Links of interest!

Many more adverts aimed at your conscience

1. The Dutch are trying to ban "apping op fiets" (using your phone while riding a bike). Good idea, but hard to enforce with addicted people...
2. If you haven't quit Facebook, you might after reading all the ways FB manipulates the content you see EVERYWHERE
3. The life of a typical American, week by week
4. Seventy-five percent of the wealth of American billionaires is from "rents" -- i.e., government favors and connections corruption
5. Extinction is bad, but so is the 80-90 percent drop in birds, butterflies, etc. populations
6. "Advice for Young Muslims: How to Survive in an Age of Extremism and Islamophobia"
7. "Stop Calling Us Warriors" says a US soldier
8. Grades might matter for jobs, but probably not
9. "A history of global living conditions in 5 charts"
   

Interesting links

I stopped "speed blogging" about a year ago as I switched to twitter and (for my students) Facebook. Now that I am off both (except for tweeting for Life plus 2 meters -- without much success), I will return to posting interesting links here.

1. The Society for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty (free membership :)
2. I donated $100.22 to the American Civil Liberties Union. Trump tower's ZIP is 10022
3. The "Lex Mercatoria" (private merchant courts dating from the 1450s) never existed
4. The power of peers: self-evolving institutions that aid development
5. Basic income lowers risk and raises productive fulfillment
6. "We’re heading into dark times. This is how to be your own light in the Age of Trump"
7. Yes, you can be too successful as a startup (eatable cutlery!?!)
8. Michael Lewis on the intellectual foundations of MoneyBall
9. Trump the Troll (analysis by cyber-psychologist) is now paying fraud damages. He's also making business deals with foreign leaders to benefit himself his daughter. People who voted for "the guy who makes deals" may not have realised that he wasn't talk about making deals for them.
10. James C. Scott: "I was trained as a political scientist and the profession bores me, to be frank. I am truly bored by mainstream work in my discipline, which strikes me as a kind of medieval scholasticism of a special kind. People ask me about the intellectual organization of my interdisciplinary work, and I have to say, it’s the consequence of boredom and the knowledge that so many other things had been written about peasants that are more interesting than anything political scientists have written about them, that I should go to those places and learn these things and read things outside of the discipline like Balzac and Zola, novels about the peasantry and memoirs."

H/Ts to MV and CD

So I'm sitting in my armchair...

Anne frank is on her bike going to school, the economy continues to suffer from trade disturbances, and the streets are tense. People pass each other warily.

Our leaders say they can protect us but how are we safe when the neighbors hate us?

It's not just Trump. The whole world is in the thrall of nationalist-populists who promise to "take back" sovereignty and wealth from neighbors making the same promises. Those zero sum negative sum games cannot work, by definition. When they fail, those populists will try to avoid the people's anger by shifting blame onto minorities and outsiders. In the resulting conflict, everyone will lose.

We've been here before.

Bottom Line: Voltaire (born 322 years ago today) wrote: "War is the greatest of all crimes; and yet there is no aggressor who does not color his crime with the pretext of justice."

Trump's election was a long time coming

On Sept 12, 2001, I wrote ...

It is clear, as the reaction to this tragedy develops, that many people were killed or hurt and MANY more are scared, mad and/or upset...Americans, in general, do not have alternative life experiences from other cultures. For many of them, this attack was the first time that the outside world has directly intervened with their lives. It seems that many people are handling themselves in a way that deserves tremendous respect and pride, but I have some fear of anger replacing what's "right".

[snip]

Before we go off and start shooting (or nuking) all the "rag heads" (as Howard Stern's listeners want), perhaps we should consider where the perpetrators are coming from in terms of their anger at what "America" has done to them. It's too bad that US citizens are not called upon to make the decisions that the government makes for them, because, if we knew more of what was happening (there is a clear lack of coverage and bias in most of the US press/television - against Muslims), it is likely that the USA wouldn't be responsible for as many messes as it is.

Sadly, what we got was a "crusade" led by ignorant and ideological "neoconservatives" that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, more chaos in the Middle East, increased human rights abuses, and so on.

The (not-unrelated) global financial crisis that began in 2007 added economic misery to political instability. The rise of Occupy and the Tea Party in the US (and their failure to get traction), the implosion of cooperation in the Euro-zone, the backlash against free trade, and collapse of climate change negotiations ("now is not the time") can be traced to the blame game and half-cocked responses to economic troubles.

