меня миграция из GnuCash нормально не отработала ни разу.