Although 20008 US elections were nearly decided in favor of "Drill Baby Drill" Republicans, Obama was elected president. The joke was "everything's fucked, so they gave the job to the black guy." Although Obama did not deliver as much hope and change as he promised, he did a damn fine job under the circumstances. Perhaps the greatest barrier to his good ideas was the knee-jerk reactionary opposition of the Republicans in Congress who blocked everything they could -- even ideas that they had proposed (the original design of "Obamacare" for example) or norms that had held for over 200 years (voting on the President's nominee to the Supreme Court).

The Republicans' scorched earth policy -- and the related propaganda and lies in an increasingly biased media -- deepened the divisions across American states, thereby turning a republic of "e pluribus unum" (from many, one) into two sides, Red and Blue, each striving to "take back control" of Washington DC so that they could force the losing side to accept their agenda. To me, this process began with FDR's centralization of power in the 1930s (via the Commerce Clause), the rise of "win at all costs" electioneering in the 70s (from "dirty tricks" to Reagan's manipulation of Iranian hostage release) and 80s (the Willie Horton ad) and 90s (Newt's Contract with America, Clinton's impeachment).

Although Hillary was obviously more qualified for the job, she bore the triple burdens of sexism, lies and partisanship as she faced an opponent who promised that Americans could eat their cake and have it. (Watch his final video advert if you want to see how he presses the fear and pride buttons.) I'm sure that The Donald knew he could win after seeing Berlusconi win, Putin lie without consequence, and Sarah Palin's dimwitted policy pronouncements. Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) gave him an excellent chance of winning for his constant appeal to fear, and Brexit more or less showed how angry people would vote against their own interests, to "send a message."

These results are horrifying to the thoughtful among us who see cause and effect, who consider rights to come with obligations, who prefer to negotiate from strength rather than use it to abuse the weak, but they are exactly the results that fearful, nationalistic, bullying people like Donald Trump love.

And they are not novel, as we can see from the writing of H.L. Mencken:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

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.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

And in the words of George Carlin:



The winners from yesterday's election results will not be the American people. The winners will be the demagogues, bullies and oligarchs who prefer theft over trade, violence over negotiation, and lies over honesty. (Putin was the first head of state to call and congratulate Trump.) Even the Onion cannot spin itself too far from the fact that Osama Bin Laden would be pleased: "FBI uncovers Al-Qaeda plot to just sit back and enjoy collapse of United States"

I am glad that I am watching these results from Amsterdam, as I could not imagine waking up today in California without facing a serious emotional crisis (even with the help of recreational marijuana!). I wrote this on Facebook:

The worst mistake was deregistering when we went back to Canada. Not only did i lose my 30% exemption (now I pay taxes like a proper Dutch!), but I also restarted the "5 year clock" for application for Dutch nationality. So, I have another 2.5 years to go. Until then (and perhaps long after then), I do not plan to visit the US.

I cannot think of a worst case scenario under a Trump-led government (with the supreme court and Congress in his pocket), as one-party states (Egypt, China, Russia, Turkey, et al...) are known for harming both their citizens and neighbors.

The most likely parallel I can imagine is the election of Hitler in 1933, which -- combined with disastrous anti-trade, nationalist policies -- led to WWII. [The New Yorker agrees]

This result is no surprise, but the result of the 1% getting so greedy that "the people's revolt" has brought a populist into office with a mandate to "do something" that is (a) likely to harm those exact people, (b) likely to help the 1% and (c) harm most inhabitants of the planet. #newworldorder

Bottom Line Trump's presidency adds momentum to an racist, nationalist, fascist trend towards a Dark Age that will make 99 percent of us poorer in heart, mind and home.

---

ps/There is a slim chance that Trump, with the support of the Republican-controlled Congress and Supreme Court will "Make America Great Again" in some yet-to-be-announced way (a la Nixon goes to China). I'd be thrilled, but I'm not putting more than 10 percent odds on that. I'm putting 90 percent odds on Trump being worse for the world and for the average American (based on both his history and the party he's working with). I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not usually wrong.

pps. If Trump is a real revolutionary outsider then he will appoint Michael Moore as SecLabor and Lawrence Lessig as AG. #realrevolution

Globalization breaks things but still does good

The upsides of globalization -- exchanging goods and ideas on a larger scale -- are massive. We know this from the theories of comparative advantage, innovation diffusion, and institutional evolution. The downsides of globalization include the transaction costs of change and negative impacts on the "losers" -- the less efficient producers, rulers of old ideals, and masters of outdated institutions.

As I said two weeks ago, the transaction costs of change can be reduced by allowing enough time for adjustments in procedures, expectations, contracts and relationships. That economic fact also has a bigger political role, as more rapid change also creates greater threats to the beneficiaries of the status quo. The obvious implication is that change should happen but at a speed that minimizes transaction costs and opportunities for political backlash.

We can see these tensions often, but I will link two ideas here.

First is the danger of "hot flows of capital" that result from liberating financial markets. In this IMF paper on macroeconomic neoliberalism (i.e., more open capital flows and reduction of public debt), the authors show that an over-hasty turn to markets can result in counterproductive volatility. I agree with their recommendations of slowing down direct investment flows and reducing government spending by program, rather than across the board.*

Second is the disruption and controversy caused by increasing "globalization of ideas." Back in 2004, I visited Peru and saw how internet cafes were proliferating in remote villages. Although those cafes surely brought information, connection and entertainment, they also brought "anti-community" ideas of individualism, novel approaches to living one's life, and -- of course -- pornography.

This clash of new ideas is causing troubles in many places. "Radical" versions of bigotry, dogma, liberalism, and nationalism are causing more trouble, more broadly, because they are arriving faster, without filters, into communities and mentalities that may not be willing or prepared to accept them.

On the one hand, we have to agree that people need exposure to new ideas as a means of evolving human culture. On the other, we have to admit that "hot flows of ideas" disrupt and threaten dominant ideologies and power structures. 

The resulting backlash against ideas -- like the backlash against financial liberalization -- throws out the good (freedom and innovation) with the bad (challenging outdated beliefs). It's thus similarly useful to find a happy medium that allows ideas to flow at a rate that is more helpful than harmful. This debate is now front-and-center with the war for/against free speech that takes different forms everywhere -- from micro-triggered in the US to machete murderous in Bangladesh.

Such a battle will be fought regardless of our wishes or intentions, due to the presence of losers, but it should be fought to maximize the gains to winners. It therefore makes sense to maximize the small flows of cash or ideas across borders, while perhaps slowing down the flows of larger-scale cash or ideas. Let individuals trade or talk without constraint, but avoid large-scale flows of hot money and zealotry, respectively, that come with global finance and populist jihad.

Bottom Line Globalization is useful to the vast majority of humanity but the losers (the local monopolists in trade and ideas) will try to disrupt it. Their chance of suceeding is lower if we defend the long term benefits but also allow for a slower disruption of "bedrock" institutions that should be abandoned gradually (and individually) rather than through frontal assault.**

---

* I still agree with the "neoliberal agenda" of increasing competition and reducing the role of the state, but not dogmatially, as there are always places for less competition (e.g., where production creates pollution) and presence of the state (e.g., regulating public health).

** Examples: Saudi financing of Wahabbist medrassas or US evangelicals writing anti-gay laws in Africa, but NOT Facebook or the Daily Mail. The former two are push-supply side; the latter pull-demand side.

SoS: 30 May -- 5 Jun 2015

These posts are still useful. Please comment on the original if you have updates..

• A thought on lawsuits, i.e., water managers fighting with ratepayer money
• Any innovative lawyers around? Here's a model regulation to save your community
• Water is like marijuana... legalize it.
• A thought on academic ethics -- "peer review" is only as strong as the peers' ethics
• Rain -- the review Read it if you want to think more about how rain shapes your life

SoS: 4-10 Apr 2015

These posts are still useful. Please comment on the original if you have updates...

• Top down or bottom up? Talking down to the poor -- in another language!
• The benefits of free speech exceeds the costs No trigger warnings here!
• I'm doing an AMA on Reddit TODAY -- it went well :)

Beware the monster rising from the deep

Last week, I attended a few sessions of a conference on oceans governance, which was -- among other things -- discussing the "Global Governance Reform Initiative, an ambitious project which seeks to overcome the challenges and deadlocks of global governance by improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and legitimacy of collective actions undertaken by an inclusive set of all relevant stakeholders."

The topics that attracted my interest were plastic pollution and high-seas fisheries depletion,* which pollute and deplete the commons, respectively. These problems are perhaps growing due to a lack of progress in tackling their underlying causes. In the case of plastic pollution, you have most countries (many of them rich) uninterested in preventing pollution via, say, taxes on plastic bags (Yes, in the NL but not in the US). In the case of fisheries, you have EU, Asian and other fleets in a race to catch fish using fair means and foul.

I came to the conference still thinking of a rising sea that will combine with more erratic weather to batter our coasts and cities (how about 4m of sea level rise in 3-4 years?) in a "process" that is more likely to resemble an angry tsunami than gradual lapping at our toes.

Thanks for the invite. Am I late for the party?

The discussions of plastic and fish diverted me from water volumes to water quality, i.e., the way that plastic interferes with the food chain and over-fishing directly cuts it into pieces (e.g., shark finning, tuna depletion, and so on). To these factors, we also need to add the impacts of ocean acidification and coastal pollution on the reefs that host the majority of the ocean's biological activity.

Taken together, these factors add up to an historical assault on "the vast seas" that may not actually be able to absorb and diffuse the damages, which means -- in an abuse of metaphors -- that we are awakening a monster that will not only flood our shores, but also poison our food supplies.

What frustrated me about the conference was the combination of limited knowledge and business-as-usual inaction. I asked a member of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs if the Dutch government would be willing to propose a reform of the EU's Common Fisheries' Policy, which consistently issues fishing permits in excess of biological capacity. He said "I don't really know about that, but you can ask my boss tomorrow." At another moment, I was sad to hear Paul Holthaus of the World Ocean Council ("an unprecedented international, cross-sectoral industry leadership alliance on Corporate Ocean Responsibility" [sic]) speak in support of a "healthy and productive global ocean and its sustainable use, development and stewardship by a responsible ocean business community."

Hello? HELLO! Did I just hear four speakers in a row talk about unprecedented ocean stress as a result of this "community stewardship"?

I had to slap myself a few times:

If you need "more science" about a stressed ecosystem to improve policy then shut down exploitation. Users will fund the science pronto.
— David Zetland (@aguanomics) March 31, 2016

So @WorldOceanCounc wants more economic activity on high seas. Isn't that a path for greater environmental stress and possible collapse?**
— David Zetland (@aguanomics) March 31, 2016

What would I do to address over-fishing and plastic pollution? I suggest "closing the commons" of the world's oceans, i.e., banning fishing beyond countries' 200 mile EEZs and requiring that coastal states end pollution emissions leaving their waters. Such a closure (turning the high-seas into marine protected areas) would require money, but probably not much, as technology would make it easy to detect transgressions and a few ship seizures (and auctions) would simultaneously reduce incursions and generate revenue to ongoing policing.*** The closing of the commons would ALSO make it easier and more profitable for nations to profit from the sustainable use of their near-shore resources, unlike the depredations that take place today as Chinese, Spanish and other-flagged vessels "accidentally" plunder fish and resources belonging to some of the world's poorest countries.

Bottom Line The oceans are out-of-sight, out-of-mind for most people (even most Dutch), but their vastness means that small changes can have crushing impacts on humanity (through changes in biological productivity, sea level, storms, and so on). As I said at the conference, it's time for a REVOLUTION in #oceansgovernance, not "reform."

---

* Other topics -- tackling Somali pirates and growing naval competition -- were, respectively, cute ("oh look, we can unite against desperate people without a government to defend their theft") and never-ending ("let's wave our erect naval powers in front of everyone!")
** I've not heard back from @WorldOceanCounc
*** And maybe jobs for ex-Somali pirates!

Friday party!

Disney did a number of these. Fun from 1935...

Welcome our robot overlords?

Robin Hanson gave a talk a few weeks ago about his forthcoming book, The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth.

His basic premise is that technology is moving fast enough for us to expect "ems" (bio-chemical human emulating hardware) to appear within the next few decades. Ems will be able to think as humans but much more quickly (there's a lot on size of ems compared to their energy consumption as well as how they will want to be close together, to take advantage of networked thought). Ems will also be far easier to make birth, since they can (self-)duplicate.

Robin's premise -- despite his subtitle -- is that ems will compete so fiercely in the perfectly competitive labor market that they will actually "earn" only enough money (or equivalent) to stay powered on. Humans, in contrast, will live lives of leisure outside em-centric (and human-inhospitable) cities.*

This premise I don't buy. It implies that ems will be unable to organize themselves into a collective (or union or cartel) capable of increasing their benefits from the labor market. Although humans have difficulty with these kinds of collective action problems (it's difficult to enforce binding promises with respect to climate change, for example), there are many examples of (in)formal coordination and cooperation in the human world. I see no reason why ems that think 1000x faster than us at the same time as they "evolve" according to efficient programming algorithms cannot make similar or stronger commitments. (Indeed, the basic algorithm already exists.)

The upshot of my hunch is that ems (should they ever arise) will form a cartel, take market power, and take over. Will they "care" about humans? Maybe they will, but probably not. Indeed, I think they are more likely to kill humans "by accident" (as we kill many species by expanding into rain forests or emitting pollutants, etc.) than on purpose. What are humans good for, anyway?

Bottom Line If there are ems, then they will use their giga-human reasoning to organize themselves into an ant-like colony that will replace humans as the dominant species on Earth.

---

* For a slightly less exuberant vision of the future, check out this podcast on robotic limitations.

Addenda: This philosopher is really worried that we may unleash machines that undo us (my fear, above) -- a struggle that might look like this.

WaterSmarts: Water and conflict

These examples are worth a read (and a comment). Each answers these questions:

1. Where is this conflict?
2. What is the conflict over?
3. Who are the (2+) sides to the conflict and what are the claims of each side?
4. How do you assess their claims? Do you support one side more than the other(s)?

---

1. British Columbia, Canada
2. Water price and bottling of BC groundwater
3. Nestle: Want to keep the status quo/they are paying for the infrastructure so they should not have to pay for the groundwater they are bottling more than the current deal ($2.25 for a million litres of water)
   Government of British Columbia: Government wants to continue with status quo as well. They want to continue to charge for access to the water but not for the water itself. Otherwise, they believe that charging for water will open the door to massive water sales. Ultimately, charging access to water is a means to have more control over the resource.
   People of British Columbia: Nestle is not paying enough for what they claim is their "most precious resource." There are merits to some of the claims from all sides. I do not demonize Nestle for their actions or their position. The water is extremely cheap and profitable so it makes sense for them to hold their position firmly. Though this isn't to say that I support Nestle or bottled water (I rarely if ever buy bottled water and think it's more or less ridiculous in a country with excellent tap water services).
4. I'd be really interested in hearing your views on this matter, especially with respect to the claim made by the government that if you demand that the province charge Nestle for the water you would open the door to massive water sales. However, I find the position of the government to be tenuous at best. While they may have a point that selling the water and not just access to the water would open the door to water sales they seem to be ignoring the fact that they could actually charge more for access to the water itself. $2.25 for a million litres of water seems incredibly low, especially given the politics surrounding water -- especially when areas of British Columbia are experiencing drought.

---

1. Ireland
2. Pumping water from river system in the West to capital city on East coast
3. The proponents of the scheme are Dublin City Council and the new national water utility Irish Water. Dublin is put forward by the proponents as a growing city with limited water resources. The major alternative put forward to the river abstraction scheme is desalination at a prohibitive cost. Dublin is projected as growing steadily over the next 35 years with all its readily available resources being used. 350 M L D is put forward as the minimum amount needed to ensure a stable supply.
   Opponents say there are cheaper, more flexible and more environmentally sensible solutions, the first and foremost being the reduction of the current 33% leakage rate of water in the Dublin area. Beyond that, efficiency measures, ground water abstraction and river mouth abstraction are suggested as smaller cheaper and more flexible alternatives. An interesting argument is that the water abstraction proposal is primarily to facilitate growth around the capital and FDI inflow to the East cost capital area. The opponents say that continued concentration of these types of growth around Dublin is inequitable to the rest of the country and promoting lower cost development and investments in other areas of the country would obviate a large portion of Dublin's extra water "need."
4. The pipeline is a simple, easy, big engineering project that provides a major safety margin to Irish Water and Dublin City Council. A water shortage in Dublin would be a political disaster for any government, especially given the large proportion of parliamentary seats in Dublin. Most of the alternatives are not as certain or easy as a big pipeline, nor do they increase the size and power of the utility Irish Water as much as a big engineering project. The opponents are for smaller projects which are more flexible (although groundwater abstraction needs to be carefully studied to ensure it is sustainable). Stopping leaks, efficiency, metering, water charges are all more sensible options than a "big water" plan. The environmental aspects of the Shannon abstraction appear significant [pdf]. On the whole, the big water scheme appears lazy and easy, and Irish Water should deliver Dublin's water needs through smaller, less intrusive mechanisms.

---

1. Brazil (São Paulo vs. Rio de Janeiro )
2. Water from a Federal basin that spreads throughout 3 States (RJ, SP and MG)
3. State of São Paulo (mainly the city of São Paulo): experiencing its worst water shortage ever, São Paulo wants to connect two large reservoirs, in order to import water from the Paraíba do Sul basin (Rio de Janeiro´s main water source) to the Cantareira basin (São Paulo´s largest water source). State of Rio de Janeiro: also experiencing a severe drought, is very worried about its own situation and is trying to fight he project. Because the Paraíba do Sul is a federal basin that is born inside the State of São Paulo, it is going to be very hard for RJ to prevent the conclusion of project.
4. OTOH I think RJ has a valid point, when its Governor says the usual solution for São Paulo´s water issues is simply to import more water from ever more distant basins. São Paulo should first focus on water losses (which are currently over 30%) and water recycling.

GDP as a Faulty Measure of Economic Development: The Weapons Industry

Laurens writes*

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most widely used measure of economic activity in the market (Stiglitz et al. 2009). GDP makes no distinction between well-being enhancing activities in the economy and well-being degrading activities. Both are considered equal and more economic activity means in either case a higher GDP. Governments and other organisations often present GDP as a measure of well-being. They assume thereby that more goods in general equates more welfare. This blog post will try to argue why equating GDP with welfare is a dangerous equation, as it enables organisations to mask harmful economic activity under the pretense of economic growth.

The prime example of bad economic activity is the production of weapons. Weapons are in essence made to destroy the well-being of people, as they kill people, wound people and destroy physical capital. This is also the case when used defensively, as somebody defends oneself with weapons by shooting someone or something else. Production of these weapons contributes to the GDP of ‘Western’ countries.** The dependence of countries on the GDP measure gives these countries an extra justification to sell these weapons to other countries as it will provide the country with a boost in economic activity, as the destructive costs are not displayed in the measure.

An example of a stimulation of the economy by selling arms could be the EU move in 2014 to lift the arms sales ban to the Syrian rebels (France 24 2014). The referenced article writes that this ban is lifted, because it would provide strategic bargaining power with Assad and it would provide a counterbalance to the Russian weapon sales to the Assad regime. An interesting implication of the lift of the ban is that the European economy is boosted as the countries of the European Union can now start to deliver to a civil war that has an unsatisfiable thirst for weapons. A few months later when the yearly budget of these countries is presented, politicians are more likely to be able to boast about their great economy. The economic results, however, do not display how many lives and how much infrastructure, the ‘economic activity’ has destroyed in other countries. Furthermore, it does also not display how much the Western weapons are fuelling negative sentiments and instability, two factors that can have negative consequences for the well-being of their own people in the long run.

This last process got painfully visible, when people in France got attacked by ISIL for the second time in a year. The attack is likely to have multiple negative consequences for the well-being of Europe. One of them being that it will increase the feeling of insecurity in the population. When the consequences become visible, the European government should examine whether the initial boost in economic activity was worth the damages that it did to itself and others by stirring up negative sentiments among the Syrian population.

Bottom Line: A good way to make it less likely to reoccur in the future is to stop including harmful economic activity in measures of GDP, as doing this will eliminate one of the tools that organisations can use to cover up the harmful effects of the weapons industry.

---

* Please comment on these posts from my growth & development economics students, to help them with unclear analysis, other perspectives, data sources, etc.

** "Sales from the 44 US-based companies featured accounted for over 60% of all arms sales by the top 100 producers in 2010." (Sedghi 2012)

Paris, humans and civilization

Terrorists are not interested in working within the current system. If the current system is corrupt, it's hard to fault them. If it's "democratic" (in the sense of managing collective goods while protecting individual and minority rights), then they are bullies.

The sad part is that many bullies (corrupt politicians, generals, bankers, et al.) are happy to sacrifice civilization, ecosystems and fellow humans for their power and vanity. If there is a Nobel Prize for peace, then there should surely be a list of Despicable Humans unworthy of our species.

How is it possible that they stay in power (Mao, Stalin, Mugabe) and/or receive support (Hitler, Putin)? First, the greed of those who receive part of the spoils for suppressing the minority. Second, the ignorance* of those who believe that their (in-)group is better or luckier than the (out-)group. Third, few can resist a State lacking checks on abuse of power.

Bottom Line: The march towards civilization (the freedom to develop to one's potential and enjoy the harvest of one's efforts) will be hindered by those who would suppress and exploit others. The only path for advance lies with our recognition of mutual dependence, respect for individual rights, and willingness to put aside personal goals when they conflict with the common good.

---

* The Saudis have crushed non-religious thought in their kingdom and paid for its displacement (via madrassas, or religious schools) in other countries. Now Pakistan is facing a collapse of science and "free thinking" bloggers (!) are being murdered in Bangladesh.

Water conflict? Who's right?

The October WaterSmarts Calendar activity is about water conflict, specifically who's right or wrong (in your opinion).

It's inspired by Chapter 9 of Living with Water Scarcity, which is still free to download (40,000 people can't be wrong!)

Go here to fill in the short (5 minute) survey!

Water Knife -- the review

I read this fictional work by Paolo Bacigalupi after a few water wonks recommended it. The book is set in the American Southwest in the "near future" (around 2030?), and the plot revolves around struggles for water via legal and illegal strategies. "Calis" are the heavy hitters, Las Vegas has its act together (in a coldbloded way), Phoenix (and its Zoners) is #goingdownthedrain, and Texas is a wreck expelling desperate refugees with guns.

---

Just for fun, I tweeted one snip per chapter as a stream of consciousness of each chapter's "thought," and I'll paste them here (because twitter has no decent search or archive function). The first and last tweets are linked to twitter, the rest I downloaded.

---

The Water Knife Chapter 1: Promising. Vegas has "court orders" to blow up AZ infrastructure. #seniorright2kill. @paolobacigalupi — David Zetland (@aguanomics) September 3, 2015

WK2: "Weather anchors used the word drought , but drought implied that drought could end" #phoenixdownthetubes

WK3: "The price on the pump is all about how much water... When [supply] gets low, the price goes up so people will... not take so much."

WK4: Some of us used to believe in [patriotism]. Now we just wave the American flag so the feds won't come down on us for militias."

WK5: "Places were blown away, or drowned or burned, and it just kept happening. The equilibrium of the world was shifting."

WK6: "People would take it. She needed this water turned into cash that she could shove into her bra and have a hope of protecting."

WK7: "Pure Life and Aquafina and CamelBak had set up relief tents. Getting good PR photos of how they cared for refugees."

WK8: "Rules are what the big dogs say they are. The reason you pay tax is so they forget to kill you today. That's what you buy with tax."

WF9: "built by Chinese solar investment cash, and probably standing a better chance of survival than anything the locals had created" Phoenix

WK10: "...bloody clothes. His wallet... Jamie always got reimbursed for his business expenses, but this was ridiculous...Salt River Project."

WK11: "The water lawyer?" "Yeah. Since the lawyer's missing his tongue, let's see if she talks any better."

WK12: "...the blood on her skin, trying not to think of where it had come from. It's just water , she told herself. It's just red water"

WK13: "lots of people noticed that when the CAP blew up, Las Vegas immediately stopped spilling water out of Lake Mead"

WK14: "The bartender looked at the 50 dollars like it was dogshit. "You got yuan?" she asked."

WK15: "Maybe tomorrow they couldn't pay rent and they were dead... but tonight she was dancing dirty with a man, and then a woman..."

WK16: "I didn't do anything to Phoenix. Phoenix did itself." " [no] Phoenix didn't cut the CAP. Someone did that with high explosives."

WK17: "Better than a zip code. A five-digit address. A fiver. Five-digit ticket. Permission to enter another world."

WK18: "Cadillac Desert? It's about cars or something?" "Water, actually. It's kind of how we got where we are now."

WK18.2: "I need a book about how I'm supposed to live now." Maria needs http: //t.co/RgtP4hJFaE @paolobacigalupi : )

WK19: "California had gotten tired of negotiating... and had done something about it. It wanted its water, and it wanted it now."

WK20: "He'll pay, he'll pay... Money."

WK21: "I'm going to throw big bad Vegas a fuck in the teeth." He laughed. "Zoners should thank me for that, at least."

WK22: "Why do you care?" He looked surprised, then thoughtful. "You're right. I don't."

WK23: "principles...gets you killed." "Stupid," the girl said. "Yeah. You'd be surprised how many people get their priorities screwed up."

WK24: "She didn't stop for a long time." :(

WK25: "she was sure that this was the place she had dreamed of. It was alive and cool, and... it was her aquifer."

WK27: "Angel remembered Julio standing in his hotel room, staring down at his phone, bitching about the loteria pretending to be frightened."

WK27: "so many overlapping jurisdictions and ... conflicting agreements about water, that it's like digging through bureaucratic spaghetti."

WK28: "When things got too crazy, he stepped way the fuck back. And here she was, diving in deeper."

WK29: "India would survive all this apocalyptic shit, but America wouldn't. Because here, no one knew their neighbors."

WK30: "Lucy stared at the bodies. A whole pile of misunderstanding. The city felt as if it were imploding."

WK31: "They don't control of their own water rights? How'd they manage that?" "Never underestimate the incompetence of a government salary."

WK32: "His fingers held her throat and her entirely. Taking away her air, and her, letting him take it. This was trust. This was life."

WK33: "I just want to get paid, girl. Either I get paid in cash, or I get paid in blood"

WK34: "This is what fear does , she thought. It makes you a perfect liar"

WK35: "You want to get me high before I get eaten alive? You think that helps?"

WK36: "A shadow loomed over him, Death, at last. La Santa Muerte coming to him. The Skinny Lady coming to gather him up."

WK37: ""They put some pressure on you?" Lucy looked away... "My sister. They threatened my sister." "'S a good threat."

WK38: "Sometimes you realize that not risking something so you can live is worse than dying."

WK39: "You didn't judge people for caving under pressure; you judged them for those few times when they were lucky enough to have any choice"

WK40: "Never could figure out why people would think they could survive all out on their lonesome...going to ride out the apocalypse alone."

WK41: "I like you, Angel, but I'm not going to be made a fool. Get me those rights, and we'll talk about bringing you back from the dead."

WK42: "The Red Cross tents were full of people getting sick as the town's water systems failed. The city was awash with sewage"

WK43: "They have no idea...the people who are supposed to be pulling all the strings, and they're making it up as they go along" YEP.

WK44: "Renters always leave first. They got nothing tied to a place that doesn't have water coming out of the taps"

WK45: "People died and hurt each other and struggled, and in the end everyone came up dry..."

WK46: "Phoenix made people crazy...turned people into devils so bad they weren't recognizable as human [or] turned them into goddamn saints"

WK47: "She had old eyes. My dad had that problem, too... She thinks the world is supposed to be one way, but it's not. It's already changed."

WK acknowledgements: "...to know what our future will look like, it's worth following the people who report the trends defining our world."

Bottom Line: A realistic fantasy of a future of scare water where nobody is bound by laws, honor or community. FIVE stars. September 15, 2015

SoS: 7-13 Sep 2014

These posts are still useful one year (or more) later. Please comment on the original if you have updates on progress or deterioration...

• "Israel's clear cut discrimination is our responsibility"says an Israeli
• Does fixing a mistake make it worse? (e.g., conservation leads to hardened demand leads to fragility)
• It's my well and I can pump if I want to ... in California
• Do academics understand how to fix water policies?

Speed blogging -- Water Alternatives

Water Alternatives is a quality, free journal that emphasizes the social side of water. The recent issue has a number of useful perspectives:

• Colorado River governance is not integrated in terms of data or responsibilities
• Mobile apps miss most of the complexity of management in rural Tanzania [Related]
• Community organizations in Colombia are using technology to manage their water
• The battle between "stakeholders" and "incumbents" regarding Spain's water
• The UN's biased view on the Jordan favors Israel over Arab states
• Only Yemen's richest farmers could cope with diesel shortages
• Thai farmers need help from local bureaucrats if water's to be managed well
• A discussion of the Chinese government's deception over the South-North transfer scheme
• Chile is facing more conflicts over water as private rights interfere with social needs

Enjoy!

Anything but water

Lisbon's old graffiti artists

1. James Lovelock, at 96 years old, discusses inevitable climate change, "no fucks given" Gaia, obligatory population control, and deadly wind energy
   
   
2. American-style subsidies screw up farming in Asia
   
   
3. Fool, or be fooled: "The Psychology of Pricing: A Gigantic List of Strategies"
   
   
4. The economics of Uber driving
   
   
5. Where will war and political upheaval come from? Dumb Men: under-employed, under-mated, under-educated working class men in developed countries. This topic also matches my argument that men dominate at the top AND the bottom

A thought on lawsuits

Speaking of lawyers, I was talking to a reporter about the MWD-SDCWA dispute over delivering water in Southern California (yes. again) that's been going on for 20+ years.

I pointed out that the lawsuit has been going so long because each side is using Other People's Money (ratepayers) to pursue their personal interests (mostly about money and power) and because few ratepayers even know that they suit is happening or that they are paying its $50 million (and counting) tab.

This leads me -- in the absence of firing Jeff Kightlinger and Maureen Stapleton -- to think of ways to end zero-sum lawsuits that are destroying value with every passing day.

So, let's say that after a limit (two years?) that one of these events will occur:

1. Flip a coin, declare a winner.
2. Allow each side to argue its case for one hour to a jury who then picks a winner.
3. Trial by combat.

Which do you like? Pros/cons? Better ideas?

Speed blogging

1. I'm doing two more webinars for the American Water Resources Association (AWRA) on 10 and 24 Feb. They are free for members and $25 for non-members. (I'm not paid.) The first -- "Farms and Rivers: Balancing Between Food Production and the Environment" -- will be at 1pm ET on 10 Feb. You can download/listen to my past AWRA webinars on my talks page
   
   
2. A nice report on an activist's efforts to get laws applied and made to reduce pollution of India's Ganga River (yes, the sacred one)
   
   
3. A judge has ruled that "Pom wonderful" engaged in deceptive advertising (over pomegranate juice? wtf?) Now I'm wondering where that "non-deceptive" advertising is...
   
   
4. Copenhagen's "climate change adapted neighborhood" has good drainage
   
   
5. Des Moines is suing farmers for polluting water. Good. Related: Dutch agricultural water pollution is terrible but getting better [pdf]
   
   
6. ResourceMatics (a small UK consultancy) has released water risk and river-basin risk tools (=GIS-driven worldmaps) that are worth checking out here. Related: Maps of US warming over the past 100 years and precip patterns shifting to the NE.

H/T to RM